D&D (2024) Fighter brainstorm

[Incenjucar]

I think the proof of the pudding is in the eating and barbarian and fighter are both two of the most popular classes and consistently highly ranked. So I think your premise is incorrect based on actual game play results.

Also, “inferior” is very subjective. Fighters/barbarians might not have as many options as bards, but the ones they have are very good. Action surge? Rage?

The fighter is also the most complained about. Why does that not matter?

 

[Stalker0]

The fighter is also the most complained about. Why does that not matter?

Compared to monks or rangers? please.

 

[James Gasik]

I think the proof of the pudding is in the eating and barbarian and fighter are both two of the most popular classes and consistently highly ranked. So I think your premise is incorrect based on actual game play results.

Also, “inferior” is very subjective. Fighters/barbarians might not have as many options as bards, but the ones they have are very good. Action surge? Rage?

Rage? A minor damage boost and resistance to damage for a few combats a day? A Wizard could get more benefit out of Tenser's Transformation, and that's just a silly use of a sixth level spell slot, to style on a Barbarian.

Action Surge can net you more attacks, which isn't nothing, but at level 11, just past the point most games end, you get 6 attacks in one round in one combat and then you need to take an hour nap. Maybe if you're only fighting one big enemy that's good, but it's not really fantastic for a larger fight- again, contrast and compare to, I don't know, the impact of Chain Lightning. Which again, is not even a top tier spell.

A Rogue at this level is able to consistently churn out 30 damage a turn and they have a whole host of options for other aspects of the game.

My point is simple: the ability to dish out lots of damage is something EVERY class can do. Saying "well, this class can occasionally do more damage" is all well and good, but that has a very limited utility, unless your game is nothing but an endless array of simple foes that don't require any strategy to defeat than "attack attack attack!".

The Battlemaster, for example, can deal very good damage and aid allies, disable foes, turn misses into hits, hits into misses, and even, if you choose to do it, boost a non-combat ability check. Now that's real power.

"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyse a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects." -Lazarus Long

Dungeons and Dragons is a dynamic game where you may have to solve puzzles, negotiate trap filled corridors, engage foes in a wide variety of different types of terrain and combats, deal with magical spells and effects, plead with Kings to lend aid to towns besieged by undead, travel to other planes, survive in the wilderness, assist in a naval battle, swim underground rivers, climb crumbling towers, sneak past patrols, and yes, on occasion fight dragons.

Every character needs to have some capacity to handle a wide variety of challenges, and the best characters can actually assist their allies in this endeavor.

The Figher is not a master of skills. Nor tactics. Nor even weapons. Yet other classes can keep up with what they do, and offer more utility. Even the humble Barbarian might gain the ability to directly protect their allies from harm or use some spells, like Augury or Clairvoyance.

Currently, the game gives the vast majority of tools to a few classes, and then tells the rest "but hey, at least you can do damage". Except, again, every class can do damage. And more.

That people are fine with this state of affairs never fails to confuse me.

 

[James Gasik]

Compared to monks or rangers? please.

While Monks and Rangers are certainly higher on lists of classes to gripe about, the Fighter is probably the poster child of the "all damage, no utility" arguments.

 

[Incenjucar]

It really can't be stressed enough that real people - not even just extraordinary people, not even just soldiers - can do more than a fighter can, even in combat. Their numbers won't be as high, but they can do significantly more. Your average Ren Faire casual duelist is going to do a wider range of things in a weekend than a fighter can in their whole 20 level career, while also having all the skills of a modern person.

Given the same numbers, they'd get their butts kicked by industrious cosplayers.

 

[aco175]

Instead of buffing the fighter, would nerfing the other classes help? I thought the trade-off being a fighter is that you can swing a sword all day/ every day and casters only got a few big things. Problem is that then they want everyone to rest and the fighter is all wasted since he can still swing his sword.

Would nerfing cantrip damage help? The fighter at 5th level gets to swing a sword dealing 1d8+3 or 1d10+5 depending on your style, but there are some builds that likely deal a lot more. A mage can firebolt for 2d10 and deal not that less average damage- every round all day now. Maybe something that lowers the cantrip makes the fighter's worth go up.

Other marshals get 2 attacks at 5th level and more is something a lot are saying. Would cutting their 2nd attack to 7th or 8th level work? Would boosting fighter's attacks to every 4 levels work?

Fighters need to be good in every pillar of play is another thing I see. I think that a lot of classes are not good in all the pillars. I think most of the non-combat pillars depends on the DM more than fighting, Would opening up feats like skill training to the fighter slots help? Would anyone take them?

 

[Horwath]

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.

Then you buff up warrior NPC class to full class power curve.

Just add more fighting styles over levels,
d12 HD,
extra attacks at levels 5,9,13,17,20.
additional feats/ASIs
expanded crit range at levels 3,7,13,19

 

[Minigiant]

There should be a simple warrior class.

But that should be the barbarian.

There should be a simple expert class as well.
There should be a simple priest class as well.
There should be a simple mage class as well.

 

[Minigiant]

Compared to monks or rangers? please.

Actually yes.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

While the rogue and his sister the wizard read from the book of Amon-Ra, the fighter should be able to run around dodging and parrying and leaping, tumbling, crawling, and smashing his way through a couple dozen mummies, like Rick O'Connell.

Fighters in most D&D are effing BORING. They don't DO enough on their turns! They should be designed to be more dynamic from the start. Make them more fun to play.

In our last session, the playtest lvl 5 devotion paladin with bonus action sacred weapon annihilated what should have been a challenging fight by ignoring all resistances and dishing out real damage.

I expect the new fighter to do similar things. If that is so, I rejoyce.