D&D 5E [+]What does your "complex fighter" look like?

[GMforPowergamers]

I would love to see you try to prove that this is provably false.

okay what edition would you like? would you like 5e definition of spell and how it is magic, and that fighter abilities are NOT it?

First of all, enough of the straw man arguments. No one is saying power attack, aim, or sneak attack is a spell.

excapt what makes any expliot magic? and yes up thread someone said that ANY power that had to be turned on and could not fail...second wind and action surge and rage included

Martial mechanics get called spells if they share a sufficient number of qualities with spells. Those qualities would be things like:

a) Time boxed into a certain number of uses per time period.

so second wind, action surge, rage ect

b) Disassociated from a mundane fictional explanation. That is to say, if the mechanic lets you do something that isn't a plausible result of exceptional strength, skill, and speed, and in particular if you can do something according to the mechanic which people of similar strength, skill and speed can't because of an esoteric technique then you have a spell.

this is not only action surge, second wind, rage but also indomitable, sneak attack, hp in general

c) Causing effects to happen without contests between the attacker and the target.

this is not only action surge, second wind, rage but also indomitable, sneak attack,

Of the mechanics you list, then only one that is spell-like is "Rage", and I'm OK with people seeing Rage as a sort of spell because if you look at the real world origins of the archetype then you are often looking at people who practiced some sort of ritual magic to induce a battle frenzy in themselves and who believed that there was some sort of magic involved

magic isn't real at all

 

[James Gasik]

Indomitable is too terrible to be a spell. Even a 1st level spell would be better.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Indomitable is too terrible to be a spell. Even a 1st level spell would be better.

I mean it's a 9th level ability so in theory a 1/day ability at 9th level should be in line with 4th or 5th level spells

 

[DaedalusX51]

While I did not really enjoy 4E as much as some others here, I have to say that there were a lot of interesting ideas we can pull from it that could make many of us happy. However, I do not think that having daily or encounter powers that allow me to make a big attack once and then you forget how to do it is the right way to go. Instead you should have some abilities that you can use all day long and then have a resource that you can use to make them more effective a number of times per rest.

Instead of the following:

Brute Strike
Fighter attack 1
Daily ✦ Martial, Reliable, Weapon
Standard Action
Melee Weapon
Target: one creature
Attack: Strength vs. AC
Hit: "3[W] + Strength modifier damage."

Spinning Sweep
Fighter attack 1
Encounter ✦ Martial, Weapon
Standard Action
Melee Weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: Strength vs. AC
Hit: 1[W] + Strength modifier damage, and you knock the target prone.

No Opening
Fighter Utility 2
Encounter ✦ Martial
Immediate Interrupt
Personal
Trigger: An enemy attacks you and has combat advantage against you.
Effect: You don't grant combat advantage for the attack.

Boundless Endurance
Fighter Utility 2
Daily ✦ Healing, Martial, Stance
Minor Action
Personal
Effect: "You assume the Boundless Endurance stance. Until the stance ends, you have regeneration while you are bloodied. The regeneration equals 2 + your Constitution modifier."

We have something like this:

Vigor
You have a pool of Vigor equal to your Con modifier plus your level.
You can use a number of points of Vigor per turn equal to your Proficiency Bonus.
When you hit with an attack, you can use a point of Vigor to increase the damage by 1[W].
You regain a number of points of Vigor equal to your Con modifier when you complete a Short Rest or all points of Vigor when you take a Long Rest.

Spinning Sweep
Whenever you hit with a melee attack you can reduce the damage by 1[W] to knock the target prone.

No Opening
As a reaction, whenever an enemy attacks you with advantage you can use a point of Vigor to give Disadvantage to the roll.

Boundless Endurance
As a bonus action on your turn, you can spend 2 points of Vigor to gain Boundless Endurance for 1 minute. While under this effect, you regain hit points equal to 2 + your Constitution modifier at the start of your turn if you have no more than half of your hit points left.

Regarding high level Fighter maneuvers, I think the best way to model that would be a choice at 11th level where you get to decide if you want to be a Demi God and gain new maneuvers where you can create shockwaves with your attacks or if you instead want to be a Warlord and can have your power come from you exploiting the action economy with your allies instead of raw power.

There is history with having high level fighters gaining a stronghold and followers so I do see the concepts of the warlord and the fighter as the same path.

 

[James Gasik]

I mean it's a 9th level ability so in theory a 1/day ability at 9th level should be in line with 4th or 5th level spells

You'd think so, but compare Indomitable to Silvery Barbs...

 

[Celebrim]

okay what edition would you like? would you like 5e definition of spell and how it is magic, and that fighter abilities are NOT it?

