D&D (2024) Fighter brainstorm

[Incenjucar]

There was a post on the Alien RPG Discord where somebody basically said, "Characters with military background should get a lot more starting skills than other characters, because in the military you get trained in all these things."

Totally ignoring how true that is, how would that possibly make for a fun game?

I think the same thing applies here. We could make all kinds of realism arguments about these characters, based on their backgrounds should be able to do, but would that make the game fun? For example, your argument could be flipped to argue that Wizards, with their magical training, should be an order of magnitude better than Fighters at saving throws versus spells. But if you actually modeled that, Fighters would almost always fail their saves, and Wizards would almost always succeed. And that would be bad game design.

Fighters are a little bit better than Wizards at both resisting and imposing grappled, etc. You've got to let your imagination fill in the rest, instead of trying to model what you think reality should look like.

Or not. But that's my advice if you want to enjoy the game. You be you.

4E handled this. 5E has a subclass that handles this. It's not some crazy ask.

 

[mellored]

well, one. you're not actually allowed (RAW) to take resilient more then once.

No, but they can take resilient and inspiring leader as their bonus feats.
Or just +2 Con.
Or skilled if you want more out of combat stuff.

 

[Bill Zebub]

4E handled this. 5E has a subclass that handles this. It's not some crazy ask.

Ok, so it seems what you’re looking for…I may be off base here…is not just the realistic statistical advantage, but a mechanic that is specifically fluffed to represent the fiction you are imagining. That high HP and a bonus to Athletics alone are not satisfying, because they are too general, to model what you want to imagine your character doing.

Is that accurate?

 

[Incenjucar]

Ok, so it seems what you’re looking for…I may be off base here…is not just the realistic statistical advantage, but a mechanic that is specifically fluffed to represent the fiction you are imagining. That high HP and a bonus to Athletics alone are not satisfying, because they are too general, to model what you want to imagine your character doing.

Is that accurate?

I'm looking for flexible options during play that reflect on the fiction. D&D uses conditions and damage types to reflect the fiction and add tactical options to gameplay. Prone or blinded are conditions with mechanical effects, not just narrative flourishes.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I'm looking for flexible options during play that reflect on the fiction. D&D uses conditions and damage types to reflect the fiction and add tactical options to gameplay. Prone or blinded are conditions with mechanical effects, not just narrative flourishes.

Fighters tend to be better at knocking people prone (Strength, Athletics). What is it you're looking for?

I may just be confused because of your argument about high school self defense classes and wedgies. I don't understand how that fits into your argument.

Also, how does Blind fit into this? What is it that you think the class should support that is more than the Blindfighting fighting style?

 

[James Gasik]

Fighters tend to be better at knocking people prone (Strength, Athletics). What is it you're looking for?

I may just be confused because of your argument about high school self defense classes and wedgies. I don't understand how that fits into your argument.

Also, how does Blind fit into this? What is it that you think the class should support that is more than the Blindfighting fighting style?

Here's a classic move you see in older media. The dirty fighter reaches down to grab a handful of sand or dirty and throws it into the eyes of their opponent, blinding them momentarily!

Or how about angling your sword or shiny shield in such a way that reflected sunlight dazzles your opponent? Cutting a foe's brow so that blood gets in their eyes?

Or just going for an eye gouge/poke with your bare hands?

5e is designed in a way that in order to do that, you would need a specific special ability to pull off a stunt like that, without explicit DM fiat. As if that's something that requires esoteric training.

It's just an example, but I run into this stuff as a DM all the time. The player says "hey, why can't I do [thing that you totally could do in real life]", and I'm left at a loss because I have no idea how to balance it; the entire system is predicated on the idea that doing something special has to have a "cost" of some kind, and the base Fighter doesn't really have anything to use as "currency", if you follow the analogy.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Here's a classic move you see in older media. The dirty fighter reaches down to grab a handful of sand or dirty and throws it into the eyes of their opponent, blinding them momentarily!

Or how about angling your sword or shiny shield in such a way that reflected sunlight dazzles your opponent? Cutting a foe's brow so that blood gets in their eyes?

Or just going for an eye gouge/poke with your bare hands?

5e is designed in a way that in order to do that, you would need a specific special ability to pull off a stunt like that, without explicit DM fiat. As if that's something that requires esoteric training.

It's just an example, but I run into this stuff as a DM all the time. The player says "hey, why can't I do [thing that you totally could do in real life]", and I'm left at a loss because I have no idea how to balance it; the entire system is predicated on the idea that doing something special has to have a "cost" of some kind, and the base Fighter doesn't really have anything to use as "currency", if you follow the analogy.

Ok, sure, but...is D&D really the game for that?

Pick up even a basic primer on swordfighting, with all the positions and lunges and slashes and and counterattacks. That's reduced to a "roll d20 and add modifiers". Defenses? Your ability to dodge, parry, block with your shield, and soak it with your armor all becomes a single number.

And you want a special move for throwing sand?

I mean, I can see the appeal of that. It might be cool. Do you remember the old flip-book game Ace of Aces? (Oh lord do I wish I still had mine...they're a collectors' item now.). I would love to see a whole line of Ace of Aces books representing different kinds of opponents.

But D&D? Especially 5th edition D&D? That's like complaining that the Knight in chess shouldn't be killable by a pawn because that's not how medieval combat worked.

EDIT: thinking more about it, I could see a class ability that just generically applied Disadvantage (if you succeed on a roll) to a target, for all their attacks and Str/Dex ability rolls, for one round. Then the player could fluff that as throwing sand in their eyes, or pulling a tapestry onto their head, or reflecting light off their shield, or w/e they wanted.

 

[Incenjucar]

Fighters tend to be better at knocking people prone (Strength, Athletics). What is it you're looking for?

I may just be confused because of your argument about high school self defense classes and wedgies. I don't understand how that fits into your argument.

Also, how does Blind fit into this? What is it that you think the class should support that is more than the Blindfighting fighting style?

I propose that baseline martial classes should be able to apply more conditions and effects as part of their core class (in addition to more non-combat options) so that they are both tactically more flexible (which for some is required to make them interesting) and also less absurd given how many ways normal people can fight in real life.

This is currently limited to subclasses, but was the norm in 4E and well supported in 3E, at least for fighters who grabbed certain feats.

 

[Azzy]

Ok, sure, but...is D&D really the game for that?

Yeah.

I mean 2e's The Complete Fighter's Handbook and Player's Option: Combat & Tactics, 3e, and 4e all had defined martial maneuvers. It's time for 5e to get on board.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Yeah.

I mean 2e's The Complete Fighter's Handbook and Player's Option: Combat & Tactics, 3e, and 4e all had defined martial maneuvers. It's time for 5e to get on board.

So 5e should aspire to...go back to being a previous edition?

I mean, I can totally understand wishing that were the case, if what you really like are the options and complexity of previous editions. But do you think that is what is going to happen?