D&D 5E How to "fix" (or at least help) the fighter/wizard dynamic. (+)

[Remathilis]

So what is the role of a "fighter" if it isn't being the best when squaring off against someone else? Especially if some other classes are supposed to be particularly good at some out of combat things?

Is it sweeping up mooks better than a fireball? Is it buffing by blocking for someone else better than a cleric protects? Is it recruiting an army to have tag along with the party?

If D&D was a PvP focused game, I'd see the call for Perfect Balance across all classes so that combat was a coin flip (or paper rock scissors) but it's not so I can't say I'm concerned with all classes being equally good at all things.

 

[Yaarel]

@Yaarel [reply to your last post, I deleted the quote by mistake :-( ]

What do you see as the reason to have a Caramon and Raistlin (or Beren and Luthien) instead of a double of one of them, if they are 50-50?

Heh, I think I know who Raistlin is (Dragonlance?), but I never read the novels.

It would be more helpful to me if referring to 5e rules.

 

[Cadence]

Heh, I think I know who Raistlin is (Dragonlance?), but I never read the novels.

It would be more helpful to me if referring to 5e rules.

Sorry, my son is reading Dragonlance now, so that's where my head was.

If they're all 50-50 and not totally siloed , what's the reason for having a Mage and a Fighter instead of just having two Fighters or two Mages?

(My guess is there are big differences in flexibility... but not if we want everyone good at every pillar, say).

 

[Yaarel]

Sorry, my son is reading Dragonlance now, so that's where my head was.

If they're all 50-50 and not totally siloed , what's the reason for having a Mage and a Fighter instead of just having two Fighters or two Mages?

(My guess is there are big differences in flexibility... but not if we want everyone good at every pillar, say).

Different classes bring different skillsets to the combat pillar, but they all contribute equally to combat.

Winning an encounter by a one-shot is different from winning an encounter by a spell. At high levels, a Fighter and a Wizard need to cooperate with each other to take down a formidable opponent.

By the way, the Fighter should have more class features to contribute equally to the social and exploration pillars. A background softens some of the defects of the Fighter, but the Fighter needs more for these pillars.

 

[Oofta]

Really seems like a lot of work just to not create another class.

I mean it fixes a lot. It's just that many would rather argue endlessly and do advanced math than make a supernatural warrior class outside of the fighter.

We already have paladins, rangers, monks, warlock depending on the archetype, various fighter archetypes and multi-classing. I'm not sure what you would want that wouldn't just be straight up power creep.

 

[Oofta]

Ideally, yes. Any two D&D classes should be about 50-50 if squaring off against each other in combat.

Kind of a tangent, but I remember my buddy and I having this discussion back in 1E. He said his wizard would win every fight as long as we started 20 paces away. We ran a scenario, his wizard won initiative but my fighter made his save against whatever spell it was he cast. The wizard was paste before he got off a second spell.

This argument of "wizards rule and fighters drool" has been going on forever and I still don't think it's true.

 

[Minigiant]

So what do you see a fighter doing this demigod cannot?

Action Surge and Second wind vs +X Str, Powerful Build, & Monkey Grip

 

[Micah Sweet]

There’s too much magic in 5E which is why the problem is so apparent. WoTC continues the mistake of making magic more and more powerful, easy, and lacking in consequence and as a result classes based on mundane power are diminished.

Fighter is fine as it is (except for how broken saving throws are) it just needs to have overpowered classes brought back down to their level.

The problem with increasing the ability of the fighter is twofold:

1. it increases the base power of the class and makes it so that it becomes way stronger than it should be at low levels for certain styles of play. It is a valid play style to have 1st level fighters be average mortal/human level power (your average soldier). Beefing up the fighter impacts that play style.

2. adding more to the fighter increases the complexity of the class. As more and more features are added to keep it in parity with the already over-powered wizard, the complexity will increase further.

The simplest and least invasive method of balancing the classes is to bring spellcasting classes back down to match the game baseline balance.

Sounds like a great 3rd party or honebrew solution. As you say, WotC is doubling down in the opposite direction.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

There's a few ways to make fighters a little more compelling:

- Let them be the only class that can use heavy armors from the get-go, all the others (and yes, Paladins also, they have enough already) gain maximum medium armors.

- Indomitable is a joke of a feature. At the time a Rogue can decide to roll a 20 or just decide to hit once per rest, at the time a monk has proficiency on all saves and can straight up remove some effects on themselves and reroll saves 20 times per rests, the fighter get to do it 3 time a DAY ?

No...just no. Make Indomitable be ''replace a save with a 20'' 3 times a day. Done. And yes, it applies to Death Save also.

- A bunch of other class have access to fighting styles, at least make fighters have more!

- Rogues get to use Sneak attack on AoO, Paladin can Smite on AoO, Barbarian gain their bonus damage on AoO, Caster can (at the cost of a Feat) use Spells on AoO....let the goshdarn fighter use its whole attacks sequence as a AoO, making it actually dangerous to turn your back on a veteran warrior!

- Cantrips progression are at 5th level, 11th level and 17th level. Make extra attack scales the same way and give the fighter a proper capstone.

- Speaking of capstone, just give them 1 legendary action per round to make a single attack, move half speed or shove. Basic and efficient.

- Give options for tables playing without feats for those extra ASI! Be it just: ''pick a save proficiency'' or ''gain Expertise in a skill''.

- Give actual features to the Champion. ''Half proficiency to untrained skill check that uses 2 stats: one with only one skill and one with none'' ? C'mon!

Advantage on Initiative and Athletics and extra jump distance should be the minimum. Improved crit? Ok, but boring.

Add ''Once per round, if you roll the maximum on a damage die, roll an extra die on the same size and add it to the total''.


So much possibilities without reinventing the wheel.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Oh, speaking of fighting styles, I hate them, get rid of them! Sure give the fighters something to compensate, but get rid of the fighting styles. Seriously.

Fighting styles are the exactly wrong way to make the fighters feel like masters of weapons. Instead they pigeonhole them into limited type of weapon from the get go.