That doesn't really matter. I'm not interested in an edition fight. For the purposes of this discussion, we are talking about some hypothetical "fix" to the fighter and what mechanics we might adopt for it. So we are talking not only about what 3rd parties have done in the past as unofficial fixes to various editions including 5e, but also alternative rule sets like Bo9S for past editions, or even some hypothetical set of rules we agreed on in this thread.

excapt what makes any expliot magic?

I just gave you an Aristotelian definition up above.

and yes up thread someone said that ANY power that had to be turned on and could not fail...second wind and action surge and rage included

It was probably me that said it and you are completely misunderstanding what I said. We're not talking about "any power" we are talking about powers that interact with the fiction without contesting that fiction. For example, a normal attack with a weapon contests the fiction by attempting to hit some target that depends on the defense of the target. But if you had a 1/day power that allowed you to attack and never miss no matter what you were attacking, that would probably be balanced at the game level but it wouldn't be justifiable from the fiction except by some definition that amounted to "magic".

so second wind, action surge, rage ect

Potentially, yes. In fact I already noted "Rage" was a very spell-like ability, useable a number of times per day with an effect that seems to go well beyond what is possible with mundane anger. Why can't everyone get more powerful by getting angry unless there is some esoteric thing going on. In fact, in some systems there have been spells that mimicked or partially mimicked the effects of the Rage ability. Action surges represent a more problematic gray area, in that it's possible to think of them as being the equivalent to having 1 1/2 actions or 2 1/3 actions in that they could represent mechanically the ability to just be a little bit faster than normal but not quite fast enough that you can take an extra whole action every round. This may or may not be supernatural, but either way it's probably not a spell if you are just a little bit faster all around and this is our way of coping with the abstraction of turn based combat. For example, this could be the modern equivalent of the fighter getting 5/4 attacks per round, which is surely not a spell.

this is not only action surge, second wind, rage but also indomitable, sneak attack, hp in general

Most of those are obviously tied to the character being in the fiction being slightly faster, stronger, or more skilled in particular weapon skills. I grant sneak attack is a bit problematic, to the point that I've thought about getting rid of it, not so much in that it's implausible that you could get really good at gutting people by surprise, but that it's silo'd out in to an ability not accessible to a master of weapons. But in any event, even if it is hard to associate well, it's an at will ability that doesn't otherwise act like a spell. You don't forget about how to do it. It's very much a different ability than "cause flames to appear around your sword". You aren't doing anything but just "hitting someone really well" so there isn't really an element here that feels supernatural, especially since how well you hit them is contested both by the hit roll and the existence of hit points in the first place.

magic isn't real at all

Despite the fact that I agree with you this feels like the sort of assertion about the real world that doesn't really feel like it belongs at EnWorld. I don't want to get in an argument with a Voodoo practitioner or a neo-Wiccan over whether magic is real in real life. I don't think it is relevant to discussing a game. What is relevant to the game is that powers like 'Rage' are inspired by powers and stories in the real world created by people who did believe magic was real and who did think that there was something special and supernatural about a berserker. Whether we agree with them or not isn't relevant.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

That doesn't really matter. I'm not interested in an edition fight.

neither am I, but I can show you that no action surge, and disarming strike, are NOT magic... I just need to be clear what we are taking about

For the purposes of this discussion, we are talking about some hypothetical "fix" to the fighter and what mechanics we might adopt for it.

right, and many have been put forward over the last 3 months alone

So we are talking not only about what 3rd parties have done in the past as unofficial fixes to various editions including 5e, but also alternative rule sets like Bo9S for past editions, or even some hypothetical set of rules we agreed on in this thread.

okay, so Bo9S has supernatural (so you can call that magic) and non supernatural abilities... you can't call non supernatural abilities magic or spells

I just gave you an Aristotelian definition up above.

except you basicly said "cause I said so"

It was probably me that said it and you are completely misunderstanding what I said.

I don't keep notes on who said what so maybe

We're not talking about "any power" we are talking about powers that interact with the fiction without contesting that fiction.

so anytime no roll is needed... so again action surge, sneak attack, rage... using this definition EVERY ability that doesn't require an activation roll is magic.

For example, a normal attack with a weapon contests the fiction by attempting to hit some target that depends on the defense of the target. But if you had a 1/day power that allowed you to attack and never miss no matter what you were attacking, that would probably be balanced at the game level but it wouldn't be justifiable from the fiction except by some definition that amounted to "magic".

why is robin hood magic?

