D&D (2024) Fighter brainstorm

[Incenjucar]

I don't disagree that some people look at options and treat them like constraints, and they may benefit from a more basic class that has fewer options to encourage them to start straining against those limitations, but there's no reason that can't be a caster class instead, and no reason to force people who want martial characters to be forced to play with those same limitations just to cover that specific scenario. It is not a burden that anyone needs to carry.

 

[Clint_L]

I'n trying to think of concrete suggestions for fighters that might actually be implemented for OneD&D (so, not a radical revamp of the entire combat and skills system). I think fighters are currently one of the stronger and more popular classes, so I don't see WotC making substantial changes, but they have hinted at doing more to make weapon choice matter. Fighters are already very good at damage dealing, so I could see something like letting fighters specialize in a particular weapon and thus gain access to a unique maneuver. It would be nice to see options that give players a few more meaningful choices.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

This is saying It isn't a real problem it's the players problem for not being more imaginative or thinking outside the box. I call it a bit of victim blamin

Yeah I love when people try this argument "If you were smarter and more creative you would just do things without out mechanics" because OFCOURSE nothing stops the wizard or druid or warlock from doing anything the champion fighter can with "Creativity and without mechanics"

One of my favorte examples ever of this isn't from online, it was from a game at gencon when someone didi't want a pregen fighter but was told just this... and after the game when they said it wasn't fair they got "stuck" with it the DM said "Did you ever consider pushing over the statue on the dragon, that is wat my players at home would have doen" and he answered without missing a beat "The cleric was size large and had 2 buffs to his strength, if as a group we were going to do it, that would have been her not me"

 

[Sacrosanct]

Yeah I love when people try this argument "If you were smarter and more creative you would just do things without out mechanics"

Literally no one is making that argument. It seems to me to be a strawman set up in order to fuel outrage.

What people are saying is that you don't always need mechanics for something in order to try to attempt it. That in no way means the same as telling someone else they aren't smart enough or more creative. It has nothing to do with intelligence. I has everything to do with preference.

 

[Incenjucar]

We really do not need a class dependant on Mother May I. It creates additional burden on the player and DM while every other player can just DO things.

 

[Sacrosanct]

And before someone chimes in, no "mother may I" typically isn't a problem because most of us play with average to decent DMs and in over 40 years of playing, I can only think of one time where a DM wanted to dictate what players could do unreasonably.

We really do not need a class dependant on Mother May I. It creates additional burden on the player and DM while every other player can just DO things.

See my above post. You're talking about a (rare) player problem. Not a game design problem. And I'd posit the counter argument: We shouldn't eliminate mechanically simpler classes that enable those players to not be restricted to hard coded abilities just because someone had a bad DM somewhere.

Edit Also, your post infers that those simpler classes can't do things unless they get an arbitrary approval by the DM. That doesn't happen. In 99% of the cases, it's not arbitrary, it's based on something like an ability check or determined CR. Just because there isn't a specific rule that allows fighter X to do maneuver Y doesn't mean no rules or guidelines are used by the DM.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Literally no one is making that argument. It seems to me to be a strawman set up in order to fuel outrage.

Literslly I have read that argument... it isn't mine

What people are saying is that you don't always need mechanics

and I agree you don't need mechanics for everything... but once you go to "Not mechanics just try" it is 100% balanced any class can try them (see my example of the buffed cleric vs fighter) HOWEVER when one class gets 10 options and the other 2 but both then can then do 17 things that aren't mechanics just creative then that just changes from 10 vs to to 27 vs 19... it's still 8 difference.

That in no way means the same as telling someone else they aren't smart enough or more creative. It has nothing to do with intelligence. I has everything to do with preference.

if it is just prefrence then we should have simple martial and simple casters also complex martial and complex casters

 

[Incenjucar]

See my above post. You're talking about a (rare) player problem. Not a game design problem. And I'd posit the counter argument: We shouldn't eliminate mechanically simpler classes that enable those players to not be restricted to hard coded abilities just because someone had a bad DM somewhere.

It's a very rare player that needs a simpler class to engage in Mother May I.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

See my above post. You're talking about a (rare) player problem.

define rare. There are dozens of posters in the last year on this sight that have given examples.

Not a game design problem.

yes it is

And I'd posit the counter argument: We shouldn't eliminate mechanically simpler classes that enable those players to not be restricted to hard coded abilities just because someone had a bad DM somewhere.

so agian why can't we have both

 

[Sacrosanct]

define rare. There are dozens of posters in the last year on this sight that have given examples.

Where are the examples? It's always "well, this one time" but no one can actually point to an actual example. No one on these forums has made the argument that someone who prefers complex classes to be less intelligent or not creative enough. That's not what people who prefer simpler classes are saying. Maybe if you go back you might find one person, but what % of the posts are that? And how many posts by DMs have posted that they'd make a ruling that we found unreasonable? That's what rare is. Something that happens....rarely.

yes it is

No it's not. No rules will fix bad players. That's been a given for, well, since forever. If it were a game design problem and not a player problem, then every game table from 1974 to 2000 would have experienced this problem. And we most assuredly did not.

so agian why can't we have both

You can. That's what we have been saying the whole time. No one is saying we should only have simple classes. Rather it's the opposite. It's people like Incenjucar saying we don't need simple classes. I'm sorry, but the "side" that's advocating for exclusion is your side on this.