Incenjucar
Legend
Fighter damage may be fine. I'm more interested in them getting other things to do than be a Rock'em Sock'em Robot.
Fighter brainstorm
- Thread starter mellored
- Start date
Sacrosanct
Legend
I hate to break it to you, but yes they do. That's kind of a key class feature. One that's valuable because you never know what better weapon you might find in the adventure. It might be your experience that fighters only use one weapon, but that very much is the exception and not the norm. And it's most certainly a player issue and not design issue, because design says they can use all of them.
Zubatcarteira
Now you're infected by the Musical Doodle
The issue with armor and shields is that it's very, very easy to get them with multiclassing in 5e, and One D&D is just making it even easier to get them with a level 1 feat. It's not a big advantage in terms of class features overall, often casters will have AC higher than Fighters since they can use a shield without lowering their damage as much.
GMforPowergamers
Legend
I'm sorry but I have not in 5ish editions over almost 30 years seen that outside of 3.5 "golf bag" and even then most people had 1 defualt and a bunch of "in one case use"
I mean I am pretty sure my bladesinger/artificer is going to find a longsword... the DM isn't going to roll random. MY artificer the DM DOES roll random (at the table at that) so we could end up with a weapon we don't normally use but it would have to be earth shaking awesome for us not to just throw it in the party pool
NO I don't believe it is. that is why when back in 3e it DID happen it was called out as odd and funny on there boards
everything is a player issue according to you
GMforPowergamers
Legend
5e bounded accuracy means the whole table most likely has a similar AC even if they get it different ways.
Sacrosanct
Legend
Your anectdotal experience is not evidence. Also, it doesn't override the actual rules, which states fighters can use all weapons. Just because you don't do that doesn't mean the rules don't have it as an important feature. The class description doesn't say "Weapon prof: 1 main one and a backup"
When you're ignoring the actual rules and design to implement a player preference, then yeah. That's literally the definition of a player issue vs design issue.
"Man, this car sucks! It only goes up to 30 mph!"
"No, the car lets you go to 100 mph, you just stop at 30. Press the gas pedal further down."
"Stop saying it's a me thing, the design is bad!"
Sacrosanct
Legend
No. That's not what bounded accuracy means. Like, at all. It's also not even accurate. The whole table does not have similar ACs, not at any level or tier of play.
GMforPowergamers
Legend
no one is ignoring rules...
except teh fighter can't get to 100mph like the bladsinger hexblade or warcleric can... saying "If you imagine a way to roll down hill with a push start" isn't an answer
I think 'one main weapon and a backup' is for sure how it's nearly always used in play. Early on you probably have an image of your character as using one kind of weapon, maybe because it looks cool or because it reflects some part of their culture or personality. To a large extent the feats and fighting styles you pick will also corral you into a particular configuration. Later on you will pick up a magic weapon of one kind or another and then you're pretty much locked in. Yeah I guess if you're a longsword guy and then you find a vorpal quarterstaff +10 you can switch over but other than that the ability to use all weapons is pretty much a nothingburger. It's not like different weapon types make a big difference anyway.
Clint_L
Hero
Me too! What's a thing you have in mind for OneD&D?
I'm trying to think in terms of thematics. I'm asking myself, "what is the heart of each melee class?"
Barbarians: rage
Paladins: mission
Rogues: stealth
Monks: ki
Fighters: ...hmmm. Experience? Knowledge?
This made me realize that one thing fighters possibly lack is a clear enough class concept. When you look at the class description, it is pretty broad ("well-rounded specialists"). But the core idea that is conveyed is of the student of battle, in some form or another. Like the tough sergeant, or grizzled veteran. What those archetypes have in common is knowledge of how to fight. Tactics, really.
Which led me to reflect that the D&D fighter is too heavily built around strength (or dexterity, for a few builds). Intelligence should also play a role in how fighters are designed to play. Could we come up with a new baseline fighter ability that allows them to combine strength and intelligence in some way? Would that make them too MAD?
Incenjucar
Legend
I would like for a fighter's specialty to be changing the tactical situation.
Applying status effects and knocking opponents around, changing distance, etc. This can also apply to their non-combat abilities, where they can function as a support character and have an explicit talent for finding ways to bend a situation to their needs. Madmartigan from Willow is basically a perfect example of a fighter to me - resourceful, able to make a bad situation into a good one, and extremely good at one weapon but good with any.
