D&D (2024) Fighter (Playtest 7)

[TwoSix]

Part of the point is that you're using up weapon attacks for a spell. You get the cantrip for 1 attack at 7th level (post-level 5), when it means even after casting the cantrip you still have an attack to spare. So the Improved War Magic should be at least level 11, so you can spend 2 attacks for a spell and still have an attack left over. Before then, it's no different than just using a magic action to cast a spell.

So no, don't fold them together, but yes, it should probably be at a much lower level than 18. Maybe 13. Unfortunately the subclass feature progression levels doesn't make that easy.

Which is precisely why I'd say to fold them together at 7. Yea, it would be an unnecessary thing to do at levels 7-10, except for using the Attack action during an Action Surge to cast a spell. But ideally, it would be immediately available when third attack opens up at level 11, and there's no subclass feature there. So why not just give it early?

I mean, is there anyone who thinks the ability is so strong it needs to be at capstone levels?

 

[Sacrosanct]

You can't just design a highly unrealistic and specific scenario that's not like the actual game in any way and say "the math proves I'm right" as if the math is somehow objective. General arguments are one thing, but if you want the math to be on your side you have to account for complicating factors. Stuff like how like not every attack is a success so getting more out the hits you land is useful, and how many enemies have special abilities so killing them before they can use them is powerful, or the synergistic effect of an entire party of PCs going nova at once to end a fight immediately.

I'm perfectly willing to enter into a debate on the relative value of offensive and defensive abilities sharing the same resource pool, but don't create a nonsense example that's nothing like the topic at hand and tell me the math proves me wrong. You might as well say, "Rocks fall when you drop them, therefore science proves that it's impossible for humans to fly."

I'm sorry you're not seeing it, but it's not nonsense and not specific. It was just to illustrate an example of where damage mitigation may be more advantageous than spending on offense instead. You're focusing on the 10 and 3 each and missing the point. There is an infinite number of examples where different numbers also work.

Or are you arguing that there is no realistic scenario where reducing damage by X amount would result in the combat ending with you having more HP than if you instead increased your damage by Y amount? If you can prevent all damage, then it doesn't matter if it takes three rounds longer than if you boosted offense and ended up taking even 1 point of damage. You're still better off in the end.

But back to my point, the only time offense is always better is if you start every combat with full resources. And that is what I'd call an unrealistic scenario. Even if the game wasn't designed that way, there are still a whole lot of players who don't play that way.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Repurposing a healing resource for a skill bonus is a reasonably acceptable sharing of purpose. Allow a healing resource to be used to deal damage and it will only and forever be an offensive power. Death is the best debuff and all that. Combat healing is already almost entirely ignored in favor of racing your opponent to zero HP.

Nope. Cleric, Druid, Paladin, Ranger, and some subclasses, all have healing spells, and their spell slots are not just used for offense.

Maneuvers get away with spending dice on skill checks because Superiority Dice are cheap. If we try to spread Second Wind into more things we're on the path of turning them into ersatz base class Superiority Dice, but worse because you get less of them. Better to keep it narrow and leave Battle Master for deliberately opting into that gameplay.

The base class could just have dice (superiority dice is a fooling and weird name) and not have manuevers, and it’d be fine. Unifying that, SW, and Indomitable, into one resource pool, would be gravy.

They are fixing the complaints now. The complaints aren't new. 5e is almost 10 years old. And they are fixing the fighter complants in the last playtest packet on fighter

So I'm giving the 5e Design team the benefit of the doubt that they didn't experience the complaints or didn't see them in research in the 9 years.

Oh is the Brawler 10 years old? Has it had no inherent ability to hurt fiends really well for 10 years?

No. Obviously.

Your specific complaints aren’t all that common, you’re just making assumptions based on speculation and stating it like it can be supported by anything substantial.

At that point, Monk might as well be a Fighter sub-class.


Monk might as well be a Fighter sub-class.


Monk might as well be a Fighter sub-class.



Monk might as well be a Fighter sub-class.



Monk might as well be a Fighter sub-class.

