D&D (2024) Fighter brainstorm

[Incenjucar]

I think it's safe to say that nobody is expecting or demanding for fighters to have powers equivalent to Wish, Time Stop, Prismatic Wall, or Mass Polymorph.

 

[Remathilis]

I think it's safe to say that nobody is expecting or demanding for fighters to have powers equivalent to Wish, Time Stop, Prismatic Wall, or Mass Polymorph.

I'd take that bet. I'm sure that the number of people who would want effects on par with 9th level magic is greater than 1. I've seen examples of carving a mountain with a battle axe, jump miles in a single bound, shout a hole into a wall big enough to walk though and kill a man just by staring at him. The kinds of things that are done by Superman or in Chuck Norris jokes.

 

[Pauln6]

I'd take that bet. I'm sure that the number of people who would want effects on par with 9th level magic is greater than 1. I've seen examples of carving a mountain with a battle axe, jump miles in a single bound, shout a hole into a wall big enough to walk though and kill a man just by staring at him. The kinds of things that are done by Superman or in Chuck Norris jokes.

Chuck Norris is a demi-god though and thus is clearly using magic. Superman is more like an angel and thus is clearly using magic. Jackie Chan is a monk and thus clearly using qi. Roseanne Barr is a bard and is clearly using magic against which everyone is making their saves.

Your examples need to be considered within certain parameters.

 

[Zubatcarteira]

I see it all the time people saying that high level spells should be overpowered since they're, ya know, high level spells, and you get at them at the super late level of 13, where the Fighter is getting . . . Indomitable x2, I'm sure that compares to Reverse Gravity or Teleport.

I don't think a Fighter having the equivalent of 9th level spells would be such a big deal. Say, a super AoE intimidation that replicates the Weird spell, or a blade flourish that replicates Blade of Disaster, or a Warlord-type thing that replicates Power Word Heal. When a Wizard can facetank a Tarrasque for 10 minutes and beat it to death by casting Invulnerability and poking it with a sword, I think those aren't big asks.

 

[Remathilis]

Chuck Norris is a demi-god though and thus is clearly using magic. Superman is more like an angel and thus is clearly using magic. Jackie Chan is a monk and thus clearly using qi. Roseanne Barr is a bard and is clearly using magic against which everyone is making their saves.

Your examples need to be considered within certain parameters.

The thing is, people want a high level fighter to be a demigod. They just want his power to be nonmagical.

 

[soviet]

There's definitely a point at which 'I hit people really hard' just doesn't compare to 'I can stop time, clone myself, teleport, and reverse gravity all before lunch'

 

[Sacrosanct]

Fighters are the most popular class in 5e, and one of the strongest, excelling at two principal pillars of the game. No party is disappointed to have a fighter with them. In terms of complexity, that comes down to subclass, and how you choose to play them.

If your standard for good is having as many options as a high level wizard, then that’s not going to happen with a fighter in 5e. It’s just not. It would also be ridiculously unbalanced given how good fighters already are. So I’m not going to waste time arguing about why fighters should be designed completely different, and will focus on ideas that could actually happen.

You're hitting on one of two points that seems to be ignored in these discussions. Yes, the fighter doesn't have all those wild and crazy spells, but the do have other passive affects that wizards don't have: higher HP, better AC, damage you can do all day long and reliably, etc. It's like people forget that casters are limited to how many spells they can cast and prepare. Almost like people just play 5MWD all the time or something...

If you (general you) start giving fighters powers on par with casters, well now you've made them an uber class and will find yourself needing to buff the casters even more to make them equal. And you end up with an arms race of class design. I saw this because as you say, the fighter is already pretty popular and most people don't seem to have a problem with them being significantly underpowered (judging by survey results)

The second point address the "there's nothing a fighter can do that any other class can't as well." That's not true. Both literally, and in general practice. Wizards or others won't have the stats a fighter typically does (high strength or constitution), so when the player wants to do some great maneuver even if they don't have a specific power for it, and the GM asks for a strength ability check (which is pretty typical IME historically, and almost always roll-under to see if you make it), the fighter has a chance. The wizard has almost no chance of succeeding.
And then for other things like "I throw my shield at the wall, hoping to have it ricochet and hit the creature around the corner.", the caster can't do that. They don't have shields. That's just an example.

So no, it's not true to say "Without powers for the fighter, there is nothing they can do that all the other classes can't."

Edit Again, for clarity, I have no problems with complex fighters with powers. I see a use for them. I see an appeal for them. But I also see a want and need for a simple fighter, and disagree with the assessments some have said around them. Just because something doesn't have a specific power doesn't mean they are more limited (we have one person saying they find them more free, and I agree based on my own experience). Any mother-may-I retort is a red herring.

