D&D 5E Building a better Fighter

Quickleaf

Legend
I just found Matthew Colville's video series The History of D&D One Fighter at a Time, and it's very insightful. He misses some of the details about what fighters in Chainmail/OD&D could do that were lost later on, but overall I highly recommend the series for anyone thinking about fighter class design.

My take away is that there are several old ideas worth reexamining through a modern design lens which have the potential to address some of the criticisms people have about playing fighters. Especially Chainmail/OD&D things like intelligent magic swords (which were HALF of all magic swords back then) being restricted to fighters, being fearless, providing a morale boost to those under their command, being hard to target (in Chainmail's "fog of war"), special ability to find the chink in a dragon's armor / shooting dragons out of the sky, multiple attacks against 1 HD monsters, causing fear, ability to detect nearby invisible creatures & target them without penalty, etc.

One that I'd forgotten about was how the fighter was the "abundant gear guy." Percentile strength (18/%) dramatically boosted the fighter's carrying capacity to superhuman levels; for example an 18/25 strength let you carry an extra 500 lbs no problem, while 18/99 strength let you can an extra 900 lbs no problem. Wow. And the idea was further reinforced through the higher dice rolled for a fighter's starting wealth compared to other classes.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

JeffB

Legend
I just found Matthew Colville's video series The History of D&D One Fighter at a Time, and it's very insightful. He misses some of the details about what fighters in Chainmail/OD&D could do that were lost later on, but overall I highly recommend the series for anyone thinking about fighter class design.

My take away is that there are several old ideas worth reexamining through a modern design lens which have the potential to address some of the criticisms people have about playing fighters. Especially Chainmail/OD&D things like intelligent magic swords (which were HALF of all magic swords back then) being restricted to fighters, being fearless, providing a morale boost to those under their command, being hard to target (in Chainmail's "fog of war"), special ability to find the chink in a dragon's armor / shooting dragons out of the sky, multiple attacks against 1 HD monsters, causing fear, ability to detect nearby invisible creatures & target them without penalty, etc.

One that I'd forgotten about was how the fighter was the "abundant gear guy." Percentile strength (18/%) dramatically boosted the fighter's carrying capacity to superhuman levels; for example an 18/25 strength let you carry an extra 500 lbs no problem, while 18/99 strength let you can an extra 900 lbs no problem. Wow. And the idea was further reinforced through the higher dice rolled for a fighter's starting wealth compared to other classes.

Agreed. And I mentioned the OD&D (GH) fighting man specifically in one of the other threads. A couple of other huge benefits

Only a Fighting Man, and not a ranger, paladin or any other class receives a bonus to hit and damage at all from Strength. Any Strength bonus, not just percentile. All characters are susceptible to penalties.

Only a Fighting Man and no other class (not even paladins and rangers) gets s bonus to AC from Dexterity. All characters are susceptible to penalties.

When I started playing, those two things along with the multiple attacks vs. "Hordes", by far the best weapons and armor (magical or not), made Fighting Men legit.

AD&D took almost all of it away from them.

To this day whenever I run S&W (any version) or LBBs OD&D, Fighting Men are the "Greyhawk" type.

EDIT-all characters in Holmes' original basic manuscript* got two attacks per round with most weapons, and someone at TSR, Gary or otherwise, partly edited it out (and by doing so, gave us the wonky "dagger fighter" problem)

Fighters have been getting the shaft since 1977 ;)

* at-long-last
 
Last edited:

Quickleaf

Legend
Agreed. And I mentioned the OD&D (GH) fighting man specifically in one of the other threads. A couple of other huge benefits

Only a Fighting Man, and not a ranger, paladin or any other class receives a bonus to hit and damage at all from Strength. Any Strength bonus, not just percentile. All characters are susceptible to penalties.

Only a Fighting Man and no other class (not even paladins and rangers) gets s bonus to AC from Dexterity. All characters are susceptible to penalties.

