D&D (2024) Fighter brainstorm

[GMforPowergamers]

Fighters have been an issue since at least 2E. I cannot speak to earlier than that.

I don't know. I think for balance it goes 4e then 2e, then any and every edition until the bottom is the 3e/3.5/pff1 set

in 2e wizards (all casters) had real limits on them, heck jut the save system of "I get better at all saves as I level" made spells hit or miss

 

[Sacrosanct]

and the modern wizard wasn't invented yet either... you DID have simple casters too... you had a couple of spells and had to prep them in the slot to use them. the fighter DID have as much or more flexibility and there were not skills or feats but there were non weapon profs...

This is some serious goal post shifting. The argument the whole time has been "casters can do amazing things because the rules (spells) told them they can, and fighters can't." That has been true since day 1. To now try to frame it as casters were more simple back then is not only goal post shifting, it's also not true. Even from the start, casters were more complex than fighters, and could do amazing things because of magic.

Also, it completely ignores the argument being made now, in this thread: simple classes are bad because you're tied to mother-may-I. And my point, again, is to say that's a player issue and not a rules issue because that has existed for decades and we didn't universally have those "mother-may-I" problems that's being presented here. Which proves it's a player issue otherwise everyone would have had those problems if it was a design issue.

it is bunk

The post quotes of people making those statements seem to prove it's true, regardless of what you say.

 

[James Gasik]

Fighters have been an issue since at least 2E. I cannot speak to earlier than that.

They were an issue in 2e? Sorry, can you elaborate? I played a TON of 2e, and they were always a popular and solid choice to play. I'm wondering what I missed.

 

[Incenjucar]

They were an issue in 2e? Sorry, can you elaborate? I played a TON of 2e, and they were always a popular and solid choice to play. I'm wondering what I missed.

As a group of middle schoolers, we handed the fighter off to the least nerdy person in the group quite consistently. I played a fighter once and chafed mightily against the limitations and ended up playing them as a low-skill rogue just to survive. Never set so many traps in the whole rest of my D&D career. These are all old discussions.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

This is some serious goal post shifting. The argument the whole time has been "casters can do amazing things because the rules (spells) told them they can, and fighters can't."

yup... and that problem (maybe) exsisited in 1995 when I started, but I didn't see it pre 2000

That has been true since day 1.

except it hasn't.... wizard could throw 1 magic missle or 1 detect magic or 1 mage armor...

today a 2nd level hexblade can have mage armor at will eldritch blast at will and 1hp less then the fighter per level...

To now try to frame it as casters were more simple back then is not only goal post shifting, it's also not true.

it's not shifting it's explaining. balance was always rough but it got shattered in 2000 fixed in 2008 and back to broken but not as bad in 2014

Even from the start, casters were more complex than fighters, and could do amazing things because of magic.

within limits that have eroded more and more

Also, it completely ignores the argument being made now, in this thread: simple classes are bad because you're tied to mother-may-I.

simple classes aren't bad if they are an option... they are bad when the only way to play an archtype is them (aka fighter and rogue)

And my point, again, is to say that's a player issue and not a rules issue

and myt point is clear... there CAN be a pl;ayer issue but the rules issue is what we can fix so lets fix that.

because that has existed for decades and we didn't universally have those "mother-may-I" problems that's being presented here.

please show your work here... how does pre internet 1999 (heck even pre enworld as we know it) prove or show anything? maybe I'm wrong and there WAS a big out cry then?

Which proves it's a player issue otherwise everyone would have had those problems if it was a design issue.

if it was a player issue in 2004 why would those same players not have it in 1995? what changed (the rules)?

The post quotes of people making those statements seem to prove it's true, regardless of what you say.

my current tuesday night game hasd 3 players I met in 1995. 1 of them was already running D&D and had 2 friends that they had played 1e with... those 2 friends and the one from tuesday are in my saterday game.

so right now that is 6 of us (me, 2 tuesday 2 saterday 1 overlap to both) that played 2e, 3e, 4e, and 5e (technically 1 of the tuesday sat out 4e) and we all see it now and not then... it started in about 2001ish... those of us that played 4e never found it in 4e.

so same players how do we not see it for some editions but see it in others?

