D&D General Requesting permission to have something cool

[Tony Vargas]

Can you give me like an actual/concrete example of an ability, I get the broad categories you want to improve.

multiple Reactions (per Extra Attack) for use with OAs & feats that use 'em

When a fighter who has the Extra Attack Feature uses his Reaction to make an Attack or use a maneuver or feat that requires a weapon or shield, his Reaction is not expended. This feature can be used as many time in one round as the fighter has Extra attacks. ​

The intent here is that if the fighter uses his Reaction for something else - an EK casting Shield, for instance - it's gone, even if he's only used the one. The net effect is a 5th level fighter should be able to take 2 OAs or use both OA and Protection Style in the same round.

In 5e style, it's left to the DM to rule if the fighter might take two reactions in response to one trigger.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but it wasn't until 2e that anything resembling skills/feats/maneuvers as we know them today appeared.

NWPs first appeared late in 1e, but they weren't very good, and they were optional in 2e. Feats, IDK if there was something at all like them in 2e C&T, but I think of them as a 3e innovation. There were always some very limited combat options that might be called maneuvers, like "this weapon can be set to receive an opponent's charge" as a footnote in the 1e weapon table.

So, I'd say skills/feats began in 3e, maneuvers in the sense BMs have 'em, today, starting in 4e as 'exploits.'

 

[Oofta]

Trash? No! Balance? Why not? What'd it hurt if the non-casters were the equal of casters and got more options or better modeled genre?

We've had multiple threads now stating that the fighter is suboptimal (i.e. not "balanced"), with several posters that state that the only reason people play fighters is, in effect, because they don't know any better. That wizards automatically and always dominate. People seem to throw around "balance" as a dog whistle to "I don't like the way fighters work".

I have yet to see a game where one player hogging the spotlight or doing all the important things was because of their class. Because of their personality? It happens now and then. Some people will stomp all over the rest of the group, oftentimes without even realizing it, but that's because of the player's personality not because of the class they play. There are times when some classes will shine. But caster dominance? I've simply never seen it even though I've played with multiple groups as both DM and player.

Most of the solutions proffered change the very nature of the fighter class into something I wouldn't want to play. So yes, if you have to rewrite the fighter so they have "mythic" abilities, transforming them into a different genre you are trashing the fighter concept as they are currently implemented.

If fighters don't work in your game, that's fine. There are solutions and worst case other games. I just don't need to be told that we just need to think of the children balance yet again.

 

[mamba]

1. This is not a survey of all players. It is a survey of people who (1) are doing the playtest, and (2) responding to the surveys.

2. You are not looking at overall data, or even the revealed preferences of players. Instead, you are looking at survey data of people expressing opinions about options presented for a playtest

I don’t think the ratings for the current subclasses are from the 2024 playtest.

An explanation that relies on their polling not being representative has an uphill battle, the sample size is so large that this is highly unlikely. We had that discussion in one of the playtest threads, and statistic say this is almost impossible given the number of participants in the playtest. I would assume that whatever poll those numbers are from is not having orders of magnitude less participants either

 

[mamba]

I've played with at least a couple dozen people over the course of 5E. As far as I can tell everyone was having fun playing. If people don't like a class or subclass they play something else. I don't personally care for warlocks and if asked on a poll would rank them low so I play something I do enjoy.

but then the rating for the class and the percentage of people playing the class should be roughly in sync, which they are not

 

[Oofta]

but then the rating fir the class and the percentage of people playing the class should be roughly in sync, which they are not

I'd need to see the actual survey wording and the results. They are making minor tweaks for the 2024 edition for all classes. It's nowhere near what some people want.

 

[mamba]

Ok, the game is broken, now what are you going to do about it?"

The answer cannot be "complain on the forums".

the forums disagree…

 

[Tony Vargas]

People seem to throw around "balance" as a dog whistle to "I don't like the way fighters work".

Not at all, balance is a positive quality that games have to varying degrees.

The Martial/Caster Gap is an example of quite significant imbalance in D&D, generally, and 5e in particular. It in no way implies that the problem lies with the fighter. Nerfing casters into the ground could also close the gap.

In 5e, specifically, IMHO, nerfing casters would be absolutely necessary. 5e went too far in restoring OP spells and expanding caster flexibility, while further removing restrictions from casting rather than adding back restrictions that formerly attempted (unsuccessfuly) to balance that power/flexibility. That 5e also gutted the fighter is almost a minor consideration, especially since every edition has approached fighter improvement by first taking away everything cool the fighter had in the prior ed....

...ah, wait, I see your point!

Most of the solutions proffered change the very nature of the fighter class into something I wouldn't want to play. So yes, if you have to rewrite the fighter so they have "mythic" abilities, transforming them into a different genre you are trashing the fighter concept as they are currently implemented.

Yes, scrapping what cool stuff the 5e fighter has in order to try yet another way of balancing it would be unfortunate. Balancing the fighter by (in addition to nerfing casters) expanding options, so players who really wanted to could still choose the kinds of straightforward multi-attacking single-target DPR specialists they are now, would be better than scrapping everything and starting over.

Really, bringing back everything cool that fighters have ever gotten would just be a modest start.

 

[mamba]

I'd need to see the actual survey wording and the results. They are making minor tweaks for the 2024 edition for all classes. It's nowhere near what some people want.

I assume it goes back to that one presentation where they showed satisfaction rating for some of the 2014 classes with the fighter (some subclass, not sure which) being in the 20s. At least that is what I think the reference was to

 

[Senior_WotC_Janitor]

I to wish we had a Gish.

I wish I lived in a world in which the word "gish" didn't exist.

 

[Scribe]

I wish I lived in a world in which the word "gish" didn't exist.

I'm sorry, but its too late now!