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.

 

[CapnZapp]

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.

It's only nonsense if I claimed the advantage of surprise was reduced to nothing.

Which I haven't.

It doesn't reduce it to nothing, but it sure reduces it to very little indeed.

Again, it feel like a better solution for you to simply abolish the concept of surprise from your games, and keep a rule that at least tries to provide something for the group that successfully executes an ambush.

Just tell your players ambushes do nothing: a monster always acts directly clearly and purposefully, no matter how disorientated or confused, and your problems would have gone away without neutering the rule for the rest of us.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

Just tell your players ambushes do nothing: a monster always acts directly clearly and purposefully, no matter how disorientated or confused, and your problems would have gone away without neutering the rule for the rest of us.

While you tell your players that all they have to do to get 2 free turns to trivialize every fight is to say 'I stealth' before combat? One of these is indeed the healthier (and more tactically satisfying) extreme to aim for.

 

[sevenbastard]

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.

What you see as a bug I see as a feature. It makes magic and combat more unpredictable. Good and bad luck are already a big part of combat randomizing initiative just adds to the chaos and force people to make hard dramatic choices. Yeah this time stunning strike might not last even one of the enemies turns, but next time it might last two. Weight the odds make you choice.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

This is incredibly simple math.

BM has a floor of 4d8 bonus damage per rest. That's the target number for Champ's extra crit damage to match.

It is very simple to calculate how many attempted attacks, on average, the Champ needs in order for their crit bonus to result in roughly the same damage. I don't expect exact equality, but it better be reasonably close. "Less than 2/3 when every possible assumption that favors the Champ has been made" is not that.

Let's assume there's a d8 light weapon. Such a thing doesn't exist, but assume it did. That would mean that, per rest, the Champion's expanded crit range needs to earn them 4 extra crits. Out of 20 attacks, on average 1 will be a crit for both sides, and 1 will be a crit for the Champ. Hence, the Champ would need to make 80 attack rolls per rest in order to match on average, if they were using only one weapon. TWF means they make more attacks than the BM, so it becomes very slightly more complicated. If the BM has made 40 attacks, the Champ has made 60, which would mean the BM has gotten on average 2 crits while the Champ has gotten 6. That's 20 rounds of combat per short rest. It's just not feasible. Advantage surely would help, but at low levels it's not that available.

What group have you played in such that you get 20 rounds of always being able to attack between every rest?

(Also note, this is a BM for some reason using a single d8 weapon but NOT using Dueling style, even though they have much better options. I am, again, making many assumptions that weaken the BM and strengthen the Champ.)

 

[tglassy]

Not reading all that.

Just came here to say that I playtested the Eldritch Knight, and it made me fall in love with the Fighter. I've had such a hard time playing Fighters in the past. They were just so...bland. They didn't have enough of their own identity. And all they do is hit things. I don't know. Seems weird since my favorite class is a Warlock and I have no problems just spamming Eldritch Blast. But at least Warlocks have FLAVOR. Fighters were just...plain bread. With the crust still on.

But now? I loved my EK. Loved him. He was a MONSTER. Casting Green Flame Blade along with making a second attack, switching between a Trident (he was a Sea elf) for Topple and the Nine Lives Steeler Greatsword he found for Graze. Bonding those two weapons so he could throw the Trident and summon it back to him. Having the Darkness Spell along with the Blind Fighting Style. My goodness. He was the most fun I've had playing a primarily martial character.

I am very much looking forward to making him official when the book comes out.

 

[Scott Christian]

This is incredibly simple math.

BM has a floor of 4d8 bonus damage per rest. That's the target number for Champ's extra crit damage to match.

It is very simple to calculate how many attempted attacks, on average, the Champ needs in order for their crit bonus to result in roughly the same damage. I don't expect exact equality, but it better be reasonably close. "Less than 2/3 when every possible assumption that favors the Champ has been made" is not that.

Let's assume there's a d8 light weapon. Such a thing doesn't exist, but assume it did. That would mean that, per rest, the Champion's expanded crit range needs to earn them 4 extra crits. Out of 20 attacks, on average 1 will be a crit for both sides, and 1 will be a crit for the Champ. Hence, the Champ would need to make 80 attack rolls per rest in order to match on average, if they were using only one weapon. TWF means they make more attacks than the BM, so it becomes very slightly more complicated. If the BM has made 40 attacks, the Champ has made 60, which would mean the BM has gotten on average 2 crits while the Champ has gotten 6. That's 20 rounds of combat per short rest. It's just not feasible. Advantage surely would help, but at low levels it's not that available.

What group have you played in such that you get 20 rounds of always being able to attack between every rest?

