GMforPowergamers
Legend
everyone loves when teh longsword and shield paladin finds a great axe and says "but I have a sword and board character"
Fighter brainstorm
- Thread starter mellored
- Start date
GMforPowergamers
Legend
that was the time for the most optimization for switching weapons... silver shortsword was better then a non sivler great sword if they are immune to non silver... but once you get a magic great sword that changed a bit... in 3.5 most DR was over come by magic in 3.0 there was times silver or adamantine (and I want to say at least once gold) weapons were needed.
GMforPowergamers
Legend
a 20th level fighter has 42 more hp then the wizard with the same con, and 21 more then the bard, warlock, cleric ect
they have 2 extra ASI/feats and can action surge 2/short rest second wind 1/ short rest and reroll 3 saves per day.
I don't think that looking at numbers on a page is hugely helpful when comparing classes. They play nothing alike and wizards, rogues, clerics, and warlocks don't feel as durable as fighters or barbarians. I'd be fine if con bonuses to hp were capped at +2 for non-fighter classes like 1e but since they are all being re-classified, that could lead to interesting results.
Fighters have more reason to invest in con so are naturally more likely to have higher hp. They should have some basic combat moves to add some versatility though. Maybe look at which popular moves battlemaster players always take and roll them into the main class.
GMforPowergamers
Legend
I don;t know what this means... it like it's brother statement "you don't have facts that would hold up in science" strike me as weird...
we are all on a message board. We are all talking lossly with onl;y our own experiences.
How do you propose we talk on a message board (one that I have over the years given at least a dozen examples of real life play for this discusssion) OTHER then 'words or numbers on a page'?
I guess that depends... I don't often see wizards (even bladesingers) that feel that way but I have. Rogue can be playe SUPRISINGLY tanky once they gain the reaction that takes half damage.
Warlocks are amazingg at tanks even without useing hexblade (my fey lock started with shiligh...the druid cantrip and ended with primal savagry 'metal teeth bite' and con was my second best stat)
Maybe YOUR experence of them not feeling that wayis tied to people not saying "I want to refluff something more complex then fighter to be a complex warrior" and taking hexblade or bard of valor... IF someone prioritizes tanking they can do it well without giving up even half the vesitility of the class...
I think that was a good idea... I often say I want 2e hps back but with some front loading... and keep the 5e concept of HD but go back to 4e for most healing costing HD or be 'like you spent a HD'
my example is always start 1st level with 3 HD, but only get 1 HD at odd levels at even levels get +1/+2/+3 depending on class... and NO con bonus to hp... just when you spend HD to heal.
nope... melee characters have more reason to invest in con. A fighter who is expecting to be a gunman or a bow fighter will often prioritize dex then wis with str as a back up... I have almost never seen any melee build of any class not prioritize Con higher then that.
I think we need more of them that interact in other non combat ways too... there are some (was it in tasha?) that give the ability to use them on some skill checks. I think we also need higher level ones... a 9th level battle master should have access to better maneuvers then a 3rd level one... the same way a full caster has 2nd level spells at 3rd and 5th level spells at 9th.
DnD Warlord
Adventurer
I came here hopeing that I was going to get a link to the new playtest but found this argument funny.
Yeah fighters don't have a build that can keep up with a full caster, and yes most or all full casters have a build that can trade some caster power for close to fighter fighting...
the answer is don't play fighters. IF you want complex classes play complex classes. If you want powerful and versatile play casters.
Yeah fighters don't have a build that can keep up with a full caster, and yes most or all full casters have a build that can trade some caster power for close to fighter fighting...
the answer is don't play fighters. IF you want complex classes play complex classes. If you want powerful and versatile play casters.
Vaalingrade
Legend
OldSchoolGamerGirl
Adventurer
All classes matter, just some concepts don't.
Wizards does not care about concepts of a strong competent warrior if you also want a complex class
Vaalingrade
Legend
And therefore warriors don't matter.
But they could. We could start having good, focused game design any day now. We know they can do it. They were doing it right up until the last playtest pack!
Minigiant: Have Fighters be the complex nonmagical Warrior and Barbarian be the simple nonmagical warrior.
Community: No.
Mingiant: But that solves all the problems.
Community: No.
Mingiant: But the class is literally called the barbarian and the trope is being a big dumb violent idiot. Whereas the fighter lore has been about replicating masters of martial weapons and armors combat from history, legends, stories, and myth for over 20 years now.
Community: No.
Mingiant: But that's the simplest solution.
Community: No.
Mingiant: How about giving fighters a baseline social feature so it can actually replicate the tropes of charming knights, bluffing duelists, tactical generals, perceptive archers, and scary axe murderers without sacrificing combat ability a ton because bigger numbers is all fighters have?
WOTC: No.
Mingiant: WOTC you too?
WOTC: No.
Mingiant: Ok Ok. How about branching choices?Offer a choice of simple or complex, all combat or combat + physique or combat + mind
Community: No.
WOTC: That's subclasses.
Mingiant: No, it isnt. Just add more official nonmagical warrior classes for a chance, you geezer-mage.
Community: No.
Mingiant: But that solves all the problems.
Community: No.
Mingiant: But the class is literally called the barbarian and the trope is being a big dumb violent idiot. Whereas the fighter lore has been about replicating masters of martial weapons and armors combat from history, legends, stories, and myth for over 20 years now.
