A critique and review of the Fighter class

[James Gasik]

Yeah, the idea that fighting styles need to be mutually exclusive is a little odd to me. The way I see it, if you meet the requirements, it works. I was part of a hefty debate about Dueling Fighting Style and Two Weapon Fighting a couple weeks back where people were saying that if you started the turn with two weapons equipped and threw one (which the rules explicitly say you can do), there was no way you could claim +2 damage on your other attacks once you were no longer holding two weapons.

You'd have to actually invent rules to do this, since they are written about as plainly as can be. But it was apparently affecting people's verisimilitude (or somehow an extra 2 damage was game breaking to them).

 

[Minigiant]

Yeah, the idea that fighting styles need to be mutually exclusive is a little odd to me. The way I see it, if you meet the requirements, it works. I was part of a hefty debate about Dueling Fighting Style and Two Weapon Fighting a couple weeks back where people were saying that if you started the turn with two weapons equipped and threw one (which the rules explicitly say you can do), there was no way you could claim +2 damage on your other attacks once you were no longer holding two weapons.

You'd have to actually invent rules to do this, since they are written about as plainly as can be. But it was apparently affecting people's verisimilitude (or somehow an extra 2 damage was game breaking to them).

It goes to a general overrating of Fighter stuff. So fighters couldn't benefit from 2 at once on the same thing.

Also with the overall simplicity of base 5e, there were no enough knobs to turn to defect attention.

 

[Mannahnin]

Surely this is an example of the DM compensating for the Fighter's mechanical deficiency?

I am sorry, but I do not see it that way. I see it as the DM doing what they are supposed to do - bringing NPCs to life. The mayor might have been a bard, and likes the bard best. It depends on how the DM built them. But, people are different. They have different likes/dislikes. They have different chemistry. The same should be true of NPCs.

Ok, sure. But that's irrelevant. Unless you're putting a thumb on the scales, such factors will naturally weigh in equally over time for all classes. This mayor is a retired soldier, so naturally bonds with the Fighter. The next mayor is a gifted public speaker who loves the attention and adulation, and naturally takes to the Bard. The one after him is a retired scholar and bonds with the Wizard, etc....

Since the Fighter does not have some mechanical "Natural Leader" feature, what you were talking about doing there was effectively backdooring one by DM fiat. "Hmm. My Fighter character is always left out of the spotlight in social situations since other party members have Charisma as a main stat and/or skill expertise in applicable skills. Guess I'll make an important NPC who's only really interested in talking with them to compensate"

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Really that's the problem. Wizards have too much access to spells.

I think that fighter needs to be broken up to buff it and wizard needs to be broken up to weaken it.

in wizard case some spells need to be sorcerer only (what ones I will leave to debat...I wont pretend I could do this off the cuff) then the specialist subclasses need to be broken up between 3-4 classes with each having spells limited only to that one class and also some going to only some of those 3-4 classes... off top of my head warmage (evocor abjurer) beguiler (enchanter illusionist) and Arcanisit (diviner transmuter) with a dedicated necromancer is how I would do it.

then break fighter into champion, battlemaster (I would call it warlord but warblade or sword sage works too) and eldritch knight (i would call it swordmage or magus) then I would give that eldritch knight class some of it's own spells, and some paliden spells (like smites) and some warmage spells.

the idea to break up the cleric isn't REALLY to break it up... I would just go back to the 2e concept of spheres (you can keep them called domains if you want) where no 1 cleric gets all the spells but you MAKE your list by taking 3 major and 2 minor lists and adding it to a small 'general cleric list'

I almost WANT to break arcane trickster out of rogue to give it it's own spells too... but I am not sure on this one.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

They can argue that all they want. But there is no possible way to really know. All these ridiculous damage equations and none of them have a grasp on all the variables: AC, damage reduction, invisibility, disadvantage, advantage, the wild and varied HP array, being dropped, range, terrain, number of opponents, lair effects, saving throws, and on and on the list goes.
It's like trying to explain the stock market by showing the same three stocks and what they do over four weeks. It has a touch of truth, but is far too simple a picture to be accurate.

I will take it one step more and say the usefulness of said damage will vary greatly...

