D&D General Chris just said why I hate wizard/fighter dynamic

[DND_Reborn]

The flaw is everyone else being great at Combat.

Yep. In WotC's effort to remove niche protection, fighters (more so than other martials) got screwed...

Heck, with Tasha's everyone can take a Fighting Style now, and you already had a feat to learn BM maneuvers...

 

[Mort]

I don't think there are many who would argue against improving martials in such a sense, as long as you don't go overboard and take away the niche of skill monkey from Bard/Rogue...

Hmm, between this thread and many others before it, I'm not sure that's true! People are REALLY hesitant to lift up the fighter in any way even for reasons as vague (and impossible to argue with) as "it doesn't feel right."

 

[TwoSix]

LOL a topic for a different thread. I am not knowledgeable enough about comics, or even pay enough attention to most of the movies, to discuss it in depth.

Sure, but I think it's inarguable that modern versions of D&D should be looking at comic books and comic book movies for a lot of trope development. Captain America has a lot more cachet for what a Fighter class should look like than Conan.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Hmm, between this thread and many others before it, I'm not sure that's true! People are REALLY hesitant to lift up the fighter in any way even for reasons as vague (and impossible to argue with) as "it doesn't feel right."

Maybe, but I think it more comes down to how much do you want to lift them, and would doing it encroach on other classes?

IMO Fighters should be the best at Fighting. One feature I gave fighters at level 6 is Consistent Attack, which allows them to make a weapon attack with their bonus action even when taking other Actions (like Dodge or Cast a Spell). Why? Because a good fighter should always be able to get an attack in, regardless of what else they might be doing.

Now, I realize you've been talking about improvements outside of combat. But if Fighters are the best at fighting, what should they be great at outside of their bailiwick?

 

[Cadence]

Sure, but I think it's inarguable that modern versions of D&D should be looking at comic books and comic book movies for a lot of trope development. Captain America has a lot more cachet for what a Fighter class should look like than Conan.

I'm kind of in the "I would like a pretty mundane option" camp and have no problem with fighters turning in to Captain America. What level of Cleric or Wizard does that equal out against in 5e?

 

[DND_Reborn]

Sure, but I think it's inarguable that modern versions of D&D should be looking at comic books and comic book movies for a lot of trope development. Captain America has a lot more cachet for what a Fighter class should look like than Conan.

I would argue Conan could be more Barbarian than Fighter.

Otherwise, I can't really agree. Captain America (et al.) should be for other RPGs IMO, not D&D. There are superhero RPGs out there (at least I know there used to be...) for people who want to play them.

But that is just my preference. I don't see any issue with designing D&D to enable characters like Cap, but I don't think taking levels 11+ is the way to do it. Expansion classes, prestige classes, etc. which could be optional and allow for PCs to obtain a more powerful style of play would be better IMO.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

I don't think it's that they want to be a chump. I think it's that they want to be Conan of Fafhrd or Cugel or Boromir without having to become Captain America or Black Panther and then moving on to Thor. And they'd like to not have to stop at 8th level to do it.

On the other hand some folks want to jump from Harry Potter year 1 to Dr. Strange in six months with no special magical training or practice, by killing goblins and taking their treasure. ;-)

I mean, the current fighter IS a chump. The fighter apologists can keep it. Any new mythic warrior class needs about twice the power budget to be where it needs to be IMO. Just because guys like Oofta have been on a self-imposed fast for five + editions doesn't mean the rest of us need to suffer any longer.

 

[Yaarel]

It's like preferring a Jackie Chan movie or a wuxia martial arts movie. The former may be a stretch because it requires choreography and multiple takes but it's still "real" in the sense that wuxia doesn't even attempt to be. As you said it's just a value judgement. I'm okay with my fighter being some version of Die Hard's McCain*, I don't want things that are obviously supernatural.

There are other games (and other editions of D&D (that go there, I want the option of playing an action movie hero.

*The guy should have ended up in the hospital many, many times.

Chan versus wuxia, is a good example to point out the esthetic difference.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Definitely disagree. Adventures are ordinary people who (choose to) do extraordinary things. The "adventure" is what makes adventures... well, adventurers.


HOW SH!T!!! What kind of games are YOU PLAYING IN!?!?!

D&D. The game of that consists of the "real" superheroes who get to repick their powers after a nap, and their sad wand caddies.

 

[Mort]

Maybe, but I think it more comes down to how much do you want to lift them, and would doing it encroach on other classes?

IMO Fighters should be the best at Fighting. One feature I gave fighters at level 6 is Consistent Attack, which allows them to make a weapon attack with their bonus action even when taking other Actions (like Dodge or Cast a Spell). Why? Because a good fighter should always be able to get an attack in, regardless of what else they might be doing.

Now, I realize you've been talking about improvements outside of combat. But if Fighters are the best at fighting, what should they be great at outside of their bailiwick?

Because there are 2 other pillars to the game?

They don't have to be "great" they just have to meaningfully contribute. You can argue they do that now. But my response would be, only if the DM is extending them leeway outside of what the game (5e) actually provides.