I think those two things specifically are expressed in modern design with the bonus feats of the 3e fighter & in 5e's fighter with the 2 bonus ASIs and Fighting Style choices (which include bonuses to damage or AC).

When I started playing, those two things along with the multiple attacks vs. "Hordes", by far the best weapons and armor (magical or not), made Fighting Men legit.

AD&D took almost all of it away from them.

To this day whenever I run S&W (any version) or LBBs OD&D, Fighting Men are the "Greyhawk" type.

EDIT-all characters in Holmes' original basic manuscript* got two attacks per round with most weapons, and someone at TSR, Gary or otherwise, partly edited it out (and by doing so, gave us the wonky "dagger fighter" problem)

Fighters have been getting the shaft since 1977 ;)

* at-long-last

I think it's really helpful for "old timers" like Matthew Colville and yourself (no offense! I am 36 but edging closer to including myself in that category) to provide a point of reference to original fighter design for newer players who picked up D&D in 3e, 4e, or 5e.

There's several fighter features that were cut out entirely or expanded to something many classes could do. A great post by [MENTION=19812]Sleeper[/MENTION] on RPG.net gets into detail about summarizing some of the things that were dropped.

It's interesting that you describe a "Greyhawk type fighter" as being the pinnacle of fighter design in D&D's history. Given my age, I missed that whole segment of D&D's history. Was that a prevailing opinion among gamers that the "Greyhawk type fighter" was a thing apart?
 

JeffB

Legend
I think those two things specifically are expressed in modern design with the bonus feats of the 3e fighter & in 5e's fighter with the 2 bonus ASIs and Fighting Style choices (which include bonuses to damage or AC).

True, but TSR era fighters also had a much better attack bonus progression over time...which accounts for all weapons. In 5e, every class of x level has a proficiency bonus with their proficient weapons that is the same. So, not only did the GH fighter get bonuses no-one else did, they also progressed much faster as combatants on the "to hit charts" and in XP which also widened the gap.
In 5e the gap is not so dramatic. A war cleric is not much worse in melee than a champion....and this leads to the next part.....



I think it's really helpful for "old timers" like Matthew Colville and yourself (no offense! I am 36 but edging closer to including myself in that category) to provide a point of reference to original fighter design for newer players who picked up D&D in 3e, 4e, or 5e.

There's several fighter features that were cut out entirely or expanded to something many classes could do. A great post by [MENTION=19812]Sleeper[/MENTION] on RPG.net gets into detail about summarizing some of the things that were dropped.

It's interesting that you describe a "Greyhawk type fighter" as being the pinnacle of fighter design in D&D's history. Given my age, I missed that whole segment of D&D's history. Was that a prevailing opinion among gamers that the "Greyhawk type fighter" was a thing apart?

I really dig Matt's vids. He started in 1986 according to his vids, I started in late 77 or very early 78. So he is a youngin' ;) That said, he is a pro, and I've always been a very casual gamer compared to most I know. I am very much a narrative/tell a story guy and not a rules minutiae guy.

The big difference back then is the Fighter was THE fighter and there was nothing comparable. A cleric was very second rate- hit points and ac helped, but he couldn't dish out relative to what he could take due to attack bonus progression,limited weapons, and no ability score help. Cleric spells were limited for the battlefield, and even more limited when it came to offense on the battlefield. Magic Users of course as they got up in levels had some more potent spells, but they are far more formidable in modern versions with at wills and more slots, modified vancian casting, easier access to new spells, and more varied offensive spells. And they are FAR less squishy than their original game counterparts.

Gameplay styles were obviously very different. More save or dies, usually more foes encountered (and wandering monsters), "swingy" initiative, and a host of other things. The fighter was not resource driven, and nobody else in the party could hang in there and slug it out, even if just to allow the others to escape. The GH fighter may not be the pinnacle, but he certainly was the Conan or Elric, or John Carter piling up foes. Nowadays, not so much. The GH additions certainly made for a much better class than the M&M fighter (GH made for a far far better game on the whole, barring the addition of the Thief class, IMO)

I remember not liking the AD&D Fighter at all, and I played a Paladin once we saw the dice roll options in the DMG (easier to qualify).