 

[Sacrosanct]

yup... and that problem (maybe) exsisited in 1995 when I started, but I didn't see it pre 2000

except it hasn't.... wizard could throw 1 magic missle or 1 detect magic or 1 mage armor...

today a 2nd level hexblade can have mage armor at will eldritch blast at will and 1hp less then the fighter per level...

A 1e wizard could charm person a guard to be their personal lacky for a week or more. And that's just at level 1. 1e was full of magic scrolls and wands even if you ignore how mid level MUs were slinging around fireballs and more. So yes, if the argument is "casters get to do all these spectacular things and fighters can't", then that existed since day 1. And it wasn't a design problem back then of fighters not being able to do anything other than "mother may I." Again, that is a player issue, not a design issue otherwise everyone would have had the same design issues, and we didn't. Why? Because...

please show your work here... how does pre internet 1999 (heck even pre enworld as we know it) prove or show anything? maybe I'm wrong and there WAS a big out cry then?

...if it was an issue, you'd think the letters section would be full of people complaining about it. Or they would have made a correction when 2e came out if it was such a big deal. It didn't happen. Players being beholden to DM's whim at an unreasonable level is a player issue. It's a bad DM. Nothing mechanically is causing that issue. Like I said above, most of those "cool moves' were done using an ability check, or attack roll, or some other existing rule as a guideline. We didn't need a specific power if a broader rules guideline could cover it, and lack of a specific power does not mean you couldn't do anything. To say that your PC couldn't do X if they didn't have a specific ability or power for it is flat out false. Do you think that no one for decades ever had their fighters do cool stuff in the game? You literally have people in this thread telling you that a mechanically simpler fighter allows them to do more, not less, because they weren't constrained by a tighter rule system. Are you calling them a liar?

But back to the point, no one here advocating for a simpler class is saying complex classes are bad or should be excluded, or that people who prefer complex classes have no imagination. That's a strawman. There have been folks saying the game should exclude simpler classes, however...

 

[Incenjucar]

Again, they can have the slayer and elementalist in the game, that's fine. They just don't need to make fighters all simple by default to do so.

Heck even in 2E we had the superior gladiator class.

 

[Emberashh]

Nothing mechanically is causing that issue.

But it can be exacerbating it. For instance, if one poorly explains DCCs Mighty Deed mechanic, it'll sound like its a massive Mother May I mechanic.

But, if one explains it properly, and shows how the Deed just works as long as they make the roll, then you negate that.

The Skill system is an instance where theres no such dividing line that says making the roll means whatever the player rolls for works, and this in turn gets exacerbated by DMs being the explicit arbiter of when a Skill Check is even called for, which gives them the ability to deny a Skill Check even if it isn't reasonable.

So, yes, its a player issue, but one the system isn't helping mitigate. Skills need a clearer upper boundary to what they can enable characters to do on successes and players need a more direct role in dictating when such rolls can happen. Some options exist for this, but they are variously obscurred (Improvise Action), unhelpful (blurbs), or underbaked (generalized DC chart).

 

[Sacrosanct]

They just don't need to make fighters all simple by default to do so.

Who is saying they do?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

A 1e wizard could charm person a guard to be their personal lacky for a week or more. And that's just at level 1.

