D&D (2024) WotC is right to avoid the word "edition."

[TwoSix]

The cynic in me says the call for a complex martial comes largely from those who would have their cake and eat it too; who want a character with all the capabilities of a full-on Fighter but which also has spells or other quasi-magical abilities baked in for those times when fighting isn't the best course of action. Think Gish, or Warlord, or Swordsage; that type of thing, only leaning a bit toward the warrior side.

I mean, yes, kind of?

I think the whole point is that the full-on Fighter, the "hit-it-till-it-falls-over" concept, can't by definition really match up with a spellcaster in terms of overall utility and power. But there's a hole, both in provided game mechanics and in fictional trope, for a warrior-type character who's predominantly strong and tough (or possibly agile and evasive) but also has a bag of preternatural and/or supernatural tricks to call on.

It is, essentially, a Fighter++ compared to most editions of D&D (4e is the one edition that really nailed the complex Fighter). 3.5 did it with the Warblade and Swordsage, but those classes are definitely upgrades compared to the mediocre 3e Fighter.

In AD&D or B/X terms, if Fighters took 2000 XP to get to level 2, the "complex Fighter" class would probably need to be about a 2800 to 3000 XP to level, and also have a smaller Hit Die and attack progression.

 

[Lanefan]

I mean, yes, kind of?

I think the whole point is that the full-on Fighter, the "hit-it-till-it-falls-over" concept, can't by definition really match up with a spellcaster in terms of overall utility and power. But there's a hole, both in provided game mechanics and in fictional trope, for a warrior-type character who's predominantly strong and tough (or possibly agile and evasive) but also has a bag of preternatural and/or supernatural tricks to call on.

It is, essentially, a Fighter++ compared to most editions of D&D (4e is the one edition that really nailed the complex Fighter). 3.5 did it with the Warblade and Swordsage, but those classes are definitely upgrades compared to the mediocre 3e Fighter.

In AD&D or B/X terms, if Fighters took 2000 XP to get to level 2, the "complex Fighter" class would probably need to be about a 2800 to 3000 XP to level, and also have a smaller Hit Die and attack progression.

So multiclass, then. If you want a warrior with tricks or spells to call upon, multiclass a Fighter with a Cleric or Mage or Bard or whatever.

Getting what amounts to the benefits of a multiclass in a single class without the drawbacks of multi-classing seems wrong somehow.

 

[Marandahir]

So multiclass, then. If you want a warrior with tricks or spells to call upon, multiclass a Fighter with a Cleric or Mage or Bard or whatever.

Getting what amounts to the benefits of a multiclass in a single class without the drawbacks of multi-classing seems wrong somehow.

Why should something as complex as martial arts be relegated to simple weapon attack rolls while magic gets its own subsystem?

Or put it another way, why should complex and fun subsystems be locked behind particular flavour? And conversely, why should simple and easy one trick pony class design be locked behind a non-magical but martial flavour?

I get that in 3.5e they attempted to creat simple blaster magic users like Sorcerers and Warlocks, but both have complex and interesting subsystems now. Why should the only class who’s level up bonuses are primarily passive improvements to basic actions and rely entirely on theatre of the mind and DM-May-I - why should that be the Fighter, unless for some reason you’re an Eldritch Knight?

I think there’s room for simple and complex versions of many classes. I want Champion vs Battle Master to be a non-subclass choice, but rather a dial you can swap between as the game and player demands, with subclasses instead tied to Fighting Styles (which should be developed and made more robust with higher level features, some of which might also be accessible as feats).

 

[Aldarc]

So multiclass, then. If you want a warrior with tricks or spells to call upon, multiclass a Fighter with a Cleric or Mage or Bard or whatever.

Getting what amounts to the benefits of a multiclass in a single class without the drawbacks of multi-classing seems wrong somehow.

The bard is a single class that once required multiclassing to achieve, but now it's a single class. Even as far back as 1e, there are classes that were created so that single-class characters could be more flexible without multiclassing. The fighter having more flexibility in areas outside of combat is not going to break the game anymore than the wizard does, who already has tremendous flexibility and power over combat, exploration, and potentially social encounters all wrapped up in a single class.

 

[Parmandur]

Why should something as complex as martial arts be relegated to simple weapon attack rolls while magic gets its own subsystem?

