D&D (2024) 2024 Player's Handbook Reveal #2: "New Fighter"

​

"The Fighter is now the weapon master equivalent of the Wizard" (with respect to versatility).

---

OVERVIEW

The Fighter seems to have been mostly set in Playtest 7. Most of the features described carry over from there, though Brawler has gone and is replaced by Psi Warrior form Tasha's.

• Ranger and Fighter have the most new features.
• Subclasses provide "different levels of mechanical idiosyncracy".
• Weapon mastery (level1), tactical mind (2), tactical shift (5), studied attacks (13) -- all of these are as in PT7.
• second wind -- increased number of uses (as PT7)
• NEW: Level 9: Tactical master is like mastery of Armaments, but limited to push. sap, and slow. These properties are now always in the fighter's pocket, regardless of the weapon used. These properties add to Battle Master abilities.
• Fighting Styles: new options available: Blindfighting, Interception, Thrown Weapons, and Unarmed fighting (from Tasha's). (YAY for thrown weapons and unarmed fighting!). Protection style "improved".
• NEW: You can change your fighting style when you level up.
• NEW: All classes now get an Epic Boon at level 19, replacing the ASI.

---

SUBCLASSES

Battle Master:

• they considered making the maneuvers the core of the fighter, but that would undermine the goal of different playstyles for each subclass.
• ambush, bait and switch, commanding presence, and tactical presence all brought over from Tasha's (as PT7)
• Student of War also gives you a skill proficiency (as PT7)
• Know your enemy has "limited number of uses per day" (PT7 had one, IIRC)

Champion:

• same core identity, focusing on crits.
• Remarkable Athlete: NEW. When you score a crit, you can move without receiving opportunity attacks.
• Remarkable Athlete: advantage on initiative and athletics (as PT7). This works with the new surprise rules, which give you an edge but "defang" the one-sidedness of surprise.
• Additional fighting style at 7, Heroic Warrior at 10, Survivor at 18 (as PT7).

Eldritch Knight:

• for players who played OD&D when Elf was a class...
• with the Psi Warrior are for people who want Fighter and X (mixed).
• no school restrictions (also for Arcane Trickster)
• NEW: you can now use an arcane focus.
• War Magic and Improved War Magic: as in PT7, but at level 18 you can replace two attacks with spells up to level 2 (I think this is new).

Psi Warrior:

• changes from Tasha: changes are primarily in rewording.

---

NEW RULES
Epic Boon:

• you may choose a non-epic boon feat. They include an ASI that can go past 20, and include abilities go beyond what feats normally do.
• Example: Boon of Combat Prowess. Once per TURN, you can turn a miss to a hit. Another example: You have Truesight. Another example: when you attack or take the magic action, you also teleport.
• The PHB now has rules to go beyond level 20. Every time you hit some XP threshold, you can choose another Epic Boon (which could take one of your scores to level 30).

Other NEW rules clarifications:

• Heroic Inspiration which lets you re-roll any one die (may be one damage die, but not all damage dice).
• Surprise now gives you disadvantage on your initiative. (Champion, Assassin, and Barbarian are hard to surprise -- they won't have disadvantage on init).
• No school restrictions for Arcane Trickster or Eldrtich Knight.

 

[mellored]

It's not any simpler to say 'disadvantage to initiative' over 'they skip their turn'. It just makes the gameplay less volatile.

I'd say skip your turn is more complex. It's an entire paragraph to explain.

Disadvantage is 1 short sentence (and less volatile).

 

[CapnZapp]

The game rewards alpha striking as is.

As far as I'm aware, "alpha strike" refers to going all out no holding back with your initial assault. We're discussing surprise here.

That said, I have trouble thinking of a ttrpg that rewards either as little and weakly as D&D... Maybe you labor under the illusion 5E used to feature decisive initiative and ambush rules? Well, it didn't. Realistic rules would mean one side gets killed without even knowing what hit them. That's not what anyone is trying to achieve... but that doesn't mean being ambushed should mean nothing.

My point is, if what you trying to achieve is a game where you can't do either, then say so - say you like forcing every combat to start out equal, no matter what the player characters come up with.

Don't have the game feature stealth and surprise... only to then in actual practice not bestow a successful ambush with any notable benefits.

 

[CapnZapp]

It’s a change that simplifies the game, probably by making surprise a less sought after option, but simplifies it nonetheless.