Community: No.
Mingiant: But that's the simplest solution.
Community: No.
Mingiant: How about giving fighters a baseline social feature so it can actually replicate the tropes of charming knights, bluffing duelists, tactical generals, perceptive archers, and scary axe murderers without sacrificing combat ability a ton because bigger numbers is all fighters have?
WOTC: No.
Mingiant: WOTC you too?
WOTC: No.
Mingiant: Ok Ok. How about branching choices?Offer a choice of simple or complex, all combat or combat + physique or combat + mind
Community: No.
WOTC: That's subclasses.
Mingiant: No, it isnt. Just add more official nonmagical warrior classes for a chance, you geezer-mage.
Last edited:
Anyway, as a fan of pro wrestling, I always thought that the fighter due to being a master of combat would be able to freely choose their secondary score by adaption of what they are naturally good at to their fighting style.
Powerhouses and Monsters would be able to push Strength into notpower situations.
Aerialists and Speedsters can push Dexterity for quick barrages.
Hardcores and Brawlers can lean into Constitution to lean harder into heedless attacks.
Technicians and Geniuses who studied and practiced many fighting styles would use Intelligence to pick out a perfect attack on the fly for more accuracy.
Gatekeepers and Veterans could recall experiences to add Wisdom to defenses and saves.
Weirdos and Showman can use Charisma to daze, confuse, enrage, or embarrass foes with less damaging attacks.
Powerhouses and Monsters would be able to push Strength into notpower situations.
Aerialists and Speedsters can push Dexterity for quick barrages.
Hardcores and Brawlers can lean into Constitution to lean harder into heedless attacks.
Technicians and Geniuses who studied and practiced many fighting styles would use Intelligence to pick out a perfect attack on the fly for more accuracy.
Gatekeepers and Veterans could recall experiences to add Wisdom to defenses and saves.
Weirdos and Showman can use Charisma to daze, confuse, enrage, or embarrass foes with less damaging attacks.
mellored
Legend
It would take a fair bit of rewriting the barbarian for it to work. Like completely rewriting rage and reckless attack.
IMO, the best solution would be something like..
"you gain this simple passive, or you may select a maneuver from the list below".
Rage sure. Reckless Attack is simple on the player's side.
To me, a lot of the fighter's issues boil down to fans wanting the game to allow players to play the Barbarian Meme PC but into on a Barbarian.
Big dumb tough guy who smash stuff with simple actions is the Barbarian. Has been for decades now.
I think the people who want to roleplay using Sensei Mutashi's Waterfall Sword Style, squiring under Sir Geddrick of Lansdale, or training the Art of Fencing for the Order of the Burned Rose aren't looking for a simple warrior or a warrior with no innate exploration or social strengths.
GMforPowergamers
Legend
That is how I feel all the time. Like in 4e I made a character that's short hand elevator pitch was "Stargate's Lt Coln Shepard meets B5's capt Sheridan by way of cyclops/duke"
the longer version was: I was a member of a military and I was rising through the ranks... until I disobey orders to save a village... that got me busted down to 'going nowhere'. when a few months later I took a huge risk to save the rest of my squad I was kicked out... the kicker being I DID save that town, and I DID save my squad. My history of "going against orders" was actually me thinking outside the box and turning a bearly adequate defense into an effective offense.
Now can I write that background today. Yes 100% in 5e I can story point that. HOWEVER short of house rules or DM fiat there is no way for me to play it in game.
MY buddy tried to run a character in 3e then DID run it in 4e much better that was a warrior that studdied magic even though he didn't cast spells... in 5e it would be less effective then the 4e one but still better then the 3e one.
GMforPowergamers
Legend
like I keep saying we need more non magic classes so we can cover play style and concepts... we have artificer, bard, sorcerer, warlock and wizard as JUST arcane casters along with arcane trickster and eldritch knight.... we have cleric druid paliden ranger all as the divine ones... we then have rogue monk fighter and barbarian... but really if we broke up the fighter in 3 it would work SO much better.
a champion as a simple "I swing and hit and take hits"
a warlord/warblade/swordsage/anime sword dude as a complex I fight with weapons but have the same breath of at least a half caster
eldritch knight/bladesinfer/swordmage as a half arcane caster with features and spells that interact with weapons and spells at the same time
Vaalingrade
Legend
And we're back to 'unable to operate rage'.
The best solution is respecting new players enough to assume they are intelligent enough to play the game.
I don't think it would be too hard to fix rage for a simple class, how about having it trigger when an event occurs like "an enemy hits you for 25% or more of your hit points" and you enter rage until there are no enemies you can see.
Vaalingrade
Legend
'Fixing' rage is as simple as abandoning the desperate need for resource attrition and embracing encounter based mechanics.
Once per encounter, you can rage for a number of rounds equal to your CON mod. These things can end the rage early.
Fin.
Once per encounter, you can rage for a number of rounds equal to your CON mod. These things can end the rage early.
Fin.
GMforPowergamers
Legend
yeah a rage mechanic that adds prof to damage (so no extra chart) and gives resist all but psychic that can be used as a bonus action and lasts until unconsuis or you have no enemy to attack but recharges anytime you take a minute to 'catch your breath' is SUPER EASY
you can gain advantage on attacks but grant advantage until the start of your next turn (when you can choose to do so again) is SUPER EASY
Similar Threads
