D&D (2024) Fighter brainstorm

[James Gasik]

IMO fighters are another class that, like paladin, need tinkering rather than significant changes. There is a nice balance of simple options and more complicated ones, with sub-classes like Battlemaster widely considered top tier choices.

I think most of the work in fighters should happen at the sub-class level. Weapon specialization is an old school skill that I think could be brought back as a class feature, though with something more imaginative than a simple hit/damage bonus.

I don't know, I think the base class should be more interesting; you shouldn't have to get all your flavor and interesting abilities from your subclass (at least not until WotC starts expanding subclasses so you get abilities more often from them).

 

[mellored]

We need go have a simple class for people who just want to stand there and roll until something is dead, and only count the number of hit points.

That gets to be the fighter.

We don't need more than one of those classes though. So monks should be all over the place, and even barbarians could use a notch up in complexity. And maybe even a new sword mage class.

 

[Vaalingrade]

We need go have a simple class for people who just want to stand there and roll until something is dead, and only count the number of hit points.

They can watch. Their own, private Critical Role.

 

[James Gasik]

Yeah, I'm not sure we "need" a training wheels class. And I know people who have a hard time with even simple classes, lol. I do not believe that there is a way you can make a simple class that is balanced against one with more options.

Which means that by accepting a training wheels class in the system, I have to accept unbalanced classes, which I don't like. Everyone should have equal opportunities, whether they employ them or not.

 

[Incenjucar]

If people want a training wheels class, add the Slayer and the Cantripper and let everyone else play an interesting martial class.

 

[Emberashh]

The Barbarian ought to be the simple, brain dead class because the fiction is thematically synchronous with how people tend to play them.

 

[Vaalingrade]

The Barbarian ought to be the simple, brain dead class because the fiction is thematically synchronous with how people tend to play them.

People insist Rage is too difficult.

 

[Emberashh]

People insist Rage is too difficult.

Some people ought to be playing something else.

 

[Stalker0]

Turn Indomitable into Legendary Resistance, 1/day the fighter just says no to a saving throw, THAT is cool.

I like the idea of maneuvers being innate to the fighter, and have them switchable each day (I mean everyone's doing the switch thing now, lets give the fighter the same love). Then right at the top of the maneuver list, do something like: "Critical Strike: cost 3 maneuver slots, increase your crit range to 19". That allows people to just pick the simple champion boost if they want, or go more complex with other maneuvers.

 

[Clint_L]

Yeah, I'm not sure we "need" a training wheels class. And I know people who have a hard time with even simple classes, lol. I do not believe that there is a way you can make a simple class that is balanced against one with more options.

Which means that by accepting a training wheels class in the system, I have to accept unbalanced classes, which I don't like. Everyone should have equal opportunities, whether they employ them or not.

Fighters. Barbarians. A-S tier classes right now. With simple and more complex options.

Also, the "training-wheels class" expression is offensive. Some folks just prefer a simpler class, not because they are stupid or don't know the rules, but because that's what they enjoy.