D&D (2024) Fighter brainstorm

[James Gasik]

I have played at zero tables that allow the optional rules in the DMG to begin with; I'd rather the reverse; present these rules in the PHB and have there be a section of optional rules in the DMG telling you how to simplify combat.

 

[Incenjucar]

It's also really hard to get support or balancing effort for optional rules.

 

[mellored]

my argument is that these are basic actions in a fight anyone should be able to do

ok.

dirty fighting: replace on of your attacks to do one of the following. A creature is then immune to dirty fighting for 24 hours.
-dex save or be blind for 1 round
-con save or be dazed for 1 round.
Your DM may rule that some actions are unavailable in certain situations. For instance, throwing dirt into someone's eyes might not work while underwater.

Stun is too strong to just allow anyone to try IMO.

,my secondary point is that as a specialist of martial combat the fighter should be better at these sorts of combat techniques.

Multi-attack makes them better.
Also action surge

we don't need a 'simple class'

i strongly disagree
you don't need one, but other people do.
And not just newbs. Some people just don't have the same mental capacity that you do. Either due to age, injury, or they just like to drink while they play. They deserve to have a class to play.

DnD is for everyone.

But for the remainder of this thread, I'll refer to it as a "brute", so as to keep the conversation constructive.

what would qualify as buffing alot of those things would mean making basic rules for them that don't require superiority dice.

All fighters can already attack, trip, grapple, or push.
Superiority dice let you attack and trip.
Or grapple as a bonus action.

 

[Gorck]

look, compare it like this: if fireball wasn't codified in the rules but you tried to recreate it's effects with MMI in play it'd probably go something like this:
"hey GM, i want my wizard to use their magic to shoot a giant explosion of fire at that group of enemies over there"
"uh sure, there's no rules for that but um, cross off a fourth level spell slot and gimme two arcana checks?"
[rolls dice] "26 and 17"
"you create a 10ft radius of fire that deals 2d8 damage to the bandits, it's over 100ft away so your accuracy is slightly off and you miss hitting a few of them"

that's how it feels for martials when they try to do anything not codified and have to rely on GM judgement.

Well, yes, spells definitely need to be codified because they are much more complex actions. But something as simple as throwing sand in an opponent's eyes or blinding them with sunlight shouldn't have to be. Maybe one DM might determine you need to make an Acrobatics check to be able to get the proper angle to accurately get the sunlight in the opponent's eyes in a 6 second span of time, while another DM might decide you need to make an Intelligence check to see how much your character knows about the concept of reflection. That's not as egregious as one DM allowing a blast a fire to do 2d8 damage in a 10ft radius while another allows it to do 10d6 damage in a 30ft radius.

There are tons of little improvised actions a character could take on it's turn, but most of them are basic enough that they don't need to be expressly written out. Otherwise the PHB would be twice the size it is now just to fit in all the extra minutia.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Well, yes, spells definitely need to be codified because they are much more complex actions. But something as simple as throwing sand in an opponent's eyes or blinding them with sunlight shouldn't have to be. Maybe one DM might determine you need to make an Acrobatics check to be able to get the proper angle to accurately get the sunlight in the opponent's eyes in a 6 second span of time, while another DM might decide you need to make an Intelligence check to see how much your character knows about the concept of reflection. That's not as egregious as one DM allowing a blast a fire to do 2d8 damage in a 10ft radius while another allows it to do 10d6 damage in a 30ft radius.

There are tons of little improvised actions a character could take on it's turn, but most of them are basic enough that they don't need to be expressly written out. Otherwise the PHB would be twice the size it is now just to fit in all the extra minutia.

if those actions are so simple then it should be easy and not take up alot of room to codify them, and then everyone gets to be on the same page of what you need to roll when you want to throw something in someone's eyes or the like.

 

[Incenjucar]

"Pocket sand" is a bit more specific than is needed. There are tons of ways to temporarily blind an opponent in combat. A good whack to the face with a pommel or headbutt, spitting chewing tobacco or blood in someone's eyes, letting a miniature giant space hamster loose, reflecting the sunlight, etc. are all fun fiction to support the effect.

 

[mellored]

"Pocket sand" is a bit more specific than is needed.

Kinda wonder if that could just be an item... Like caltrops are.

Then anyone can use it.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I would like to keep a 'simple' fighter like the champion for people that are more casual in play.

We've already got that. It's called the barbarian. I would like at least one of the two to be complex and tactical - and think that fighter is the better candidate.

We need go have a simple class for people who just want to stand there and roll until something is dead, and only count the number of hit points.

That gets to be the fighter.

Why? Are you proposing making the raging barbarian more complex than the fighter?

 

[soviet]

Why can't people who are apparently incapable of handling manoeuvres or the like simply... not use them? Why do they have to be taken away from everyone else?

I submit that a battlemaster who simply uses zero manoeuvres isn't significantly less powerful than a champion anyway.

 

[Pauln6]

Why can't people who are apparently incapable of handling manoeuvres or the like simply... not use them? Why do they have to be taken away from everyone else?

I submit that a battlemaster who simply uses zero manoeuvres isn't significantly less powerful than a champion anyway.

I preferred it in the first playtest where the battle styles lumped certain manoeuvres together. Personally, I think that would have helped novices visualise their concept but I suppose they were worried it might upset optimisers. I know they bought similar options along in Tasha but that should have been core, with a higher level combo attack for each battle style as a sweetener.