D&D 5E The Fighter/Martial Problem (In Depth Ponderings)

[James Gasik]

Do you have a page number for this? I played a lot of 1E and I don't remember any ability similar to 3E cleave .... and 1E martials were OP. The closest thing I remember is getting your level number of melee attacks against enemies with less than 1 Hit Die.



Personally I am not for adding anything extra to the current fighter in terms of combat. Their combat power is already plenty and subclasses just add to that. I could see adding more to Monks, but flavor-wise fighters are right were they need to be IMO. I don't even like the weapon abilities ONE is adding.

I could see a little more variety, like an option to trade the additional attacks at level 11 and 20 for something else. Maybe a skill proficiency or expertise in a skill you already have for example.

The note on the 1e PHB, page 25:

This comes from OD&D, with the origin of this rule being found in The Strategic Review #2 (volume 1), page 3. It's also an optional rule presented in 2e.

 

[Zardnaar]

Do you have a page number for this? I played a lot of 1E and I don't remember any ability similar to 3E cleave .... and 1E martials were OP. The closest thing I remember is getting your level number of melee attacks against enemies with less than 1 Hit Die.



Personally I am not for adding anything extra to the current fighter in terms of combat. Their combat power is already plenty and subclasses just add to that. I could see adding more to Monks, but flavor-wise fighters are right were they need to be IMO. I don't even like the weapon abilities ONE is adding.

I could see a little more variety, like an option to trade the additional attacks at level 11 and 20 for something else. Maybe a skill proficiency or expertise in a skill you already have for example.

That's the ability there. Essentially great cleave vs 1HD critters.

Sone OSR games have sonething similar or an outright cleavecability ditching the 1HD requirement.

They often get weapon specialization or something similar (bonus to hit and/or damage).

It's simple enough and way more effective than critical hits (triggers sometimes vs almost every fight).

 

[James Gasik]

Something I always wondered about that ability is, what if you're fighting a mixed group of enemies of varying HD? Say you're 13th level and stroll onto the battlefield, coming upon a squad of 0-level Men-at-Arms and a 2nd level sergeant. You normally gain 2/1 attacks per round, but in this case, you have 13 attacks against the Men-at-Arms. Do you get 13 attacks, against them, and 2 against anyone? Or 13 attacks against the MaA's OR 2 attacks against anyone? Something else?

 

[Minigiant]

No if we are talking levels 3-10 most of the subclasses are worse at most of those levels (and to be clear there is no champion below level 3 where Barbarians are significantly better). The good Barbarian subclasses still compete through level 6 or 7, but then the gap widens quite a bit because of fighting style, better AC and the extra feat and it continues to widen through high levels.

This of course assumes you are optimizing, but if you are not optimizing, why are you complaining that you are weak?

I disagree.

Most Subclasses at least turn online.

The Champion just gives yo +1 AC and less that 1 damage per round

The Ranger is more of a Gish than a Warrior. With 5E mechanics, I think the Rogue as a class is more of a warrior than the Ranger is in general, although different builds play different ways. A warrior Ranger is a viable play style and build, but if you are optimizing your Ranger using 5E mechanics and Tashas it is going to be more of a Gish than a straight Warrior and if you build a pure martial Ranger who is not casting spells in combat, an optimized Champion is generally going to outrun most of them in combat at the levels I noted.

Reegardless your statement was Champions are "hilariously weak" which would mean they are weaker than most others. The classes and subclasses stronger to them are not relevant to that discussion.

Champions are as a point of fact middle of the road in martial combat. Put in all the "warriors", meaning all the Fighters, all the Paladins, all the Barbarians, all the Rogues, all the Monks and if you want all the Rangers. Then assume optimization and rank them top to bottom at any level between 3 and 10. Champion is going to be above average on that list

We have to agree to disagree. The Hunter Ranger is stronger than the Champion Fighter levels 3-10.

Champions isn't middle of the pack. It's just above the Berserker Barbarian.

Champion Fighters suck compared to any character that has Extra Attack than isn't a Monk or Berserker. That isn't the middle

Guess we have to agree to disagree but math isn't on your side.

 

[Zardnaar]

Something I always wondered about that ability is, what if you're fighting a mixed group of enemies of varying HD? Say you're 13th level and stroll onto the battlefield, coming upon a squad of 0-level Men-at-Arms and a 2nd level sergeant. You normally gain 2/1 attacks per round, but in this case, you have 13 attacks against the Men-at-Arms. Do you get 13 attacks, against them, and 2 against anyone? Or 13 attacks against the MaA's OR 2 attacks against anyone? Something else?

I assume you get two attacks but every time you kill a 1HD or less you get another one up to 13/round.

So what you hit in what order matters.

 

[Zardnaar]

I disagree.

Most Subclasses at least turn online.

The Champion just gives yo +1 AC and less that 1 damage per round




We have to agree to disagree. The Hunter Ranger is stronger than the Champion Fighter levels 3-10.

Champions isn't middle of the pack. It's just above the Berserker Barbarian.

Champion Fighters suck compared to any character that has Extra Attack than isn't a Monk or Berserker. That isn't the middle

Guess we have to agree to disagree but math isn't on your side.

People thought Rangers sucked but early in 5E I saw several hunters in action and yeah they're good at least then.

 

[Minigiant]

Not everyone chooses the character that they would like to play based on how powerful it is.
Character concept is a thing for some people.

Character concepts don't have to be weak.

Especially one so important the designers are warping the whole game around to include.

 

[CreamCloud0]

What I am saying is there is no reason classes need to be equal. People play what they want to play, if they care about being powerful don't play a weak class/subclass and the people who do play weak classes/subclasses don't mind them being comparatively weak or they wouldn't play them.

If you want to play the most powerful player possible everyone should just play a Wizard, or a Wizard with a 1-level cleric dip for heavy armor. That option is there for anyone who wants to be the superman of the party, but don't screw up the game for the rest of us that don't need to be Superman and want to play Batman instead.

I play more Rogues than anything else and they are on the weak side. I also play Fighters and Monks, both on the weak side. I love playing all those classes and "balancing" them with wierd mechanics that make no sense thematically in pursuit of "balance" would make the game worse for me, and I believe it would make the game worse for most players playing those classes. It would also make the game worse for the players that want to play Wizards and be more powerful than everyone else. Bottom line no one wins with that kind of "balance".

My ability to play my choice of character concept should never be pitted against my ability to play an effective character, I disagree with quite literally everything you’ve said here.

 

[Minigiant]

Something I always wondered about that ability is, what if you're fighting a mixed group of enemies of varying HD? Say you're 13th level and stroll onto the battlefield, coming upon a squad of 0-level Men-at-Arms and a 2nd level sergeant. You normally gain 2/1 attacks per round, but in this case, you have 13 attacks against the Men-at-Arms. Do you get 13 attacks, against them, and 2 against anyone? Or 13 attacks against the MaA's OR 2 attacks against anyone? Something else?

It's a DM call.

But I've always saw my DMs say attacks vs creatures with 1 or less HD has dont count against your attacks.

 

[ECMO3]

The note on the 1e PHB, page 25:
View attachment 333259
This comes from OD&D, with the origin of this rule being found in The Strategic Review #2 (volume 1), page 3. It's also an optional rule presented in 2e.

Ok, where do you see anything resembling Cleave. This is the 1E version of extra attack.