Many classes nowadays in comparison to the fighter can take a beating (slightly less so) and dish one out (maybe moreso-especially 4e Strikers). Things are more "balanced", designers feel every pc needs to contribute roughly equal in combat (and I agree and understand why) and the fighter has become "the newbie class" or the "easy class". I think that is fine, but the fighter can be simple, not resource driven, and still exciting.. I think they should still be the baddest mofo on the battlefield and stand out in their own way. That has been missing for a long time.
 

Quickleaf

Legend
I really dig Matt's vids. He started in 1986 according to his vids, I started in late 77 or very early 78. So he is a youngin' ;) That said, he is a pro, and I've always been a very casual gamer compared to most I know. I am very much a narrative/tell a story guy and not a rules minutiae guy.

Yeah, I started around the same time as Matt, and my aesthetics are generally similar to yours (story first). That said, because I've DMed a lot, written for the game, and had more rules-minded players I've had to sharpen my rules minutiae side at least somewhat.

The big difference back then is the Fighter was THE fighter and there was nothing comparable. A cleric was very second rate- hit points and ac helped, but he couldn't dish out relative to what he could take due to attack bonus progression,limited weapons, and no ability score help. Cleric spells were limited for the battlefield, and even more limited when it came to offense on the battlefield. Magic Users of course as they got up in levels had some more potent spells, but they are far more formidable in modern versions with at wills and more slots, modified vancian casting, easier access to new spells, and more varied offensive spells. And they are FAR less squishy than their original game counterparts.

Gameplay styles were obviously very different. More save or dies, usually more foes encountered (and wandering monsters), "swingy" initiative, and a host of other things. The fighter was not resource driven, and nobody else in the party could hang in there and slug it out, even if just to allow the others to escape. The GH fighter may not be the pinnacle, but he certainly was the Conan or Elric, or John Carter piling up foes. Nowadays, not so much. The GH additions certainly made for a much better class than the M&M fighter (GH made for a far far better game on the whole, barring the addition of the Thief class, IMO)

I remember not liking the AD&D Fighter at all, and I played a Paladin once we saw the dice roll options in the DMG (easier to qualify).

Many classes nowadays in comparison to the fighter can take a beating (slightly less so) and dish one out (maybe moreso-especially 4e Strikers). Things are more "balanced", designers feel every pc needs to contribute roughly equal in combat (and I agree and understand why) and the fighter has become "the newbie class" or the "easy class". I think that is fine, but the fighter can be simple, not resource driven, and still exciting.. I think they should still be the baddest mofo on the battlefield and stand out in their own way. That has been missing for a long time.

One of the things I was impressed by in Matt Colville's video was how he pointed out the fighter as the "gear head." Between carrying lots of weight, starting with better wealth, being able to use magic swords...it's an interesting form of "resource management."

I've been listening to his articles and taking notes, going back over some of my old homebrew fighter attempts, and especially some of [MENTION=59848]Hawk Diesel[/MENTION]'s concepts...seeing if I can make something sleek (i.e. not 30+ pages!) that incorporates "baddest mofo on the battlefield" while staying true to the modern precepts of balance.

Action Surge is pretty cool – I saw an 11th level PC dish out 88 damage on the first round with an Action Surge (and would have been more if monster wasn't resistant to fire from his flame tongue)! That's a lot of damage! It's great if you enjoy the alpha-striking play style...and your group can get enough short rests in.

One of the points of my homebrew design I was proud of was "cracking" Action Surge by establishing assumptions and determining how many attacks it granted the fighter per day. I realized I could design features a player could swap-out for Action Surge that enabled other play styles such as Against the Horde (modeling older editions multiple attacks vs. weak foes) & Stalwart Defender (modeling the 4e fighter & 3e fighter with Combat Reflexes).

