A critique and review of the Fighter class

[Minigiant]

Okay but what do you propose could be done differently, without rewriting the class from the ground up or splitting it into 3 classes?

1. Alternate class features options
2. More subclasses
3. Feat Trees with level prerequisites

 

[Garthanos]

But I don’t think it’s necessary, nor ridiculous to think otherwise.

Looking at the capabilities of high level casters ... right. I do. You have casters who are demigod class because D&D scales them that way. And martial types who are a sore thumb of mundanity because of tradition.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

I’d love to see there be even half the same amount of pages there is detailing all the magic spells and abilities filled with purely martial skills and techniques, not just for the fighter to have but they’d definitely be one of the major beneficiaries of it.

Edit:Magic is so extensively detailed and martial combat just...isn’t, or not to the same degree at least.

This.
This is something that does bug me.

Even mundane, real-world combatants and martial artists are capable of disarming, blinding, stunning, weakening, tricking, weakening and otherwise manipulating their opponent.

The dance of maneuver and prediction, of technique and counter. The choice of commitment or feint, to parry or to give ground.
In a game where combat is often the preeminent pillar, and which has hundreds of combat spells, almost all the vast variety of physical combat is reduced simply to:

"Roll to hit. Roll to damage."

 

[Bill Zebub]

Many people have espoused the idea that high tier play is the devil and think the game's sweet spot ends at around level 7 or so. So why not have low tier gritty games with slow xp advancement that end before everyone evolves into demigods?

I can't speak for others, but for me "advancement" is the dangling carrot that keeps me invested. I love me them levels! So even if the lower levels take longer (which I think they should, anyway) I would be pretty disappointed if beyond level X the game changed from something I liked to something I didn't like.

And that's not to say that I should get the game I want and others can just suck it. I'm just saying I don't see how to keep everybody happy with one set of rules.

I mean, maybe it would work if the official game were levels 1-10, and a separate supplement were for for epic levels 11-20.

So maybe an official book for epic levels 21-30? (Aren't there some 3rd party supplements that do that?)

 

[doctorbadwolf]

1. Alternate class features options
2. More subclasses
3. Feat Trees with level prerequisites

Ok great, I agree. Do you have any interest in working on these options for a homebrew product in a separate thread?

 

[Bill Zebub]

This.
This is something that does bug me.

Even mundane, real-world combatants and martial artists are capable of disarming, blinding, stunning, weakening, tricking, weakening and otherwise manipulating their opponent.

The dance of maneuver and prediction, of technique and counter. The choice of commitment or feint, to parry or to give ground.
In a game where combat is often the preeminent pillar, and which has hundreds of combat spells, almost all the vast variety of physical combat is reduced simply to:

"Roll to hit. Roll to damage."

Yeah, this I agree with. It doesn't need to be superhuman.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

This.
This is something that does bug me.

Even mundane, real-world combatants and martial artists are capable of disarming, blinding, stunning, weakening, tricking, weakening and otherwise manipulating their opponent.

The dance of maneuver and prediction, of technique and counter. The choice of commitment or feint, to parry or to give ground.
In a game where combat is often the preeminent pillar, and which has hundreds of combat spells, almost all the vast variety of physical combat is reduced simply to:

"Roll to hit. Roll to damage."

Yeah and I really don’t want weapons combat to be like spells are, with class lists and all that, but I do want to see them expanded on massively.

Preferably on the “optional actions anyone can try to use” level, with subclasses and feats and such to specialize and go beyond normal skill in them.

 

[Minigiant]

Yeah, um, like I said, I don’t see how one game satisfies both camps.

Why not

It just requires compromise.

Ok great, I agree. Do you have any interest in working on these options for a homebrew product in a separate thread?

Sure. I've been hoping for someone to design the "Lordly Fighter", "Anime Fighter", and "Action Movie Fighter" allat once in order to mantain balance. But it's creeping to "Yeah Well I'm Going To Build My Own Subclasses... With Blackjack and Hookers"

 

[Bill Zebub]

Why not

It just requires compromise.

Compromise, while a noble goal and worth pursuing, isn’t the same as both sides being satisfied.

Read the history of the Joint Strike Fighter, the Pentagon’s attempt to build one fighter to suit all branches of the military.

 

[Minigiant]

Compromise, while a noble goal and worth pursuing, isn’t the same as both sides being satisfied.

Read the history of the Joint Strike Fighter, the Pentagon’s attempt to build one fighter to suit all branches of the military.

Compromise isn't making one size fits all.

Compromise is figuring out that the major groups of fighter fans are and giving them equal amounts of options.

For example, ultimately there are ~7 major types of Fantasy Fighters*. So the 5e fighter should start with 7 subclasses, one for each.

*not inluding fighters found in other classic D&D classes.