Potentially, yes. In fact I already noted "Rage" was a very spell-like ability, useable a number of times per day with an effect that seems to go well beyond what is possible with mundane anger.

beyond mundane... doesn't equal magic, this is a fantasy game.

wrestlers do things that require special FX, hidden ropes, and tricks, and no body calls that magic.

Why can't everyone get more powerful by getting angry unless there is some esoteric thing going on.

becuse this is a class based system

Action surges represent a more problematic gray area, in that it's possible to think of them as being the equivalent to having 1 1/2 actions or 2 1/3 actions in that they could represent mechanically the ability to just be a little bit faster than normal but not quite fast enough that you can take an extra whole action every round. This may or may not be supernatural, but either way it's probably not a spell if you are just a little bit faster all around and this is our way of coping with the abstraction of turn based combat. For example, this could be the modern equivalent of the fighter getting 5/4 attacks per round, which is surely not a spell.

except this breaks your rule...

we are talking about powers that interact with the fiction without contesting that fiction.

so we are back to 'cause you say so'

Most of those are obviously tied to the character being in the fiction being slightly faster, stronger, or more skilled in particular weapon skills. I grant sneak attack is a bit problematic, to the point that I've thought about getting rid of it, not so much in that it's implausible that you could get really good at gutting people by surprise, but that it's silo'd out in to an ability not accessible to a master of weapons. But in any event, even if it is hard to associate well, it's an at will ability that doesn't otherwise act like a spell. You don't forget about how to do it. It's very much a different ability than "cause flames to appear around your sword". You aren't doing anything but just "hitting someone really well" so there isn't really an element here that feels supernatural, especially since how well you hit them is contested both by the hit roll and the existence of hit points in the first place.

again not everyone can train to do it... infact people who DO TRAIN TO HIT BETTER don't get it...

Despite the fact that I agree with you this feels like the sort of assertion about the real world that doesn't really feel like it belongs at EnWorld. I don't want to get in an argument with a Voodoo practitioner or a neo-Wiccan over whether magic is real in real life.

knock it off no religon talk on here

I don't think it is relevant to discussing a game. What is relevant to the game is that powers like 'Rage' are inspired by powers and stories in the real world created by people who did believe magic was real and who did think that there was something special and supernatural about a berserker. Whether we agree with them or not isn't relevant.

 

[jgsugden]

If I were to rebuild the fighter right now I would:

1.) Adopt Battlemaster mechanics for the entire class, but alter them to require you to set them up and not limit them to times per day/rest. For example, you'd need to grapple an opponent before you could push them prone. Essentially, they'd get unique moves that only fighters can pull off.

2.) I'd start with 5 subclasses - one for each of the non-strength ability scores. The charismatic fighter (the Warlord) would have healing and leadership abilities. The intelligent fighter (Field General) would be able to retroactively revise their actions (effectively) to mimic them knowling what others will do in combat through their study. The wise fighter (Hero) would have great instincts and quick thinking, allowing them to use extra reactions and make quick adjustments - legendary actions. The dextrous fighter (Adroit) would specialize in using smaller weapons but getting more attacks per round with them. The constituion fighter (Tank) would specialize in using Armor, Shield, and defensive maneuvers to 'establish the line' of combat, dictating where the combat takes place on the battlefield.

3.) I would not start with the Eldritch Knight in the first batch of subclasses - I'd want to keep the martial power source pure at the beginning and add multiclass type options in subsequent books.

4.) I would make Action Surge a 'Roll to Recharge' ability. Like a monster, if the PC rolls a 6 on a d6 at the start of their turn, they get their action surge back. That variability of when you can surge feels very organic to me.

5.) I'd give then proficiency in Dexterity Saves around level 5.

 

[Maxperson]

NOTE: This is a + thread -- because I know I myself have been a little dismissive about this concept. Since it keeps coming up, I want to try and actually understand this desire and understand what the missing need is. So please let's all try and keep it both positive and productive.

So, if you are one of the people that feels like there is an unmet need for a "complex fighter" class/build/whatever -- what does that mean to you? What are you looking for in the game mechanics? What is missing, or what is actively restricting this?

One note: let's NOT talk about spellcasters if we can avoid it. We don't need another martials versus casters thread. What I am hoping is we can at least explicitly enumerate what people want, even if we can't solve the situation in this thread. Thanks.

My complex fighter looks a lot like the battle master. I'd just like there to be more maneuvers and higher level maneuvers that do more damage and greater effects.