I do think that [MENTION=59848]Hawk Diesel[/MENTION] is onto something about it being a feature for 2nd level that's too tempting for level-dipping multi-classing. I've been wondering what it would look like if each fighter's particular Action Surge (or equivalent) was determined by choice of subclass. I think that would be a really interesting way to differentiate fighter subclasses ("how do you get your extra attacks?") and also require sticking with the fighter class till you gain a subclass – which I see as a greater commitment to the concept instead of "I'm a sorcerer who wants to deal uber damage, so I'll pick up 2 levels of fighter since my DM allows multiclassing."
 
Last edited:

JeffB

Legend
.Action Surge is pretty cool – I saw an 11th level PC dish out 88 damage on the first round with an Action Surge (and would have been more if monster wasn't resistant to fire from his flame tongue)! That's a lot of damage! It's great if you enjoy the alpha-striking play style...and your group can get enough short rests in.

One of the points of my homebrew design I was proud of was "cracking" Action Surge by establishing assumptions and determining how many attacks it granted the fighter per day. I realized I could design features a player could swap-out for Action Surge that enabled other play styles such as Against the Horde (modeling older editions multiple attacks vs. weak foes) & Stalwart Defender (modeling the 4e fighter & 3e fighter with Combat Reflexes).

This idea sounds interesting. Do you still keep action surge as a "per encounter" ability?

I still think I would prefer "at will" abilities, but perhaps giving action surges instead of straight multiple attacks over the Fighter levels and giving them the option of another normal attack or a "feat/stunt" (which would need to be pretty powerful) when using an action surge would be cool (?)
 

Quickleaf

Legend
This idea sounds interesting. Do you still keep action surge as a "per encounter" ability?

Well, it's still a work-in-progress, but here's what I do now for Action Surge... likely I'll be tinkering more...

Replace 2nd level Action Surge with Warrior's Gift, which provides 3 options, one of which is the PHB Action Surge. The other two options are...

Against the Horde
Starting at 2nd level, you can sacrifice one of your attacks on your turn to make a number of additional attacks equal to your proficiency bonus against only CR 1/2 or less creatures (e.g. hobgoblins). Each of these attacks must be made against a different opponent. You may only sacrifice one attack to use Against the Horde on your turn.
Starting at 17th level, you can use Against the Horde versus creatures of CR 2 or less (e.g. ogres).

Stalwart Defender
Starting at 2nd level, your opportunity attacks don't require a reaction, though you can only make one opportunity attack against a given creature in a round. The maximum number of opportunity attacks you can make in a round is equal to your proficiency bonus. Additionally, while you are not incapacitated, you can make an opportunity attack against a creature that moves more than 5 feet while within your reach.
Starting at 17th level you have advantage on your opportunity attacks.

60Z5iEn.png


[SBLOCK=Detailed Comparison] Action Surge (the baseline for comparison)
Action Surge (baseline)
I assumed Action Surge is used on average 3 / day, due to the DMG assumptions of 2 short rests/adventuring day consisting of roughly 6 encounters. Technically, the DMG says 6-8 encounters, but I low-balled it for easier maths and because it seemed safer to err on the lower end.

At 2nd-level, Action Surge grants 1 attacks. Used thrice/day, that's +3 attacks/day. OR +0.5 attacks/encounter.
At 5th-level, Action Surge grants 2 attacks. Used thrice/day, that's +6 attacks/day. OR +1 attack/encounter.
At 11th-level, Action Surge grants 3 attacks. Used thrice/day, that's +9 attacks/day. OR +1.5 attacks/encounter.
At 17th-level, Action Surge grants 3 attacks. Used six times/day (thanks to the feature improving), that's +18 attacks/day. OR +3 attacks/encounter.
And at 20th-level, Action Surge grants 4 attacks. Used six times/day, that +24 attacks/day. OR +4 attacks/encounter.

