GMforPowergamers
Legend
everyone loves when teh longsword and shield paladin finds a great axe and says "but I have a sword and board character"You end up with the DM dictating your character build.
everyone loves when teh longsword and shield paladin finds a great axe and says "but I have a sword and board character"You end up with the DM dictating your character build.
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.But this whole conversation is giving me flashbacks to 3e/3.5e where I always tried to make sure my character had a silvered weapon in case we ran into a were-creature.
a 20th level fighter has 42 more hp then the wizard with the same con, and 21 more then the bard, warlock, cleric ectThe only things that fighters get that's really special is high attack frequency and more feats. Their defensive options aren't nothing but aren't super remarkable either. More feats is pretty nice! Nothing unique obviously, but nice.
Attack frequency is the real standout, but for all the frequency those attacks are pretty limited.
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.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 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...I don't think that looking at numbers on a page is hugely helpful when comparing classes.
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.They play nothing alike and wizards, rogues, clerics, and warlocks don't feel as durable as fighters or barbarians.
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'I'd be fine if con bonuses to hp were capped at +2 for non-fighter classes like 1e
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.Fighters have more reason to invest in con so are naturally more likely to have higher hp.
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.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.
ORI 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.
All classes matter, just some concepts don't.The game could be designed so all classes matter.
And therefore warriors don't matter.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
It would take a fair bit of rewriting the barbarian for it to work. Like completely rewriting rage and reckless attack.Minigiant: Have Fighters be the complex nonmagical Warrior and Barbarian be the simple nonmagical warrior.
Community: No.
Mingiant: But that solves all the problems.
Rage sure. Reckless Attack is simple on the player's side.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".
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"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
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.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 litterally 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, storis, 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, bluffling duelists, tctial generals, perceptive archers, and scary axe murderers without sacificing combat ability a ton becase 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.
And we're back to 'unable to operate rage'.It would take a fair bit of rewriting the barbarian for it to work. Like completely rewriting rage and reckless attack.
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'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.