In a campagin with little to no fighting having +100 damage manuver once per short rest isn't too broken (it does end most fights though)

In my campagin that is just wrapping our Ranger/Rogue/Monk has 2 short sword "speed metal, and death metal" and in other games they might be broken... but in ours they are just helping get passed fights quicker (normally chopping time off end)

Spoiler: swords

speed metal is magic with no +... if you attack 2 or more times with it then as no action you get to make an attack with disadvantage... if that attack hits you can follow it up with another attack at disadvantage ect up to a max # of extra attacks equal to your prof (so right now 5) BUT you don't add your stat mod (dex in the case of this character) to damage with these attacks.

death metal is a +1 short sword that anyone you damage with this blade or an effect through this blade gets a moddfied PW kill at the end of your turn... it auto kills anyone with 3x your current HD in hp or less... everyone that dies to death metal (regular strike or effect or it's other ability) gains it a charge you can hold up to your profx3 charges. You can spend up to half your prof charges as an action to deal 1d4 per charge +your cha mod necrotic damage (con save for half) to all creatures in 20ft of you
against low HP hoards dealing 2d4+2 necrotic save for half then saying 'anyone that has 45 or less hp left at end of my turn just dies is nasty... but as the day goes on and he spends HD that number drops

if it matters both swords do require attunment.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

It pretty much is.

Everything else must be nerfed so the wizards can feel superior.

I'm not even sure it is JUST wizards... even warlock (the simple easy caster with most limits) blows any non caster out of water... upgrade to sorcerer and it's worse. go to cleric, bard or wizard and it is worse still

 

[Zubatcarteira]

Besides GWF/SS/CE/PM, every 5e feat is limted to Tier 1 in power. There are no 3e Feat trees. There are no 4e paragon or epic feats.

None of 5e's feats give you powers of Tier 2-4. You only get stuff a PC gets at 1st-4th level. 1st level spells. Fighting styles. Skills. Weapons. etc.

Ritual Caster lets you copy up to 6th level spells (the max level of ritual spells, afaik), so I guess you can touch tier 3 stuff a bit.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Casters were buffed like crazy.

• Their spell attacks use their primary score

imagine if melee touch spells used str to hit and ranged ones dex...

 

[GMforPowergamers]

There are at least three problems with your formulation there.

I LOVE being told how wrong I am... this should be funol.05

The first is the assumption that all tastes in the player base should be catered to. There are physical and economic factors that limit how many can be jammed into a game, particularly its core book.

but like ALL end users... I don't care if they cater to EVERYONE... I want them to cater to MY needs. So I continue to post about them... but people like to PRETEND they know who is and is not in the majority... I atleast say things like "some amount" "A non 0 amount" and "I see alot of"

The second is the question-begging use of the word "martial", smuggling in the unsupported assertion that 4e "power sources" schema should even be considered as a part of D&D class design.

martial was a word used in 2nd and 3rd edition to describe weapon classes that were not casters... (although thief... what is now rouge... was not 'martial' it was 'skill' and the ranger and bard were considered to be hybrid of skill)

There is a decided difference between "This popular playstyle is not supported in D&D" and "This popular playstyle is plenty supported in D&D, but I want a version where it isn't fluffed as magic."

correct... and the second one is the one I am pushing (although I qustion if having to have spells is or isn't a playstyle issue)

The third, implicit by it being in this thread, is the idea that the correct way to address the desires of that portion of the player base is to change the most popular class in the game, rather than one of the substantially less-popular classes.

now I call BS... I have talked about (in this very thread not to mention many others) changes to the overall game to support it and MANY classes (Most resent the 4 base classes) so this holds 0 water.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I would certainly welcome a fighter sub-class that uses intelligence or wisdom or charisma as their primary trait. I think it will stretch a player's or DM's descriptive dialogue for combat, but it would be fun.

I had an entire idea a few years ago and showed how each stat (except COn... I couldn't get a good Con example) could be used for weapon attacks... I am not home so I am doing this from memory on my phone

Str- you swing it hard or throw it hard or have a high draw on the string
Dex- you are agle and can make minor adjustments quicky and can deftly maneuver the weapon
Int- you use your knowledge of the weapon and your training along with knowladge of armor, and anatomy to place your attacks
Wis- you use your insight and perception to find the opening you need to hit
Cha- you by pure force of will/personality drive the weapon to success...

of these cha is teh only one that needs a bit of supernatural flar... but even that not really