I didn't play 1e so I'm not sure if it's the same as 2e, but in 2e the save for charm person was a save vs spells and it started at 15 or 16 so you had a 25ish% chance to just say no, and that wizard had 0 spells untiil the next day. once you got to level 5 or 6 that was closer to 50/50

today you have a DC of 8+ prof + stat mod... so the DC starts around 13 but could be as high as 15 but that charm lasts less time.

but again no wizard today is chooseing between charm and 4 other spells... they are preping 4 spells so charm is only eating up 1 prep spot and they cast 2... BUT they also have 3 cantrips at will.

you see the wizard has gotten MORE versitile not less and the wizard has gotten MORE power...


now a 2e fighter had 1d10hp maybe with +1 from con and the wizard had 1d4 hp most likely not but maybe _1 from con... if you used the max 1st level rule it was 11 or12 vs 4 or 5


in 5e max 1st level is the default and the fighter has 10+ 2 or 3 most likely and the wizard has 6+1 or 2 most likely... so we went from 11 vs 5 to 12 or 13 vs 7 or 8

level 2 the wizard gets 1 more spell preped and 1 more spell per day... or in 5e 1 more spell preped and 1 more spell perday, but remember I can prep detect magic, charm person, magic missle, burning hands, and disguise self and just use those 2 spells per day (plus recall 1 for short rest ) all for detect magic or all for burning hands or all for disguise self or 1 for disguise and 1 for detect and 1 for magic missle or any other combanation.... OH and the 5e wizard gets a subclass ability.

you don't see the wizard getting a MASSIVE buff here?

1e was full of magic scrolls and wands even if you ignore how mid level MUs were slinging around fireballs and more.

fireballs that you had to be acerful didin't back blast, and that again took up slots not just per day but preped... if you have 2 3rd level spells and you want to be able to cast fireball in both now you can prep it once, then you had to prep it as the ONLY 3rd level spell

So yes, if the argument is "casters get to do all these spectacular things and fighters can't", then that existed since day 1.

they just used to have limiters on them. by the time you could throw a fireball most spells you throw were 50/50 the target makes there save... today at best 1/3 of the time (2 prof saves) the target keeps up with the same level you do for DC.

And it wasn't a design problem back then of fighters not being able to do anything other than "mother may I."

because wizards had no hp, could not be prof in armor, or most weapons, and had to prep spells that were going to be saved against as often as not and some enemies just had a % chance to negate it... all those options came with MASSIVE restrictions.

Again, that is a player issue, not a design issue otherwise everyone would have had the same design issues, and we didn't. Why? Because...

if it was a player issue why do the same players run into it in 3e/3.5 and 5e but not 2e and 4e... if it was a player issue it would come up in all 4.

Players being beholden to DM's whim at an unreasonable level is a player issue. It's a bad DM. Nothing mechanically is causing that issue.

wrong, like I just showed... take the same group run them in 2e, 3e, 4e, and 5e you will see the issue in the two that the mechanic problem is there. (now 4e and 2e handle the solution VERY diffrent but they do both handle it)

Like I said above, most of those "cool moves' were done using an ability check, or attack roll, or some other existing rule as a guideline.

or weapon and non weapon profs

To say that your PC couldn't do X if they didn't have a specific ability or power for it is flat out false.

my player as a 9th level fighter can not raise the dead, a cleric can.

Do you think that no one for decades ever had their fighters do cool stuff in the game?

becusae the cool stuff the fighter could do were hit, have hps and shrug off spell effect... it wasn't "Oh my fighter does 20% more damage thent eh wizard" it was "My fighter deals 5x the damage of the wizard" it wasn't "My fighter had 2hp per level (+4 at 1st level) then teh wizard it was "I have double maybe tripple the hp of the wizard:" and that wizard had HUGE limits (spell known spells prep spells per day)

You literally have people in this thread telling you that a mechanically simpler fighter allows them to do more, not less, because they weren't constrained by a tighter rule system. Are you calling them a liar?

yes. I am. (I mean I am normally more generous and assume they don't understand, the concept of the problem like you don't seem to)
there is nothing a fighter can do with an ability check or skill or feat that a wizard can't do with an ability check skill or feat.

But back to the point, no one here advocating for a simpler class is saying complex classes are bad or should be excluded, or that people who prefer complex classes have no imagination. That's a strawman. There have been folks saying the game should exclude simpler classes, however...