D&D 5E Companion thread to "5E Survivor - Subclasses (Part VI: Fighters)"

[CleverNickName]

Yep. Unless a drive was made to eliminate either or both of them in the beginning (to get rid of the old), it was bound to happen.

It's not for lack of trying; I think there's been a lot of downvote pressure on the Eldritch Knight for the last few days. It's only a matter of time until the downvotes succeed, too, since they're weighted twice as much as upvotes.

The Fighter class is my favorite. As much as I'd like to see the Eldritch Knight advance, I have to admit that the Battle Master is probably the best one to represent all Fighters in the final round. Cavalier or Samurai wouldn't have a snowball's chance in Avernus, so I'm not terribly upset about Battle Master being in the lead.

 

[DND_Reborn]

It's not for lack of trying; I think there's been a lot of downvote pressure on the Eldritch Knight for the last few days. It's only a matter of time until the downvotes succeed, too, since they're weighted twice as much as upvotes.

The Fighter class is my favorite. As much as I'd like to see the Eldritch Knight advance, I have to admit that the Battle Master is probably the best one to represent all Fighters in the final round. Cavalier or Samurai wouldn't have a snowball's chance in Avernus, so I'm not terribly upset about Battle Master being in the lead.

I like the concept of the BM, but not the execution--superiority dice (horrible name) are too fiddly and a pain to track IME.

I made an "at-will" version of the BM that we use instead. The bonuses are lower, but you can use the features whenever you want (using either your bonus action or reaction to "power" them).

Frankly, I didn't want anything which uses magic in any fashion to win for Fighter--that would just seem wrong to me, so wrong...

 

[CleverNickName]

I'm still salty about the Gunslinger not being included in Explorer's Guide to Wildemount. I would have given it all of my upvotes.

I'll keep my fingers crossed for the OneD&D playtest, I guess.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

I made an "at-will" version of the BM that we use instead. The bonuses are lower, but you can use the features whenever you want

I think that does make more sense than the BM whose fun/effectiveness depends entirely on how often you get to short rest.

Because I (want to) like BM for the options it gives you. I don't so much like that you have to NOT take those options to be able to make any choices later.

 

[DeviousQuail]

Frankly, I didn't want anything which uses magic in any fashion to win for Fighter--that would just seem wrong to me, so wrong...

I agree with this sentiment. There are only 4 out of 13 classes that aren't inherently magical. Filling out those 4 with magical subclasses wouldn't be as fun. Even Totem barbs have magic but its ritual stuff that's more for flavor than an actual focus of the subclass.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I'm still salty about the Gunslinger not being included in Explorer's Guide to Wildemount. I would have given it all of my upvotes.

I'll keep my fingers crossed for the OneD&D playtest, I guess.

Oh, man, NO!!! Keep guns out of D&D please! I mean, as a cross-over adventure or something is one thing, but for the sake of Pete not core material! I am already not a fan of anything in Wildemount, sigh.

I think that does make more sense than the BM whose fun/effectiveness depends entirely on how often you get to short rest.

Because I (want to) like BM for the options it gives you. I don't so much like that you have to NOT take those options to be able to make any choices later.

Yeah, it seemed a bit silly to me to have it depend on a short rest. But, I feel a lot of features should be at-will, but made a bit weaker.

I agree with this sentiment. There are only 4 out of 13 classes that aren't inherently magical. Filling out those 4 with magical subclasses wouldn't be as fun. Even Totem barbs have magic but its ritual stuff that's more for flavor than an actual focus of the subclass.

Totally agree!

 

[RoughCoronet0]

Meanwhile I’ve been here trying to kill the Battle Master since the near beginning because it’s one of my least favorite fighters.

I’d gladly take the Psi-Knight, Cavalier, or the Rune Knight over it any day.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

Totally disagree with this, and agree with @doctorbadwolf on it. 16 is all you need--you sure as heck don't need a 20 by level 8!

