D&D 5E My Super Simple Idea for a Better Fighter

[DND_Reborn]

FWIW, just to jump in quickly, two reactions isn't a problem. We've been using a feat called "Reactive" for over a year now:

No issues, works great.

Jumping back out now.

 

[Bill Zebub]

FWIW, just to jump in quickly, two reactions isn't a problem. We've been using a feat called "Reactive" for over a year now:

View attachment 155252

No issues, works great.

Jumping back out now.

Yeah I just don't understand it being a problem. Maybe @Yaarel will provide more specifics.

 

[Yaarel]

The reaction is a "deep" mechanic, that other mechanics rely on. The consequences of increasing their frequency can be unforeseen.

I am moreso coming from a perspective of caution. Also I note historical issues relating to it.

 

[Bill Zebub]

The reaction is a "deep" mechanic, that other mechanics rely on. The consequences of incteasing their frequency can be unforeseen.

I am moreso coming from a perspective of caution. Also I note historical issues relating to it.

Ok, well, duly noted. But I don't really find that to be a compelling argument.

If you yet think of a specific scenario I'd love to hear it.

 

[ECMO3]

I mean, all that stuff is flavorful (except the staff of power thing....that was just bizarre) but I don't see most of it actually making the fighter more effective at killing things, except in rare circumstances. Unless the DM puts you on a lot of galleys with ballistae or whatever. You could just add all of that as ribbons to the base fighter class.

The whole point is to make the fighter more of a generalist in weaponry and less of a specialized build. It makes the fighter much broader.

Most of them are ribbons, but they speak to what the fighter class should be about IMO, and what it was about back in 1E. In the original 1E only fighters and Thieves with the assasin subclass could use any weapons. And it said "any" not martial or anything like that.

In the example I gave he can use dexterity for a longsword. He can use strength for a hand crossbow. But he can't do that with a glaive or a longbow respectively as they are heavy weapons. He can also use that wierd weapon that Koa-Toa monitors carry or a flindbar, and no other class can ... and he can do it with either dexterity or strength.

When your fighter has GWM and PAM and GWF and you find a vorpal shortsword or a staff of the adder, that kind of sucks for him. Same if he has shield master and dueling and you find a vorpal greatsword or if he takes piercer and dual wielder and you find a maul of the titans.

 

[Bill Zebub]

When your fighter has GWM and PAM and GWF and you find a vorpal shortsword or a staff of the adder, that kind of sucks for him. Same if he has shield master and dueling and you find a vorpal greatsword or if he takes piercer and dual wielder and you find a maul of the titans.

Yes, that's true. And, again, you don't have to take any of those feats.

Sounds to me like your beef is not with this specific subclass idea, but with WotC's design goal for the Fighter itself.

 

[ECMO3]

Yes, that's true. And, again, you don't have to take any of those feats.

Sounds to me like your beef is not with this specific subclass idea, but with WotC's design goal for the Fighter itself.

The actual design goal is debatable. Thematically what WOTC says in the description is exactly what I would like to see, and in games I play to be honest that is what most of the PC fighters are - generalist fighters. We have an occasional GWM or PAM but they are a distinct minority.

In terms of mechanics, you can build a very flexible fighter RAW if you do things like use a 10 constitution (or 12 absolute max), run a high strength and high dexterity (16 and 14 or vice versa) and good/decent I/W/CH stats. That is a totally doable and playable build and there are subclass features that play into and help that kind of build. In play that kind of fighter is A LOT better than a max damage build IME.

Here on the message boards though most Fighter builds are tricked out narrow "optimized" builds. When it comes to a fighter (and a lessor extent Barbarian) "optimized" really means optimal in one narrowly defined situation if you have the right gear to go with it and bad in just about every other respect. I would like class features that encourage broader builds and the "ribbons" I mentioned mostly do that.

 

[Bill Zebub]

The actual design goal is debatable. Thematically what WOTC says in the description is exactly what I would like to see, and in games I play to be honest that is what most of the PC fighters are - generalist fighters. We have an occasional GWM or PAM but they are a distinct minority.

In terms of mechanics, you can build a very flexible fighter RAW if you do things like use a 10 constitution (or 12 absolute max), run a high strength and high dexterity (16 and 14 or vice versa) and good/decent I/W/CH stats. That is a totally doable and playable build and there are subclass features that play into and help that kind of build. In play that kind of fighter is A LOT better than a max damage build IME.

Here on the message boards though most Fighter builds are tricked out narrow "optimized" builds. When it comes to a fighter (and a lessor extent Barbarian) "optimized" really means optimal in one narrowly defined situation if you have the right gear to go with it and bad in just about every other respect. I would like class features that encourage broader builds and the "ribbons" I mentioned mostly do that.

Sounds interesting. If you start a thread on the topic I’ll give it a read.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

Better idea... kill all wizards. Now fighter is better. So is wizards. Ha. Ha.

TLDR:

 

[Bill Zebub]

Better idea... kill all wizards. Now fighter is better. So is wizards. Ha. Ha.

TLDR:
View attachment 155286

I know this was meant in jest, but I’ll add that when I used “better” I really just meant “more fun and varied to play.” I wasn’t talking about a perceived power balance relative to wizards.

I see three main complaints about fighters:
1. They don’t scale as well as wizards do.
2. They can’t do unrealistically epic things.
3. It gets boring to just say “I attack” every turn.

I was really only addressing #3. I should have specified that.