D&D General The Case For High INT Fighters in Dungeons and Dragons

[EzekielRaiden]

I think the problem is that some people struggle to view stats as more than the benefits they can provide, especially where points buy is the default. Your stats should conjure the mental image of your character. A5E does hark back to 1e by allowing training in extra languages and knowledge skills.

Stats have a complicated relationship to those things, because it is quite possible to play someone who has a negative Charisma modifier, but really does have persuasive ability because the player has it, and it bleeds through. Or, a player who is highly intelligent and creative IRL, attempting to play a dumb brute--it's hard to separate those things.

You could put the same argument forward for Barbarian Constitution or Monk Wisdom, I suppose.

I'm not sure what you mean. Both classes have at least two basal features which either directly or indirectly benefit from having the respective stat high. Both have Unarmored Defense, while Barbarian has Relentless Rage (Con save, hence high Con makes it more reliable) and Monk has Stunning Strike (forces target to make a save, your save DC is Wisdom-based). Some subclasses add further benefits.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Because "defending yourself" is a physical action, not a mental one.

so every fight is decided purely by who is physically stronger then, nobody uses their brain as they fight? a physically feeble master will always be beaten by a brute with no combat experience.

Planning attacks is something the player personally does,

not in the same way, the rogue player doesn’t have to describe where and what angle their dagger goes in at when they sneak attack, the bard player doesn’t have to figure out what inspiring thing they say whenever they use bardic inspiration, hell, i'm basically just asking for more stuff like maneuvres.

that's...literally the point of having choices in combat and learning how to make better choices over time. "Targeting weak points" is not meaningfully supported by the game's rules, and every system I've seen attempt to do so is far too fiddly to actually be worth engaging with.

Know Your Enemy exists, that's not fiddly, just pull that down out of battlemaster and put an improved version of that in the baseclass.

I'm not saying it's not possible to have Int-based mechanics for purely martial characters, even Fighters. I'm saying all the ones I've ever seen that would actually be enjoyable to use and play around with only really make sense as a subclass-specific thing, not as something absolutely every Fighter can access.

you keep saying this but you;re not elaborating on what these abilities are that 'could only ever exist as part of a subclass', let fighters be smart.

And, as has been noted multiple times in this thread, whatever the mechanic is, you have to lock it behind at least 2 (and preferably 3-4) Fighter levels, otherwise people will just dip for it. Heck, there's a whole category of builds that start with Fighter 1 before going fully focused on a caster thereafter, with Bladesinger Wizard being a prime pick. And if you're already going to put it behind Fighter 3...is it really that much of an issue for it to be a subclass-specific thing? Perhaps different options for Battlemasters and a hypothetical Int-focused subclass, to represent how there are different ways for Int to be useful in combat?

I completely agree. I just don't see that allowance manifesting as something absolutely every Fighter gets and does.

i propose removing multiclassing as the solution to this issue, it only ever caused problems, but more seriously, i do think this is something every fighter should get, people complain that the fighter is generic, well this gives it more of an identity, the General, the Tactician, the unbeaten Warrior, they don't have to get it all at 1-3, spread some of this out more across levels, make things dependent on having fighter levels specifically.

 

[Staffan]

so every fight is decided purely by who is physically stronger then, nobody uses their brain as they fight? a physically feeble master will always be beaten by a brute with no combat experience.

I would argue that the "physically feeble master" would be high level but with low physical stats, while the "brute with no combat experience" is the opposite.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

so every fight is decided purely by who is physically stronger then, nobody uses their brain as they fight? a physically feeble master will always be beaten by a brute with no combat experience.

That's a subclass talking--or a whole other class entirely. "A physically feeble master" = Monk, no?

not in the same way, the rogue player doesn’t have to describe where and what angle their dagger goes in at when they sneak attack, the bard player doesn’t have to figure out what inspiring thing they say whenever they use bardic inspiration, hell, i'm basically just asking for more stuff like maneuvres.

Edit: Sorry, meant to answer this and didn't. "More stuff like maneuvers"...doesn't that literally mean the Battlemaster subclass? Diluting Battlemaster by making its features something actually all Fighters get is a bad idea, not least because there are plenty of Champion fans out there who emphatically do not want to deal with maneuver dice or any of that stuff.

Know Your Enemy exists, that's not fiddly, just pull that down out of battlemaster and put an improved version of that in the baseclass.

Know Your Enemy sucks, so...fine? I don't see how that actually rewards anything.

you keep saying this but you;re not elaborating on what these abilities are that 'could only ever exist as part of a subclass', let fighters be smart.

Because I don't believe in random armchair design. When I'm less tired, I can spitball some completely untested, and thus unreliable ideas.

i propose removing multiclassing

A non-starter from the fourth word.

 

[Minigiant]

I would argue that the "physically feeble master" would be high level but with low physical stats, while the "brute with no combat experience" is the opposite.

I sorta agree.

This is why I wish there was gradients to these things.

Expert->Master-Grandmaster

Int, Wis, and Cha fighting should require at least 5 levels in the class to come online.

 

[Staffan]

Int, Wis, and Cha fighting should require at least 5 levels in the class to come online.

Problem is that it would suck to play that character at level 1-4.

 

[Minigiant]

Problem is that it would suck to play that character at level 1-4.

Tough cookies.

To me a high INT fighter should have at least a respectable 14 in STR or DEX until they hit Tier 2 to get advanced combat styles.

Most feeble masters were strong and fast in youth.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

So...you're okay with a Warlord that isn't sold as inherently magical

My group isn’t much interested in small unit tactical boardgames, so I’m happy that there is no warlord in 5e.

I understand that you like a different style of game.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

My group isn’t much interested in small unit tactical boardgames, so I’m happy that there is no warlord in 5e.

I understand that you like a different style of game.

....so why are we even having this conversation if you don't even want to be a part of it in the first place?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

....so why are we even having this conversation if you don't even want to be a part of it in the first place?

I’m pointing out why it’s a bad idea for 5e, and definitely not something “needed”, or makes any kind of sense. See the first thing I posted in this thread.

There is room for a less sucky version of the banneret subclass. I wouldn’t see it as needing to be tied to the INT stat though. That's just making it more MAD without benefit.