D&D (2024) Fighter brainstorm

[Minigiant]

Rogues get +1.75 per level.
Plus more ways to get advantage.

No one thinks they are overpowered.

Rogues are using shorts words.

A warrior wielding a greatsword with 18+ AC and 2-4 attacks who get +2 damage per level is overpowered.

We don't need more than one.

I don't get this.

We can have 3 to 12 arcanist and 3 types of priest.

But having a fighter class and a weapon master class, one simple and one complex because fans want different types of nonmagical weapon users.... and "We don't need it" and "It should be done".

Having 2 nonspellcasting prue martial warrior classes solves everything.

 

[Pauln6]

I think any further boosts to damage need to be limited. Versatility is to be preferred. Extra damage on a critical might not be OP. Tricks like domino shoving, granting advantage to an ally's next attack if you hit, disarming as a bonus action, using damage inflicted as the intimidation DC etc.

 

[mellored]

2-4 attacks who get +2 damage per level is overpowered.

Oops. Yea, I had 2 different ideas in my head, both came out.

+2 to damage OR multiattack.
Both would be OP, yes.

I don't get this.

We don't need more than one simple martial class.

We can have multiple different complex martial classes. Weapon Master, Monk, Barbarian, Rogue, Ranger can all work.

We just don't need both Slayer and Brute.

 

[Incenjucar]

Additional versatility should itself provide plenty of damage boosting without adding pluses. Proning an opponent in melee means you can lay in with advantage.

 

[Minigiant]

We don't need more than one simple martial class.

We can have multiple different complex martial classes. Weapon Master, Monk, Barbarian, Rogue, Ranger can all work.

We just don't need both Slayer and Brute

I agree we don't need the Slayer and Brute as classes.

But if there is only one fighter class, we would need a Slayer subclass and a Brute subclass because people will get bored of one but still want to be simple warriors. And we can't have that as there is not enough design space.

If The Fighter is the only non-manageable Marshall Warrior class and you force a simple subclass in it it will be a beginner's subclass for noobs.

If you want a fighter class that is simple but stays interesting past the newbie stage, you have to design it that way from the ground up.

And you can only do that if the whole class is designed to be simple (new class) or the system is designed to have a large range of bonuses (unbounded accuracy, tons of attacks, +damage galore).

The D&D community will be charged in this playtest to have the cake or eat the cake. .

 

[Emberashh]

Perhaps a better solution is to design classes with escalating complexity so that you don't need to keep an entire class simple, and new players aren't pidgeonholed into one concept.

 

[Incenjucar]

Perhaps a better solution is to design classes with escalating complexity so that you don't need to keep an entire class simple, and new players aren't pidgeonholed into one concept.

Agreed. Every class should have a simple build that's exactly complex enough to still be that class.

In 4E, this would be a fighter where all the powers are pure damage.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I don't know if it must be seperate...

But on the other hand, a weed wacker class would probably only take up 3 pages, including a bit of art. So probably the better solution.

Maybe call it a Brute.
D12 hit dice
Heavy armor
+1 damage per level.
Bonus to all saves (including death saves)
Level 5: multi-attack
Level 11: increase Str, Dex, and Con by 2, can go past 20.
Level 17: multi-attack, 3 attacks

Sub-class include
archer (ignore cover and firing in melee, longer range)
knight (+AC with a shield, can make multiple opportunity attacks.
Slayer (additional +1 damage per level with a 2-handed weapon, ignore opportunity attacks).

This looks like the perfect companion class.
Actually I think, the companion classes should appear in the PHB as simple classes.

 

[Azzy]

Real combat is responsive to the situation, position, and match up.

Hit and run, knock down and crush, knock down and grapple, push/pull/slide into terrain, distract/confuse, disarm, daze/stun, disable, blind, deafen, bleed, cause pain, exhaust, lift, slow, choke/knock wind out of, ... these are all things you can do in real martial combat.

Heck, even the 2e Fighter had these options via The Complete Fighter's Handbook.

 

[Stalker0]

Agreed. Every class should have a simple build that's exactly complex enough to still be that class.

I would argue that the best design of this in 5e right now is the OG paladin.

Sure you can pick your spells and cast them and do all of that casting stuff....OR you can just SMITE SMITE SMITE, and never even look at the spell list. You can pick your tier of complexity.