Next, I thought about my rough target for Against the Horde. Because it's circumstantial according to the challenge faced (only working against CR 1/2 or less creatures, at 17th+ level CR 2 or less creatures), it should be a bit more potent than Action Surge...maybe granting something like 1.75x or 2x the number of attacks/encounter. That's just my ballpark value eye-balling it. However, there are two important things I'm bearing in mind:
CR 1/2 monsters are common at lower level. Therefore Against the Horde shouldn't be too far ahead of Action Surge at lower levels.

CR 1/2 monsters, even CR 2 monsters, may becoming increasingly rare at higher levels. Therefore Against the Horde should significantly increase in power compared to Action Surge at higher levels.

Against the Horde
For Against the Horde, I assumed that in a 6 encounter adventuring day about half the encounters offer use of Against the Horde. I further assumed that AtH could be used fully in the first round of an applicable encounter, and used half as effectively in the second round…due to monster attrition. The decreasing appearance of lower-level monsters at higher-level is very roughly offset by the 17th-level increase in CR that Against the Horde can target. I also assumed that despite increasing monster group size, the fighter's increased # of attacks and the party's ability to handle large mobs increases in step with the number of monsters.

So, for 2nd level, here's the calculations I made for Against the Horde

There are 18 combat rounds in 1 adventuring day
normally 18 attacks at 2nd-level
but 3 of those rounds
have +1 attack thanks to AtH (i.e. sacrifice 1 attack to gain 2 attacks vs. weaker monsters)
and another 3 of the rounds
have +0.5 attacks thanks to AtH
= for a total of +4.5 attacks / day

So the values for Against the Horde (AtH) look like...

At 2nd-level, AtH grants +4.5 attacks/day. OR 0.75 attacks/encounter.
At 5th-level, AtH grants +9 attacks/day. OR 1.5 attacks/encounter.
At 11th-level, AtH grants +13.5 attacks/day. OR 2.25 attacks/encounter.
At 17th-level, AtH grants +22.5 attacks/day. OR 3.75 attacks/encounter.
And at 20th-level, AtH grants +22.5 attacks/day. OR 3.75 attacks/encounter.

This "feels" about right to me, even if I'm making some small mistakes with my assumptions (e.g. maybe I should have assumed two full rounds use of Against the Horde at 17th-level due to targeting CR 2 or less and the generally larger numbers of low-CR monsters required to challenge high-level parties). But overall, until the very highest levels, it puts Against the Horde just ahead of Action Surge...the price being that Against the Horde's usefulness hinges on just how frequently weaker monsters appear in a given adventure.

Stalwart Defender
What this does is gives the fighter more battlefield control but requires that the player strategize the best place to position his or her character, and encourages teamwork. Trying to move past the fighter becomes a losing proposition. This preserves the coolness of the Sentinel feat, which more closely models the 4e fighter's "attack my buddy? well I'll attack you!” But how to even begin balancing this?

How often are opportunity attacks coming up in an "average session"? Well, with the PHB rules at most 1/round, because each creature gets 1 Reaction per round. So the question is how often will the warrior get to go above this 1/round in an adventuring day? And roughly how many additional attacks do they get to make?

Same assumptions as above: Adventuring day with 6 encounters, each encounter lasts 3 rounds.

Maybe half of those encounters the warrior is facing fights with enough monsters and enough movement to get use out of Stalwart Defender? So in those 3 encounters where Stalwart Defender comes up, it's probably reasonable to say the 2nd-level warrior gets at least 1 extra attack somewhere in each encounter. I estimated lower than Stalwart Defender's full potential because at lower levels it's really hard/rare to face large numbers of monsters. That gives me a starting point at least.

At 5th-level, I'm assuming the warrior gets at least 2 extra attacks somewhere in each of those encounters. Not the full 3 because that starts to make the battlefield cramped, and scenarios where you have a huge team of monsters rushing past the fighter within his reach seem kind of rare. Again, super tough call to make. These are egregious assumptions, but some kind of balance is better than none.