Why not then remove surprise altogether?

Much better would be to feature ambush rules with actual teeth, and then presenting those as one of the optional (opt-in) rules.

 

[TiQuinn]

It's not any simpler to say 'disadvantage to initiative' over 'they skip their turn'. It just makes the gameplay less volatile.

It’s simpler in the sense that planning an encounter does not need to factor in surprise and the potential for a complete TPK or wipeout of the monsters.

 

[TiQuinn]

Why not then remove surprise altogether?

Much better would be to feature ambush rules with actual teeth, and then presenting those as one of the optional (opt-in) rules.

I thought the same but it’s simply part of a development cycle. People will ask about surprise rules, it’ll be reintroduced with rules that unbalance encounters, and then get reduced to something that makes people forget about surprise until someone says surprise sucks and the cycle repeats.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Remove details. Eliminate all complexity. Get your one bonus (Advantage, Surprise, etc.) and be done with it. No need to learn to play; just press the "I Win" button. No need to think or strategize or coordinate; just do the obviously incredibly powerful thing.

How high does the barrier to entry to play D&D need to be?

I'm personally of the opinion that D&D should be fairly easy to play effectively. Not much to learn. Not much to discuss. Not much of a meta.

I prefer an accessible game, a game that largely prioritizes broad accessibility over complexity and precision. A game that keeps its problem-solving a matter of higher-order discussions (what would my character do) over specific, niche discussions (what action is effective, what choice synergizes, what options are efficient). A game that prioritizes big, simple, impactful decisions over specific, small decisions that have a big cumulative effect. And, a game that doesn't tie its decision-making mostly to the realm of character builds and combat actions and tactics.

I do think one of the very real tradeoffs of designing for accessibility is a loss in strategic granularity - that this is one of those areas where providing for one audience means alienating another. Not that there isn't a sweet spot, just that the sweet spot might be very different for, say, D&D's entire target audience than it is for, say, your average ENWorld poster.

All of which is just to say that designing for accessibility - for large, impactful decisions that are easy to learn and easy to make - is a valid design direction, and one that is not fairly characterized by calling it an "I Win" button.

 

[Scott Christian]

No. Not at all.

But 36 extra damage per day (as of @EzekielRaiden 's calculation) which translates to less than 1 more DPR for the BM dwarfs the champion so that he is close to unplayable.

So your increase of 2.35 DPR can be looked at differently...

I really wish people would learn that their calculations at any level past 2nd or 3rd vary from table to table, and in the end, are really nothing more rigid than a cloud. And by level 8 and above, you can forget about all of the calculations. I have never seen a table where the classes are balanced past eighth. The reason? They aren't. The reason they aren't? Because they can't be.

 

[Weiley31]

-wrong class, moving to paladin thread for response-

 

[Blue]

5e initiative is already a slog and only matter once then goes to a boring static order that allows meta game choices that take the thrill out of the game.

I'm all for card based initiative everyone goes in random order. Reshuffle each round. Sure you need players that pay attention and can act decisively, but honestly you need those anyway so this helps force the issue.

Part of 5e streamlining is that "Until [Start|End] of your next round" is their shortcut for a 1 round duration. Something where everyone on the battlefield will have exactly one action. And there are a lot of these. Anything which takes away the cyclic nature of the turn throws this out.

Picture being a monk, stunning a foe, and because you do better with initiative your foe doesn't end up losing an action. That's the exact opposite of what should be happening when you do better.

Or a foes does Shield, and because they were bad on initiative it lasts through two of many of the PC's turns.

You need to understand how they are using the cyclic initiative before changing it. And this particular change has wide ripples.

Don't tear down Chesterton's Fence until you understand why they put it up.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

As far as I'm aware, "alpha strike" refers to going all out no holding back with your initial assault. We're discussing surprise here.

They are the same thing. You are hitting first, and you are hitting them hard, so they never get to act - this is the goal.

Don't have the game feature stealth and surprise... only to then in actual practice not bestow a successful ambush with any notable benefits.

This is nonsense. Your advantage is being more likely to go first. Just because it's not automatically going first AND perhaps going a second time before the enemy gets to do anything, does not make it nothing.

Realistic rules would mean one side gets killed without even knowing what hit them.

So you don't think DnD has stuff like crowd-controlling the main threats out of the fight completely, fireballing twice before groups get to act, or the party heavy hitters focus-firing any one thing down? Okay.