D&D (2024) 4/26 Playtest: The Fighter

[doctorbadwolf]

Maybe all the fighting styles need a higher level power up based off fighter levels only?

Sure, though I think that benefit would be too small, and would work better as a level 1 fighting style. It’s weird to only have protection for shield users.

 

[Pauln6]

Sure, though I think that benefit would be too small, and would work better as a level 1 fighting style. It’s weird to only have protection for shield users.

If it's free, it doesn't really matter how small it is at later levels, because it's still better than what you had before. It might matter at level 1 though, especially taking into account multi-class dipping.

If there is an opportunity cost, e.g. sacrificing one attack to get it, then I can see how someone might want to consider balance issues but I would have thought that you would only want to sacrifice one of your attacks where it was worth it, e.g. where practically surrounded or where the enemy's damage potential is high.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

If it's free, it doesn't really matter how small it is at later levels, because it's still better than what you had before. It might matter at level 1 though, especially taking into account multi-class dipping.

If there is an opportunity cost, e.g. sacrificing one attack to get it, then I can see how someone might want to consider balance issues but I would have thought that you would only want to sacrifice one of your attacks where it was worth it, e.g. where practically surrounded or where the enemy's damage potential is high.

That’s why I suggested Disengage as a bonus action. Fighters don’t do a ton with the BA, so it should be pretty easy to use.

 

[Pauln6]

That’s why I suggested Disengage as a bonus action. Fighters don’t do a ton with the BA, so it should be pretty easy to use.

That does have the virtue of being simple but the main reason I would not want to do that is because it is a level 2 rogue ability and I am leery of stealing other class features wholesale.

Maybe it should be Level 2, fighting withdrawal, bonus action apply disadvantage to attacks against you on your turn as a consequence of movement or when leaving a threatened square (includes sentinel attacks); Level 9 improved fighting withdrawal, bonus action to disengage?

 

[Justice and Rule]

If it's free, it doesn't really matter how small it is at later levels, because it's still better than what you had before. It might matter at level 1 though, especially taking into account multi-class dipping.

The hard fix that I think a lot of people don't want to acknowledge would be to move on to a different kind of multiclassing system, because right now you have to keep the first few levels a bit tasteless lest you create things that are too much of an easy dip. What that system would be, I have no clue, but I feel like trying to not turn classes into dip-classes is one of the biggest hurdles right now in the design space.

 

[Valetudo]

Do you think it would overpower fighters if you just threw battle maneuvers into the core class? So no battle master anymore but maybe.... just maybe a warlord....ahhhhhh dreams.

 

[Pauln6]

Do you think it would overpower fighters if you just threw battle maneuvers into the core class? So no battle master anymore but maybe.... just maybe a warlord....ahhhhhh dreams.

Personally, I would say not if you strip out the extra damage (maybe say they are added only on a crit) e.g. two at level 2 and two more at level 5 or 7. You could just give the champion a set list of specific manoeuvres if you want to keep it simple (they can buy others anyway via feats or fighting styles). Similarly, you could give the Banneret a set list of the specific warlord manouevres. Battlemaster might still survive if they got more superiority dice spread out more and if they are the only class to add the extra damage (doubled on a crit) and maybe the only one allowed to spend more than one die in a round.

The hard fix that I think a lot of people don't want to acknowledge would be to move on to a different kind of multiclassing system, because right now you have to keep the first few levels a bit tasteless lest you create things that are too much of an easy dip. What that system would be, I have no clue, but I feel like trying to not turn classes into dip-classes is one of the biggest hurdles right now in the design space.

This might be true but it just isn't going to happen - or at least it does not look likely since nothing much new has been floated. I think the most you can hope for are multi-class feats similar to the ones in 4e.

 

[Chaosmancer]

How does everyone feel about the "Blessing" system in the DMG as a fix for the balance as long as they are actually given to players at set intervals rather than DM permission.

We could even have it where martial/noncaster classes get a blessing every two level ups and casters don't get any naturally (maybe the cleric or paladin gets one or two).

How would that sound for everyone? (Just a reminder for those who haven't looked, Blessings give magic item effects to players that can't be removed, dispelled, and don't require attunement).

I'm not against that sort of idea in theory, but looking at the examples... most of them are "get +2 on this stat, max 22" or "get +1 AC". So... in many ways they are just make the numbers go up. A few items would be different, like the summoning of warriors from Valhalla, but by the time you are giving abilities like that... why not just go whole hog and give new abilities every for levels instead of just this?

At the end of the day, the numbers going up doesn't really address the issue, is what I'm saying.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

That does have the virtue of being simple but the main reason I would not want to do that is because it is a level 2 rogue ability and I am leery of stealing other class features wholesale.

Maybe it should be Level 2, fighting withdrawal, bonus action apply disadvantage to attacks against you on your turn as a consequence of movement or when leaving a threatened square (includes sentinel attacks); Level 9 improved fighting withdrawal, bonus action to disengage?

The rogue can dash, disengage, or hide, as a bonus action. Another class being able to disengage as a bonus action is not a big deal.

If that doesn’t work for you, how about a bonus to AC against attacks of opportunity, or the ability to avoid them by moving no more than half speed?

 

[Chaosmancer]

Personally, I would say not if you strip out the extra damage (maybe say they are added only on a crit) e.g. two at level 2 and two more at level 5 or 7.

I've been thinking of this myself. Using the Weapon Masteries as a base, just creating a "techniques" system that will allow fighter's to pick from a list of manuevers. Giving some non-combat ones. Maybe use grit as a resource to spend on adding dice to the damage or skill result.

Then evolving things as you go, giving options between depth and breadth. It would be a completely different style of fighter, but it would be... actually a bit of a mix between the 4e fighter and the 4e rogue, a martial controller who can use attacks to change the battlefield or impose conditions on the enemy.

I think there is a lot of potential there.