Sure, but the actual difference between one weapon and another is...what die of damage it rolls?
I know that's oversimplifying; there are weapon qualities, but generally there is a "best" weapon for whatever you are doing, and maybe a few variants that inflict a different damage type, which rarely matters in 5e, as that's design space WotC dipped their toe in, and then backed away from pretty quick.
So if I build my Fighter to be an archer, I want to use a longbow. I can use a shortbow or a crossbow, but there's not much advantage for me to do so, and definitely disadvantages. If I build my Fighter to use a big two hander and deal high base damage, it comes down to reach/no reach, 1d12 or 2d6. If I'm a Dex build, the Rapier is the superior choice. If I use one handed weapons, it mostly comes down to which flavor of d8 I want.
Now with cantrips, while you can run into problems with creatures being resistant or immune to say, fire, overall, energy damage is superior to b/p/s since it bypasses resistant to "non-magical b/p/s" right off the bat. Plus there's the occasional upside of vulnerability to fire/cold/etc.; I don't remember seeing any enemies vulnerable to b/p/s. And then, by taking a slight reduction in damage to a d8, instead of fire bolt for boring damage, we could use say, ray of frost, which has a slight slowing effect every time it is used, something no martial weapon can do.
And that's not even getting into things like Eldritch Blast; force is rarely a bad damage type.
Now if/when weapons get more interesting, the Fighter's ability to use whatever weapon improves, but it's worth noting that every class can get access to at least some martial weapons and generally has access to quite a few simple weapons, so it's not like it's weapons or cantrips. These things are not exactly analogous to one another.
Gorck
Prince of Dorkness
So if your greataxe wielding Fighter stumbles across a magic greatsword, you're just going to toss it aside because you only use one weapon: a greataxe?
Incenjucar
Legend
A big thing you can do for fighters that doesn't swing the game math too much is to give them a reduction to penalties for trying stupid things. Reduced fall damage, reduced trap damage, and reduced damage from falling debris would open up a number of "I can't believe I'm doing this" moments.
Sacrosanct
Legend
If you are choosing to only use one or two weapons as a counter argument to me using all cantrips as a comparison, then yeah, you're choosing to ignore the rules. Because the rules say fighters get all weapons. The rules say casters don't get all cantrips. That's the important distinction I was making when I said that the first time.
That wasn't what was being argued. What was being argued was that the fighter gets all weapons and you're choosing to only use one or two. Thus the analogy.
Again, when I say fighters can use all weapons and someone says "well casters can cast cantrips all day" and I counter that with "fighters can use all weapons, casters can't use all cantrips.", and then you come back with "well, I don't know anyone who uses more than 1 or two weapons", that literally is you making a player decision that ignores the rules of what a fighter's capability actually is. That's fine; it's your preference. But it's not a design issue because it's your choice to ignore that.
Likely no, but what really changes? Wow, I do 2d6 slashing instead of 1d12 slashing. My Fighter's paradigm is blown, man!
W'rkncacnter
Hero
i mean, more likely the greataxe is getting tossed away since it's strictly inferior at that point. the only exception i can think of is if the greataxe is important to that character in some way (maybe it's a family heirloom) or the character is flavoured as not actually knowing how to use swords despite their proficiency (in which case, yeah, the sword is getting tossed).
...this is just a pf2e fighter (well, except that they don't get many more out-of-combat abilities then anyone else, but you can make them more then functional out of combat). maybe we should just steal ideas from other systems. after all, as all rogues know, theft is based.
Sacrosanct
Legend
No, they (general they, not GMfPG specifically) will complain, and try to convince the GM to change it to a greataxe
Incenjucar
Legend
...do fighters not specialize in specific weapon types these days? Nobody is taking Great Weapon Master?
Zubatcarteira
Now you're infected by the Musical Doodle
If you have the Shield Master feat and the Dueling Fighting Style to go sword and board, then you find a good magic greatsword, you're basically throwing away two features. Having a lot weapon proficiencies doesn't necessarily make you that versatile since feats and fighting styles can still make it way better to focus on just 1 type of weapon.
Similar Threads
