D&D (2024) 4/26 Playtest: The Fighter

[OldSchoolGamerGirl]

If they just folded maneuvers into the fighter including the ones added later on that boost certain skills that would of solved most if not all the fighter issues. Maneuvers + mastery would scratched the tactical choice itch and fix the out of combat need. I would of kept indomitable as it was except expand it to reroll ability checks. Bang done Fighter fixed.

yeah that would be great... take current fighter from playtest add teh battle master maneuvers but then add higher level ones at like 7th and 9th and 13th level that do more.

 

[Eubani]

I think the intend was removing double spellcasting. Same reason for reworking twin spell (which I dislike to some intend).

Maybe readding the study and influence actions would be a good idea. Or just saying flat out: the extra action may not be a magic action.

Action Surge tells you exactly what actions it can be used for and the change notes state this as well.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Action Surge tells you exactly what actions it can be used for and the change notes state this as well.

Yes... this is why I said, I would add something back, as I don't see using investigation or persuasion is not fighter like. The only thing I would rule out is magic action.
And this was an answer to someone stating their dislike of action surge only being useful for combat.

 

[tetrasodium]

Gotta love how they removed the ability for Fighters to use Action Surge for anything but combat, and at the same time giving Barbarians the ability to use Rage for more than combat. Assuming positive intent, the developers must not realize what a double standard that is.

EDIT: "Assuming positive intent" is my way of not attributing a bad decision or action to malice, ignorance, or stupidity.

Spoiler: Design Notes

DESIGN NOTE: FIGHTER UPDATES
Here are the main updates in this class, most of which were inspired by the Player’s Handbook survey in 2021:
• Persuasion has been added to the class’s list of skills, with an eye on the fantasy archetype of the persuasive warrior who leads others.

Abilities like indomitable will make said fighter much better at being able keep their head by withstanding in the intimidating presence of "hostile" & maybe even "Indifferent" big nasty types they might need to talk to as well. There are some great examples of that kind of thing in Overlord whenever regular people are in a position where they need to interact with pretty much anyone from Nazarik in Overlord (watch free?).

Of course that hinges on the monster revisions being able to once again provide creatures useful to the gm in that role & the GM toolbox having tools to worry about that can't simply be ignored with an 8 hour nap.

 

[ZetaShift]

I think the intend was removing double spellcasting. Same reason for reworking twin spell (which I dislike to some intend).

Maybe readding the study and influence actions would be a good idea. Or just saying flat out: the extra action may not be a magic action.

I think the biggest folly of the design team right now is that they're balancing around multiclassing. It's an optional rule, and a currently flawed one at that. The game should first and for most be balanced for itself, and multiclassing should be balanced around the base game, not the other way around.

IMO multiclassing just needs a rework and they need to stop working around it.

 

[OldSchoolGamerGirl]

I think the biggest folly of the design team right now is that they're balancing around multiclassing. It's an optional rule, and a currently flawed one at that. The game should first and for most be balanced for itself, and multiclassing should be balanced around the base game, not the other way around.

IMO multiclassing just needs a rework and they need to stop working around it.

maybe they should remove this 3e style multi classing for 4e feat style...

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I think the biggest folly of the design team right now is that they're balancing around multiclassing. It's an optional rule, and a currently flawed one at that. The game should first and for most be balanced for itself, and multiclassing should be balanced around the base game, not the other way around.

IMO multiclassing just needs a rework and they need to stop working around it.

I respectfully disagree. Multiclassing is a gem of 5e, making building characters fun after level 3.

The base game would need a big overhaul if they intended to remove multiclassing. I would call that 6e.

For that matter, I have not seen a single satisfying solution for multiclassing in a d20 based game other than the 5e one.

 

[Undrave]

It's especially saddening when you see all the love all the casters received this UA (especially the wizards holy wow)

As usual!

 

[ZetaShift]

I respectfully disagree. Multiclassing is a gem of 5e, making building characters fun after level 3.

The base game would need a big overhaul if they intended to remove multiclassing. I would call that 6e.

For that matter, I have not seen a single satisfying solution for multiclassing in a d20 based game other than the 5e one.

Yeah I understand that. But my issue is that it's an optional rule, not a core mechanic to the game. It's popular for sure, but it shouldn't be treated as if it's a main mechanic. And that is causing massive issues in balancing, such as Action Surge. Iirc they even changed one of the Cleric's main mechanics in a later UA because of the potency of multiclassing. That should never occur.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Yeah I understand that. But my issue is that it's an optional rule, not a core mechanic to the game. It's popular for sure, but it shouldn't be treated as if it's a main mechanic. And that is causing massive issues in balancing, such as Action Surge. Iirc they even changed one of the Cleric's main mechanics in a later UA because of the potency of multiclassing. That should never occur.

I still respectfully disagree.