(Also note, this is a BM for some reason using a single d8 weapon but NOT using Dueling style, even though they have much better options. I am, again, making many assumptions that weaken the BM and strengthen the Champ.)

This, "Let's assume..." is why I say it's silly. If the champion is in a bubble striking an inanimate object like a chest and no one is doing anything else, you're correct, it is simple to calculate. If you have three other players, it's not that simple anymore because much of the champion's damage might be determined by the actions of those other PCs. If you have a DM that changes terrain, suddenly it's not simple since the fighter might not even get to strike the creature until round three or four. If you have a DM that uses different monsters, then it is not simple. Some have damage resistance. Some can't be damaged at all except by magical attacks. Some have low AC but great saving throws against spells. Others have really high AC but suck at specific saving throws.
I mean the simple act of advantage/disadvantage varies greatly from table to table. Playing the flanking rules - great. Your dual weapon wielding champion is going to have a considerable better chance at crits than a table that doesn't run that rule. There is no way to calculate for that. Have a bard in the party - yea! Inspiration to the champion since outside the game they are dating. Their "to hit" just went up every single fight.
Now combine all these things together: the other players and their actions, the terrain, the creatures, and let's not forget lair effects. You, nor anyone else, can calculate that. There are just too many variables across different tables.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

This, "Let's assume..." is why I say it's silly. If the champion is in a bubble striking an inanimate object like a chest and no one is doing anything else, you're correct, it is simple to calculate. If you have three other players, it's not that simple anymore because much of the champion's damage might be determined by the actions of those other PCs. If you have a DM that changes terrain, suddenly it's not simple since the fighter might not even get to strike the creature until round three or four. If you have a DM that uses different monsters, then it is not simple. Some have damage resistance. Some can't be damaged at all except by magical attacks. Some have low AC but great saving throws against spells. Others have really high AC but suck at specific saving throws.
I mean the simple act of advantage/disadvantage varies greatly from table to table. Playing the flanking rules - great. Your dual weapon wielding champion is going to have a considerable better chance at crits than a table that doesn't run that rule. There is no way to calculate for that. Have a bard in the party - yea! Inspiration to the champion since outside the game they are dating. Their "to hit" just went up every single fight.
Now combine all these things together: the other players and their actions, the terrain, the creatures, and let's not forget lair effects. You, nor anyone else, can calculate that. There are just too many variables across different tables.

All of the things you just described would make things WORSE for the Champion, not better, or have no effect on the comparison between these two features. Not using the actual flanking rules? Worse. Bardic Inspiration? Doesn't add more crits.

You want to make this into some kind of crazy-difficult thing. It simply is not. Champion gets 1 extra crit out of every 20 attacks. Battlemaster gets a floor of +4d8 damage per rest. The latter is simply, straight-up, mathematically superior.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Well, fumbling your ambush is certainly a thing. Though I would have preferred it if this was decided by your plans and your stealth, rather than your luck at rolling initiative.

Anyway, who hits first isn't what I had in mind. D&D is a game that goes considerable lengths to minimize the fallout of first strike (the original and main function of having hit points, for instance).

So my beef is that you need MORE than just striking first for surprise to really be a thing you bother with. After all, not just going hack-n-slash carry considerable risks (i.e. when you fail your stealth).

So I guess WotC wants players to not have to think too much, and just enjoy a mindless charge.

Just wade in and let your HP buffer take care of it until you get to take your turn.

But they also are not wrong that it can end up being too much. We had a fight the DM did not think we could even win, that we destroyed without getting hit once, because we had surprise, which we leveraged to keep the enemy from attacking, and essentially got three free rounds of combat.

Which, as crawford said, at that point... feels like you should just declare victory and move on.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

So... you are aware that the 2014 rules never once allowed for surprise to skip an enemy's turn, right? And that, at no point during these rules or the 2014 rules, could a mage cast shield and it last two rounds.

Maybe learn what the rules are before you attempt to criticize them?

 

[CapnZapp]

While you tell your players that all they have to do to get 2 free turns to trivialize every fight is to say 'I stealth' before combat? One of these is indeed the healthier (and more tactically satisfying) extreme to aim for.

No, I'm saying:

If you like a game where stealth and surprise gets you next to nothing, just say so.

It would be much more direct and honest if we openly stated some play groups value combat equality in every combat regardless of preparation and circumstance.

"No, you shall never get a drop on the monsters, ever. Every combat needs to be appropriately exciting and there shall never be any free xp. Also, you don't need to be afraid the monsters will ever get a drop on you."

Just say it out loud so we know where we stand.

You people could then do away with any rules for surprise, while leaving rules that still have a resemblance of actual impact for the rest of us.