Or put it another way, why should complex and fun subsystems be locked behind particular flavour? And conversely, why should simple and easy one trick pony class design be locked behind a non-magical but martial flavour?

I get that in 3.5e they attempted to creat simple blaster magic users like Sorcerers and Warlocks, but both have complex and interesting subsystems now. Why should the only class who’s level up bonuses are primarily passive improvements to basic actions and rely entirely on theatre of the mind and DM-May-I - why should that be the Fighter, unless for some reason you’re an Eldritch Knight?

I think there’s room for simple and complex versions of many classes. I want Champion vs Battle Master to be a non-subclass choice, but rather a dial you can swap between as the game and player demands, with subclasses instead tied to Fighting Styles (which should be developed and made more robust with higher level features, some of which might also be accessible as feats).

Largely this is down to the combat system in D&D being highly abstract.

 

[Marandahir]

The bard is a single class that once required multiclassing to achieve, but now it's a single class. Even as far back as 1e, there are classes that were created so that single-class characters could be more flexible without multiclassing. The fighter having more flexibility in areas outside of combat is not going to break the game anymore than the wizard does, who already has tremendous flexibility and power over combat, exploration, and potentially social encounters all wrapped up in a single class.

This.

Also, to my understanding, most players avoid the Multiclass system like the plague. It’s got it’s narrative uses - ie, you WERE a fighter for the last 5 levels, but now became an apprentice to an Arch-Mage during this last adventure, and thus took your most recent level up as a Wizard instead.

But that’s not a replacement for “I want to be a magic knight who does sword stuff and wizardry stuff from the start.” Eldritch Knight is a subclass and Paladin is a class for a reason; these are character archetypes that are common enough that it’s worth making base class or subclass level versions of them, rather than forcing a player to go through the multiclass system as a back door to developing who they are.

5e multiclassing is not feat-based like 4e (though there’s dabbler feats), nor is it like 3e’s Gestalt or 4e’s Hybrid Classes that allowed leveling up in two classes at the same time. It’s working for a different master than the concept of build your own Lego creation by mixing the Star Wars and Day at the Zoo Lego sets.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

This was my experience too. I never saw a table say “we are only useing essentials” or “we aren’t useing essentials” although on here I do hear it happened.

If I showed up to a new game after essentials came out with my PHB 1 warlord or PHB 3 battle mind I would resnobly be able to assume I could play it.

I however not only didn’t see but can’t imagine showing up to a 3.5 or PF1 game with a 3.0 ranger and the dm just saying “okay”

In your 3e example you picked the most changed class. If you showed up to a 3.5 game with most of the other classes it wouldnt be noticable. I used my 3.0 monster books all the time for 3.5.

 

[TwoSix]

So multiclass, then. If you want a warrior with tricks or spells to call upon, multiclass a Fighter with a Cleric or Mage or Bard or whatever.

Because their abilities aren't spells. That defeats the whole point of the trope.

"Magic spells" are, in D&D narratives, a very specific type of supernatural effect. There are plenty of supernatural abilities that don't make sense as spells.

 

[Marandahir]

Because their abilities aren't spells. That defeats the whole point of the trope.

"Magic spells" are, in D&D narratives, a very specific type of supernatural effect. There are plenty of supernatural abilities that don't make sense as spells.

And plenty of non-supernatural abilities that amount to more than “I make an attack roll with advantage, and have crit 19-20 bc of my fighting style.”

If Monk can differentiate interesting martial arts, why can’t Fighter? Martial Adepts of the 9 Swords are FUN.

Oh wait; they can. It’s called Battle Master, and it’s in the 2014 PHB. I want that as an option for all Fighters, separate from subclass, in 2024.

 

[TwoSix]

And plenty of non-supernatural abilities that amount to more than “I make an attack roll with advantage, and have crit 19-20 bc of my fighting style.”

If Monk can differentiate interesting martial arts, why can’t Fighter? Martial Adepts of the 9 Swords are FUN.

Oh wait; they can. It’s called Battle Master, and it’s in the 2014 PHB. I want that as an option for all Fighters, separate from subclass, in 2024.

There's good 3pp that does it (all of Laserllama's martial classes, and Level Up), but it would be great to see in the 2024 PHB for fighters. It doesn't even impact backwards compatibility for any fighter subclass EXCEPT battle master, and that can be redone in the same book.