No.

Yeah, the Monk was a mistake ...an understandable mistake in the 70s, with David Carradine on Kung Fu, and Bruce Lee showing at the local grindhouse, but a mistake.

It's just when you try to make something like a Brawling fighter, you run up against the Monk's niche protection and it just brings that mistake to the fore, again.

Hardly. The monk just shouldn’t be hard-focused on unarmed combat, and being good at punching shouldn’t be a single class niche. Which, luckily, it already isn’t.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I mean, if unarmed combat wasn't a protected niche for the Monk, the Brawler would've been better at it. Heck, better than the Monk, since "Best at Fighting" is the Fighter's thing (except, it was really, as Mearls carefully put it back in the Next playtest: "Best at Fighting with weapons and without magic," which kinda acknowledged the Monk's unarmed niche protection, right there).

Now, sure, that's not conclusive. The Brawler could just be badly implemented. It's only a playtest. It could get better.

 

[Leatherhead]

5e Monks are just designed backwards. And no, I'm not talking about older ideas, I'm talking about how other games focused on martial artists uses martial artist.

Have you played a modern fighting game? While you do get to shoot off energy balls as projectiles off the bat, the good moves are locked away until you earn them in the match by performing smaller moves in order to gain momentum. Translated into 5e that means a monk should start every fight with 0 focus, and then gain focus by landing attacks, in order to unleash a "Finishing Move" some time around turn two or three. Throw in a "Spend an Action to gain (Monk-Level-Dependant) Focus points" ability for consistency and that's how the class's core should work. Then you can tweak their defensive prowess up a notch because skirmishing is hit-or-miss when it comes to encounters and the new monk should be good to go.

 

[Neonchameleon]

5e Monks are just designed backwards. And no, I'm not talking about older ideas, I'm talking about how other games focused on martial artists uses martial artist.

Have you played a modern fighting game? While you do get to shoot off energy balls as projectiles off the bat, the good moves are locked away until you earn them in the match by performing smaller moves in order to gain momentum. Translated into 5e that means a monk should start every fight with 0 focus, and then gain focus by landing attacks, in order to unleash a "Finishing Move" some time around turn two or three. Throw in a "Spend an Action to gain (Monk-Level-Dependant) Focus points" ability for consistency and that's how the class's core should work. Then you can tweak their defensive prowess up a notch because skirmishing is hit-or-miss when it comes to encounters and the new monk should be good to go.

That doesn't work in a system with as slow combat as D&D. Three rounds is about how long a fight lasts, and that's really not a lot of time to gain momentum unless you e.g. power up while being hit.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

5e Monks are just designed backwards. And no, I'm not talking about older ideas, I'm talking about how other games focused on martial artists uses martial artist.

Have you played a modern fighting game? While you do get to shoot off energy balls as projectiles off the bat, the good moves are locked away until you earn them in the match by performing smaller moves in order to gain momentum. Translated into 5e that means a monk should start every fight with 0 focus, and then gain focus by landing attacks, in order to unleash a "Finishing Move" some time around turn two or three. Throw in a "Spend an Action to gain (Monk-Level-Dependant) Focus points" ability for consistency and that's how the class's core should work. Then you can tweak their defensive prowess up a notch because skirmishing is hit-or-miss when it comes to encounters and the new monk should be good to go.

Whilst I like your ideas I have to agree with @Neonchameleon that 5E fights just don't last long enough to execute on them properly.

 

[Mistwell]

Any warrior-type can do what Brawler does, better, from level 1, by having a Lance (reach, topple) and Halberd (reach, cleave) in their backpack.

A what in their backpack?

 

[Mistwell]

Battlemaster should have been core fighter feature,

No, and Crawford explains exactly why that's a bad idea.

 

[Leatherhead]

That doesn't work in a system with as slow combat as D&D. Three rounds is about how long a fight lasts, and that's really not a lot of time to gain momentum unless you e.g. power up while being hit.

To be fair, there are quite a few fighting games that do in fact grant you momentum after you get hit.