D&D (2024) Fighter brainstorm

[Emberashh]

Personally Im of the opinion that maneuvers are a trap. And what I mean by trap is that they cause people to put blinders on and thus don't think of anything else that might better suit the fiction of a really skilled Warrior than what are effectively just spells by another name.

In the game Im writing I came up with a similar idea but much more dynamic and interesting that I call Battle Combos. The idea is that you have a bunch of Techniques that resemble Maneuvers, but instead of just being one-offs they each have up to 5 escalating effects that key off of when you choose to use those techniques as you attack.

So say you can attack 4x (which my Warriors can), and you decide to use Leg Strike (restricts movement) 4x in a row. With each attack, whether its on the same target or different ones, the Technique applies the next effect until you apply your fourth attack, which then triggers the 5th and final effect, because you used the same technique 4x in a row.

And then at later levels, you can get an ability that lets you intermix your techniques such that you no longer have to spam the same move over and over, and can instead choose which 5th level effect gets applied based on what technique you use on your 4th attack.

This sort of system for me is vastly more interesting than one off moves that, honestly, should just be basic actions free to anyone who can use martial weapons.

 

[mellored]

So say you can attack 4x (which my Warriors can),

That's a a lot of rolling and sounds slow.
Why not just let them pick 2-3 effects to add to their attacks?

 

[Vaalingrade]

Personally Im of the opinion that maneuvers are a trap. And what I mean by trap is that they cause people to put blinders on and thus don't think of anything else that might better suit the fiction of a really skilled Warrior than what are effectively just spells by another name.

"Spell by another name" is another way of saying 'Not having to play Mother May I with the DM'.

 

[Minigiant]

I don't know if it must be seperate...

But on the other hand, a weed wacker class would probably only take up 3 pages, including a bit of art. So probably the better solution.

Maybe call it a Brute.
D12 hit dice
Heavy armor
+1 damage per level.
Bonus to all saves (including death saves)
Level 5: multi-attack
Level 11: increase Str, Dex, and Con by 2, can go past 20.
Level 17: multi-attack, 3 attacks

Sub-class include
archer (ignore cover and firing in melee, longer range)
knight (+AC with a shield, can make multiple opportunity attacks.
Slayer (additional +1 damage per level with a 2-handed weapon, ignore opportunity attacks).

The problem that WOTC eventually realized is that the simple warrior who just gets basic bonuses is hard to balance.

The Brute subclass from UA was just +1d4 damage. But that tiny bit of damage added up SO FAST the braindead idiot brute eclipsed every other character concept.

Because of "bounded accuracy" and proper design, there is no real room for "more than one" pure simple subclass. Subclasses lack the design space to be simple and effective unless the whole class is designed to.

Either the whole class is simple, the whole class is complex, or one or more of the bits within the class will have it's effectiveness determined by the DM or Player system mastery.

+2 damage per level is OP.

 

[Minigiant]

I don't know if it must be seperate...

But on the other hand, a weed wacker class would probably only take up 3 pages, including a bit of art. So probably the better solution.

Maybe call it a Brute.
D12 hit dice
Heavy armor
+1 damage per level.
Bonus to all saves (including death saves)
Level 5: multi-attack
Level 11: increase Str, Dex, and Con by 2, can go past 20.
Level 17: multi-attack, 3 attacks

Sub-class include
archer (ignore cover and firing in melee, longer range)
knight (+AC with a shield, can make multiple opportunity attacks.
Slayer (additional +1 damage per level with a 2-handed weapon, ignore opportunity attacks).

The problem that WOTC eventually realized is that the simple warrior who just gets basic bonuses is hard to balance.

The Brute subclass from UA was just +1d4 damage. But that tiny bit of damage added up SO FAST the braindead idiot brute eclipsed every other character concept.

Because of "bounded accuracy" and proper design, there is no real room for "more than one" pure simple subclass. Subclasses lack the design space to be simple and effective unless the whole class is designed to.

Either the whole class is simple, the whole class is complex, or one or more of the bits within the class will have it's effectiveness determined by the DM or Player system mastery.

+2 damage per level is OP.

 

[Vaalingrade]

You heard the man: delete bounded accuracy.

Didn't want to fight seven hundred generic goblins at level 20 anyway.

 

[Incenjucar]

Real combat is responsive to the situation, position, and match up.

Hit and run, knock down and crush, knock down and grapple, push/pull/slide into terrain, distract/confuse, disarm, daze/stun, disable, blind, deafen, bleed, cause pain, exhaust, lift, slow, choke/knock wind out of, ... these are all things you can do in real martial combat.

 

[Emberashh]

That's a a lot of rolling and sounds slow.
Why not just let them pick 2-3 effects to add to their attacks?

Ah, but thats the fun part, it isn't a lot of rolling at all, as my combat system is a 2d20 based system where you assign each die to either Act or React (or both to one if you want/need to double down), and you roll once at the top of a combat round.

So if you rolled, say, an 18 total for your Act Rating, then you simply pick your targets and narrate the attacks, which will be interspersed with those enemies using their React rating against you, if they choose to defend themselves against your attacks and haven't already used up their React.

Its a bit weird to get into if you're used to d20 combat, but once you get the flow of it it becomes really fun.

"Spell by another name" is another way of saying 'Not having to play Mother May I with the DM'.

Sure, but I don't think avoiding MMI necessitates a boring system of one-offs, and frankly that goes for actual spells as well. To toot my own horn again, magic design in my game actually assumes both an offensive and defensive use (for example you can conjure up a Tsunami to be released on your next turn, and instead you could use it to knock someone else's fireball out of the air as a reaction), as well as variable casting times ranging from instantaneous to multi-turn and even multi-round.

 

[mellored]

Because of "bounded accuracy" and proper design, there is no real room for "more than one" pure simple subclass.

We don't need more than one.

+2 damage per level is OP.

Rogues get +1.75 per level.
Plus more ways to get advantage.

No one thinks they are overpowered.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

There's a few option, really:

• Carrying/lifting/pushing and jump distance are increased by 50%
• Reduce forced movement and speed reduction by half
• + prof to damage with weapons
• You are not Unconscious while sleeping
• Allies add 1d6 damage against the same target as you
• Advantage against ''bloodied'' target
• + AC when using second wind
• Remove a Condition with second wind
• +1d6 on all saves, threat roll of 20+ on a death save as a natural 20.
• Add shield bonus to Dex and Con saves.
• Add your weapon damage die to your Intimidation rolls.

etc

No need to add resource management to a class to make it interesting. Passives for the win!