 

[Celebrim]

@GMforPowergamers:

To be honest, I'm having a hard time turning this thing between us into a conversation or even a debate. There is just this strange disconnect between what I said and how you respond. This is hardly more clear than when you asserted as a fact the unreality of magic and I responded by saying that was a religious claim that was not appropriate to the board or necessary to the discussion, and you responded to that by saying: "knock it off no religon [sic] talk on here". Which in context is a lot like saying in response, "I'm rubber and you're glue, what you say bounces off me and sticks to you." Did you understand my point? If you didn't understand my point, why did you respond? And if you didn't understand my point, why did you respond as you did. It's not really an important point to the conversation, but it is typical of the terse and odd responses you've made that I'm really having trouble making head or tails of your intent.

okay, so Bo9S has supernatural (so you can call that magic) and non supernatural abilities... you can't call non supernatural abilities magic or spells

So first of all, we seem to have made something of a breakthrough. You admit that there is such a thing as a supernatural or magical combat maneuver. I'm glad to see it. I was beginning to wonder.

First, how do you know that an ability is supernatural and magical? I'd be really surprised if your reasoning is much different than my reasoning, which you dismissed as "'cause I said so".

Secondly, my argument is that if a power is obviously supernatural or magical, calling it non-supernatural or magical doesn't change that. In other words, it's the substance of the power that determines if it is magical or non-magical not a label you slap on it. For example, I suspect you'd agree that a 3rd level martial maneuver whose text read, "1/day you can cast fireball as the spell", would not be non-supernatural just because we called it non-supernatural. I suspect you'd agree that that would be or at least ought to be one of those supernatural or magical abilities, and I might even get you to agree that in such a hypothetical case the fact that I'd made a pass through wrapper for a spell didn't make it less of a spell. The facade here doesn't change the underlying thing, no matter how much I disguise it.

so anytime no roll is needed... so again action surge, sneak attack, rage... using this definition EVERY ability that doesn't require an activation roll is magic.

I have explained my assertion to you multiple times. I still have no idea why you are making this claim as it literally has nothing to do with what I said. And even internally, your statement contradicts itself, as I clearly explained that sneak attack is in fact contested within the fiction. And in the case of action surge and rage, who is the target that ability except yourself? So why would the roll need to be contested within the fiction since you are just doing something to yourself?

why is robin hood magic?

I didn't claim he was. I don't know why you think this sentence refutes anything I said. Are you asserting that Robin Hood has abilities that let him choose once a day to not miss? That is to say, do you think he used a power to split the arrow or was it an exercise in mundane (albeit it extraordinary) skill? Because I think if you are asserting Robin Hood has daily powers that let him impose his will on reality because he wants to, you are saying he is magic. But if you are saying that Robin Hood is merely a skillful archer then there is no need to imagine a special "can't miss this shot" power that he can access only a few times a day.

beyond mundane... doesn't equal magic, this is a fantasy game.

That is questionable. Beyond mundane doesn't necessarily equal a spell, but it probably indicates some sort of magic exactly because this is a fantasy game. But what is your point, since you seem to be neither agreeing nor disagreeing with anything I said. What made you say that?

wrestlers do things that require special FX, hidden ropes, and tricks, and no body calls that magic.

Again, not sure what point you are trying to prove? Can the wrestler do the thing without special FX, hidden ropes, and other props? If he can't then of course it isn't magic. But if we hypothesize a martial ability that lets the martial character conjure those props into being whether they have them or not, then we probably would call that magic. Like for example, if we have a power like, "Spread Bear Traps" that said, "Once per day you can fill a square with bear traps that create difficult terrain and which do 2d8 damage to anyone that enters the square.", that is actually a magical ability in disguise because the power doesn't require you to actually have bear traps to spread around and it is implied you can't do it twice or three times if you carry extra bear traps (on a mule or something). On the other hand, no one would think it a magical power if you could just buy bear traps and use them. Do you see the difference, and do you see why one is actually a spell?

becuse this is a class based system

Again, so? What are you trying to say by saying this? The classes are typically seen as abstractions of the actual abilities of the characters. That is to say, particularly with a martial class, not something that exists in the fiction per se, but rather is an abstraction of the sort of abilities we might think common to people of certain professions and backgrounds within the setting. Even with something like 'wizard' or 'cleric' which exists both in and outside of the fiction, we are simply saying that a wizard is 'someone who has trained and studied as a wizard'. We aren't actually saying that in the fiction that the character has the class wizard. The class is not a thing in the fictional universe.

again not everyone can train to do it... infact people who DO TRAIN TO HIT BETTER don't get it...

Aren't you agreeing with me here? Again, what prompted you to say this? What point are you trying to make by agreeing with me here, if that is what you are doing? You are referring to my discussion of sneak attack, right? Aren't you just repeating back to me what I just said?