D&D 5E What is balance to you, and why do you care (or don't)?

[Lanefan]

and done... you literally are now argueing your concept is to play a class as written and as such no other class can be that class...

Well, ideally this should be the case: if you want to play a concept* then there will be a single class that matches that concept; and courtesy of niche protection no other class can be that class.

* - other than a concept of "I can do everything", which while great for solo play really doesn't fly in a party-based game.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

I didn't say my experience. Only you are talking about feelings here. I have met and played with these people. It is not subjective that they exist. You dislike simple and feel like it ruins the class. Apples and oranges bud.

Their opinions and experiences are all subjective. So is your interpretation of their experiences. Everything on here is subjective.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I'm doing it partly tongue in cheek, but numerically powered up Tasha's sidekick classes (expert, warrior, spell-caster) are how I'd model them.

I agree, I see no reason we can't have a Warrior, an Expert next to Fighter, Rogue and Warlord as martial heroes (and monk and barbarian depending on how you look at them)

 

[Lanefan]

my first RPG I played a tatooed undead hunter (it wasn't D&D) then I jumped into dming 2e. By the time I PCed my first D&D character I had played a few campaigns of Rifts, champions, Vampire, Star Wars d6 and DC Superhero D6, and had run 2 full campaigns up to the teens... so I am NOT a normal starting character.

Fair enough.

When I started (a long time ago!) my first few characters were in sequence: Ranger*, Fighter, Fighter, Fighter-MU*, and Ranger.

The second and third on that list - i.e. the two Fighters - are still active today.

* - pretty much one-hit wonders who didn't last very long.

I did play a cleric as my first PC though

 

[Undrave]

In my opinion, it might have been preferable to make this option be a completely separate framework, divorced from fighters (allowing fighters to be more complex in their base chasis). The (alt-)'Champion' could be a separate page, noted as being specifically for this subgroup of games. No multiclassing with other classes, so no issue about 1 level dips or the like. And then just eliminate all the toggles -- not even second wind and action surge or the like (probably still HD to spend, but that's about it). In their place, static effects and high numbers across the board -- D12 or even D20 hd, multiple good saves (maybe proficient in all of them), flat out immunities (no resistances, or chances to shake of or other fidgety methods) to some things (fear being a thematically good choice), decent # of skills if you want to give them some OOC value (but no '1/2 X, roundup'-like things like Jack of all Trades), and maybe some +1 hits/damage/AC at various points.

now this idea I like...

give them prof in the 4 most common saves, all weapons and armor, d12s for HD and the fighter # attacks a built in subclass so no choice a built in quisi fighting style +1 to hit with weapons, and reroll 1's on damage dice with weapons then the improved crit chance of the champion...

a fun 1e style fighter. but leaves fighter concepts free for more complexity

Let's call it the 'Prodigy', just someone born with natural strength and skill.

D12 HD, three saves (2 good ones, 1 bad one), all weapons and armor and a choice of 4 skills and 2 tools.

Then at level 1 you pick your talent:

Talent of Might: +1 to Weapon Damage, unarmed attacks do d6+STR+1 damage, improved crit range
Talent of Skill: 3 extra skills, 2 extra tools, 2 extra language, maybe a +1 when you use your proficiencies?
Talent of Resilience: +1 to AC, +2 HP per level, need 4 failed death saves to die
Talent of Speed: More base speed, gain a climb and swim speed, proficiency bonus to initiative.

Same attack/ASI progression as the Fighter, but in place of the 6th level ASI they just get proficiency in the last three saves and at regular intervals you gain one of the remaining talent.

How's that?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Well, ideally this should be the case: if you want to play a concept* then there will be a single class that matches that concept; and courtesy of niche protection no other class can be that class.

* - other than a concept of "I can do everything", which while great for solo play really doesn't fly in a party-based game.

except if your concept isn't the class features normally you can make them multi ways...

Is Gandalf an Aasimar Wizard, or a Varriant Human Bard, or a custum linage divine soul sorcerer?
Is Aragon a human ranger, a half elf fighter/rogue, a deva warlord?
even conan 'the barbarian' I would say could be a fighter/rogue (my personal choice), a barbarian, a hexblade, and I have even heard people argue monk (that one I think is a stretch)

I watch this guy on Youtube make pop culture characters all the time and he is funny and always doing weird builds.

"I grew up on the streets and learned to fend for myself" could be almost any class

"I was taken in by a wizard that saw a spark of magic in me and helped me learn to use it" could be artificer, bard, sorcerer, warlock, wizard

but as soon as my concept is non magic it locks down (in the above you may have noticed with aragorn and conan some overlap)

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Let's call it the 'Prodigy', just someone born with natural strength and skill.

D12 HD, three saves (2 good ones, 1 bad one), all weapons and armor and a choice of 4 skills and 2 tools.

Then at level 1 you pick your talent:

Talent of Might: +1 to Weapon Damage, unarmed attacks do d6+STR+1 damage, improved crit range
Talent of Skill: 3 extra skills, 2 extra tools, 2 extra language, maybe a +1 when you use your proficiencies?
Talent of Resilience: +1 to AC, +2 HP per level, need 4 failed death saves to die
Talent of Speed: More base speed, gain a climb and swim speed, proficiency bonus to initiative.

Same attack/ASI progression as the Fighter, but in place of the 6th level ASI they just get proficiency in the last three saves and at regular intervals you gain one of the remaining talent.

How's that?

I'm not the target audience but I like it

 

[Maxperson]

Their opinions and experiences are all subjective. So is your interpretation of their experiences. Everything on here is subjective.

No. My position is from asking them why they like Fighters and don't play spellcasters. Again, their existence is fact, unlike your opinion. If you feel like can prove that these people that I played with really don't exist, go for it. I welcome your effort.

 

[Undrave]

The last time I brought up the Purple Dragon Knight/Banneret in a thread as a proto-Warlord, I got told "I don't allow that subclass in my games". Martials aren't allowed to have heals (according to some)!

I mean, the Banneret is outright awful, so I don't see that as a great loss. It seem to have been left behind as WotC continues to try to make us all forget the Sword Coast Adventure Guide was ever a thing not that I mind, mind you. The stuff in there aged poorly.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

No. My position is from asking them why they like Fighters and don't play spellcasters. Again, their existence is fact, unlike your opinion. If you feel like can prove that these people that I played with really don't exist, go for it. I welcome your effort.

Again you are assigning their statements as fact. Why the don't want to play a caster is subjective. Moreover, it might not even be accurate or have anything to do with the actual class. Maybe they had a bad day or a bad DM with a caster.

Regardless, you are giving them entire classes, while also ruining those class for people like myself nd also gatekeeping people who want a simple class to one flavor. You are claiming their experience with the 5E fighter is somehow objective, and saying mine isn't.