That's the assumed pattern I'm using then, that Stalwart Defender allows PROF BONUS -1 extra attacks at least one time during the encounter (or possibly in aggregate, it depends on the encounter). So at 11th-level that becomes 3 attacks, and at 17th-level and 20th-level that becomes 5 attacks. (*)

Accounting for the 17th-level advantage to opp. attacks (*) is a bit tricky, but basically advantage is measured as being worth +25% chance of success on average (yes, it varies by target number). That's the value the core books give it, so I'm following suit. The way I can interpret that is to give the number of extra attacks/day (or attacks/encounter) granted at 17th-level and 20th-level a x1.25 modifier, representing more of those attacks landing.

So the values for Stalwart Defender (SD) look like...

At 2nd-level, SD grants +3 attacks/day. OR 0.5 attacks/encounter.
At 5th-level, SD grants +6 attacks/day. OR 1 attack/encounter.
At 11th-level, SD grants +9 attacks/day. OR 1.5 attacks/encounter.
*At 17th-level, SD grants +18.75 attacks/day. OR 3.125 attacks/encounter.
*And at 20th-level, SD grants +18.75 attacks/day. OR 3.125 attacks/encounter.

With those assumptions, it looks like Stalwart Defender is very comparable to Action Surge, perhaps falling slightly behind at extremely high levels toward the end of a PC's adventuring career. Which seems about right, because Stalwart Defender is something with a trigger that the player can orchestrate meeting (unlike Against the Horde) but it does require some strategic thinking and good positioning (unlike Action Surge, which itself is limited by short rests).

It is possible, however, with a different set of assumptions, that Stalwart Defender could seem less or more powerful on paper. I suspect this is one that would need to be playtested to really get a definitive answer.[/SBLOCK]

I still think I would prefer "at will" abilities, but perhaps giving action surges instead of straight multiple attacks over the Fighter levels and giving them the option of another normal attack or a "feat/stunt" (which would need to be pretty powerful) when using an action surge would be cool (?)

Agreed. A couple thoughts.

First, some players are like you and I, liking "at will" abilities which feel more like the old school fighters, while others like "powerz"; the fighter should endeavor to accommodate both styles. Doing that while avoiding bloating the class to too many pages...that's a trick I'm still figuring out.

Second, for "stunts", I'd actually look at giving the fighter alternate uses for Extra Attack. Sacrifice an Extra Attack to boost damage and do a special stunt. For example...

[SECTION]Aimed Shot: When you use the Attack action to attack a target, you can take an aimed shot to ignore half-cover and reduce three-quarters cover to being only as effective as half-cover for purposes of your aimed shot. If the target has no cover you instead gain a +1 bonus to hit. You can only take one aimed shot per round, but in order to use it against the same target again you must spend one round observing the target and making no attacks.
Improved Aimed Shot: In place of two attacks, you make a shot ignoring half and three-quarters cover entirely (or gain a +2 bonus to hit), and your attack deals two extra weapon dice of damage on a hit.
Master Aimed Shot: In place of three attacks, you make a shot ignoring half and three-quarters cover (or gain a +3 bonus to hit), ignore any disadvantage on your attack roll, and your attack deals three extra weapon dice of damage on a hit.
[/SECTION]

[SBLOCK=Quick Maths (edited)]When a 5th level fighter (with 16 Dex and a longbow, and Archery fighting style) uses Extra Attack, he makes 2 attacks with a +8 attack bonus, dealing 7.5 (1d8+3) damage with each attack, for a total of 15 damage if both attacks hit. Against AC 15 (which the DMG tells us is normal for a CR 5 monster), he hits on a roll of 7+, which is a 70% chance to hit. His DPR = (0.7 * 7.5) + (0.7 * 7.5) = 10.5.

