D&D (2024) Fighter brainstorm

[GMforPowergamers]

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"

 

[GMforPowergamers]

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.

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]

The 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.

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.

 

[Pauln6]

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]

I don't think that looking at numbers on a page is hugely helpful when comparing classes.

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'?

They play nothing alike and wizards, rogues, clerics, and warlocks don't feel as durable as fighters or barbarians.

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'd be fine if con bonuses to hp were capped at +2 for non-fighter classes like 1e

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.

Fighters have more reason to invest in con so are naturally more likely to have higher hp.

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.

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.

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]

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.

 

[Vaalingrade]

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.

OR

Oooooor

The game could be designed so all classes matter.

 

[OldSchoolGamerGirl]

The game could be designed so all classes 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

 

[Vaalingrade]

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

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]

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.