For myself (anyway), you need (or at least really want IME):
Tier 1: 14
Tier 2: 16
Tier 3: 18
Tier 4: 20

Do you need an 18 or 20 ever? No. But it is helpful at higher levels--at lower levels it is overkill and therefore I usually take half-feats so I slowly improve my ability score.

ok then, let me explain:
in 5e, you're expected to be hitting enemies about 60% of the time. of course, many DMs up enemy AC so you'll be hitting less then that - but the game was designed around hitting about 60% of the time, meaning you hit on an 8 or higher. that's the intent. and the encounter rules say that one creature of a CR equal to the party is a good fight for a party of 4 players.

the CR table shows this pretty well - CR 1 creatures have 13 AC (13-8=5, 5-2 (your proficiency bonus at level 1) is 3, which is almost certainly what your attack stat will be if using point buy/standard array). AC on the CR table only increases (by one, might i add) at levels 4 (ASI 1), 5 (prof bonus to +3), 8 (ASI 2), 10 (a level after prof bonus to +4 - idk why it doesn't increase at 9), 13 (prof bonus to +5), and 17 (prof bonus to +6). AC on the CR table never increases after this point.

this shows us two things - one, that multiclassing and magic items were absolutely not things WOTC accounted for when building the CR rules (but we already knew that), and two, that you are, by the game's fundamental encounter math, absolutely expected to get your attack stat to a 20 by level 8. this is what i say when you "need" your attack/casting stat to 20 by level 8 - sure, technically you can get away with not doing it, but you are literally behind the game's math (however flawed you think that math may be) if you do so.

(this is also, again, why i find it absolutely ridiculous that WOTC refuses to separate ASIs and feats for One D&D - they literally designed the game around having ASIs, yet are still forcing us to choose between making our characters unique and following the game's most basic encounter math - the math that THEY MADE. it's absolutely absurd.)

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I just don't agree with that view of the game. To me "race" is just a set of abilities that add to class abilities. And the EK is already very strong (by fighter standards) it doesn't need more help.

"Very strong (by fighter standards)" is not a reason not to provide more help.

If you're going to set a bar, it shouldn't be resting on the ground.

 

[DND_Reborn]

ok then, let me explain:
in 5e, you're expected to be hitting enemies about 60% of the time. of course, many DMs up enemy AC so you'll be hitting less then that - but the game was designed around hitting about 60% of the time, meaning you hit on an 8 or higher. that's the intent. and the encounter rules say that one creature of a CR equal to the party is a good fight for a party of 4 players.

the CR table shows this pretty well - CR 1 creatures have 13 AC (13-8=5, 5-2 (your proficiency bonus at level 1) is 3, which is almost certainly what your attack stat will be if using point buy/standard array). AC on the CR table only increases (by one, might i add) at levels 4 (ASI 1), 5 (prof bonus to +3), 8 (ASI 2), 10 (a level after prof bonus to +4 - idk why it doesn't increase at 9), 13 (prof bonus to +5), and 17 (prof bonus to +6). AC on the CR table never increases after this point.

this shows us two things - one, that multiclassing and magic items were absolutely not things WOTC accounted for when building the CR rules (but we already knew that), and two, that you are, by the game's fundamental encounter math, absolutely expected to get your attack stat to a 20 by level 8. this is what i say when you "need" your attack/casting stat to 20 by level 8 - sure, technically you can get away with not doing it, but you are literally behind the game's math (however flawed you think that math may be) if you do so.

(this is also, again, why i find it absolutely ridiculous that WOTC refuses to separate ASIs and feats for One D&D - they literally designed the game around having ASIs, yet are still forcing us to choose between making our characters unique and following the game's most basic encounter math - the math that THEY MADE. it's absolutely absurd.)

Yeah, but lets look at what actually happens (using ACs from actual monsters in the books (over 800 of them, FWIW):

So, I've done an extensive analysis of this and that is why I said you don't need a 20 by level 8; you barely need an 18 really. Honestly, you can even "get away with" just having a 14 to start, but you'll feel the pinch if you don't bump it to 16 at 4th level...

Anyway, this is why I can just take half-feats at 4th and 8th for +1 bump to modifier, and again at 12th and 16th for the last +1 bump. I've NEVER, EVER spent an ASI on a +2 to a single ability score and the math works just fine without it.

EDIT: Here is the table starting with Ability 14 using the ACs for the CR = Level from the DMG:

As you can see, you can start with a 14, take the ASI +2 at 4th and 8th levels (at which point you'd have an 18, not 20), and hit your 60% or better all the time...