If he uses Improved Aimed Shot, he makes just one attack, but his attack bonus becomes +10, and he deals 16.5 (3d8+3) damage. Against AC 15 (which the DMG tells us is normal for a CR 5 monster), he hits on a roll of 5+, which is a 80% chance to hit. His DPR = (0.8 * 16.5) = 13.2.

When an 11th level fighter (with 18 Dex and a longbow, and Archery fighting style) uses Extra Attack, he makes 3 attacks with a +9 attack bonus, dealing 8.5 (1d8+4) damage with each attack, for a total of 25.5 damage if all attacks hit. Against AC 17 (which the DMG tells us is normal for a CR 11 monster), he hits on a roll of 8+, which is a 65% chance to hit. His DPR = (0.65 * 8.5) + (0.65 * 8.5) + (0.65 * 8.5) = 16.575.

If he uses Improved Aimed Shot, he first makes his special shot with attack bonus +11, dealing 17.5 (3d8+4) damage. He then makes a third regular shot (as above). For a total of 25 damage. Against AC 17 (which the DMG tells us is normal for a CR 11 monster), he hits with his Improved Aimed Shot on a roll of 6+, which is a 75% chance to hit, whereas he hits with his regular shot on a roll of 8+, which is a 65% chance to hit. His DPR = (0.75 * 17.5) + (0.65 * 8.5) = 18.65.

If he uses Master Aimed Shot, he makes just one attack, but his attack bonus becomes +12, and he deals 23 (4d8+5) damage. Against AC 17 (which the DMG tells us is normal for a CR 11 monster), he hits on a roll of 5+, which is a 80% chance to hit. His DPR = (0.8 * 23) = 18.4.[/SBLOCK]
 
Last edited:


The Old Crow

Explorer
I agree that Know Your Enemy is a neat ability and allows the fighter some of that social interation. But honestly as a DM, you don't need an outright ability like this to size up and opponent, just to make sure you get it accurately. I know this contradicts what I said earlier in reference to the Shrewd Fighting. But when you compare this ability to the other abilities given to the other archetypes at this level, it is far too limited to provide any real use and is the only one with any measurable mechanical benefit. I pondered allowing a player to use it after one round of combat observation and allowing their first attack against that target to have advantage until the end of combat, but I felt that was overly complicated and clunky.

I think my major concern was that Fighters get very little by way of class for the social and exploration pillars. I think Know Your Enemy is supposed to be the Battle Masters equivalent to Remarkable Athlete. Remarkable Athlete can be good in combat, but also out of it; it can help a Fighter win at tug of war, juggle, kick in a door, climb a flagpole, or drink their companions under the table. If Know Your Enemy is to be removed or changed, I think that whatever replaces it should have good applications for out of combat situations.
 

Satyrn

First Post
Shrewd Fighting - Starting at 2nd level, your skill and reflexes in combat have improved. You can take a bonus action on each of your turns in combat. This action can be used only to take the Grapple, Shove, or Disarm action.

Reasoning - I think the general chassis of the Fighter can be improved by allowing more options to utilize and encourage attempting things other than attack. I've seen many argue that creativity in role play can prevent this, but by outlining these action options within the fighters skills, rather than just in the Combat Actions section of the PHB, it brings it more to the front of the player's mind as an option. Also, Action Surge is an AMAZING ability and with that being at second level, the fighter is a popular dip class. Offering this at 2nd and moving Action Surge a bit later can discourage those dips.
I like this. It's actually more useful and interesting than action surge for the level. It's not until getting Extra Attack that I've felt really interested in using Action Surge. So I like this change. Except . . . it intereferes so much with dual wielding and doesn't get me anything that my battlemaster can't already access. I'd probably wind up going sword and board or twohander with all my future fighters with this change. That's not a negative thing, I just mention it so you're aware of a side effect of the change.

I like the 7th level battlemaster change. It feels very battlemastery without being a big boost in power.

I don't know if upping the SD from Relentless to 2 is necessary but of course I like that change :p
 

Remove ads

Top