 

[soviet]

You're hitting on one of two points that seems to be ignored in these discussions. Yes, the fighter doesn't have all those wild and crazy spells, but the do have other passive affects that wizards don't have: higher HP

2 HP per level, wowee. I'd definitely rather have that than Invisibility.

, better AC,

Well, this isn't really a fighter ability unless you mean the fighting style.

damage you can do all day long and reliably, etc. It's like people forget that casters are limited to how many spells they can cast and prepare.

What about cantrips?

If you (general you) start giving fighters powers on par with casters, well now you've made them an uber class and will find yourself needing to buff the casters even more to make them equal. And you end up with an arms race of class design. I saw this because as you say, the fighter is already pretty popular and most people don't seem to have a problem with them being significantly underpowered (judging by survey results)

I'm not sure if you're referring to a specific survey here, but in general I would say that fighters are popular because the idea of a fighter is cool. I wouldn't take it as a measure of how powerful people find the associated rules package. I bet fighters have been popular in every edition, including 3rd.

The second point address the "there's nothing a fighter can do that any other class can't as well." That's not true. Both literally, and in general practice. Wizards or others won't have the stats a fighter typically does (high strength or constitution), so when the player wants to do some great maneuver even if they don't have a specific power for it, and the GM asks for a strength ability check (which is pretty typical IME historically, and almost always roll-under to see if you make it), the fighter has a chance. The wizard has almost no chance of succeeding.
And then for other things like "I throw my shield at the wall, hoping to have it ricochet and hit the creature around the corner.", the caster can't do that. They don't have shields. That's just an example.
So no, it's not true to say "Without powers for the fighter, there is nothing they can do that all the other classes can't."

Your own examples seem to contradict your point. You're talking about putting your points into physical stats rather than mental stats and carrying a shield - there are several other classes that also commonly do this. This is not at all a fighter-only thing. And you could easily make the opposite argument - by having better mental stats, the wizard gets an advantage on perception, investigation, and lore checks. The extremely permissive GM in your shield-bouncing example might allow similar tricks and clever tactics to solve a variety of non-combat problems that a fighter would never have 'almost no chance of succeeding' at.

 

[Incenjucar]

Paladins, Clerics, and Druids have shield proficiency. Wizards can also get War Caster to be able to use a shield along with spells. Wizards can also polymorph into something buff. Not to mention if you can rebound a shield like Captain America you can just as easily rebound an Eldritch Blast unless your DM is just obsessed with ol' Cap specifically.

 

[Sacrosanct]

2 HP per level, wowee. I'd definitely rather have that than Invisibility.

And I'm sure others would rather have more HP every level that last the entire game than one invisibility spell you could cast once and may never even come up where you used it.

Well, this isn't really a fighter ability unless you mean the fighting style.

Fighters can wear any armor. Not all classes can do that.

What about cantrips?

What about them? Fighters can use any weapon, and use it over and over. Which casters can use all cantrips?

I'm not sure if you're referring to a specific survey here, but in general I would say that fighters are popular because the idea of a fighter is cool. I wouldn't take it as a measure of how powerful people find the associated rules package. I bet fighters have been popular in every edition, including 3rd.

I'm talking about the class design surveys WotC put out. The idea that fighters were underpowered never came up as a big issue in those surveys (as shared by Wotc). There were questions specifically around class balance and design, so your assumption isn't accurate.

Your own examples seem to contradict your point. You're talking about putting your points into physical stats rather than mental stats and carrying a shield - there are several other classes that also commonly do this. This is not at all a fighter-only thing. And you could easily make the opposite argument - by having better mental stats, the wizard gets an advantage on perception, investigation, and lore checks. The extremely permissive GM in your shield-bouncing example might allow similar tricks and clever tactics to solve a variety of non-combat problems that a fighter would never have 'almost no chance of succeeding' at.

there's no contradiction there at all. The claim is that "there's nothing a fighter can do that every other class can't." Not every class can use a shield. That one example proves the statement false, which is all that's needed. There are other examples that also support this, but you only need one example proving something false to call it false.
And it's not "an extremely permissive DM." Since day 1, there have been guidelines for how DMs can handle these ad-hoc requests. In fact, if you talk to a lot of old schoolers (like Tim Kask and Gary himself when he was alive), they were huge proponents of "unless it's explicitly denied, allow it." Which is at odds with the post 3e philosophy of "unless it's explicitly permitted, deny it." This is not just me coming up with a slogan--this has been a very common phrase used for a long time.