D&D (2024) Fighter brainstorm

[Incenjucar]

Fighter damage may be fine. I'm more interested in them getting other things to do than be a Rock'em Sock'em Robot.

 

[Sacrosanct]

okay this is funy... most fighters have a melee weapon they picked and that;s it... i would say a plurality of them have a ranged one as well... but no fighter is useing axe, sword, mace, staff, chain any more then a wizard is useing all the cantrips... but you know who can now swap them out if you use tahsa;s making all aavlaibul... wizard.

I hate to break it to you, but yes they do. That's kind of a key class feature. One that's valuable because you never know what better weapon you might find in the adventure. It might be your experience that fighters only use one weapon, but that very much is the exception and not the norm. And it's most certainly a player issue and not design issue, because design says they can use all of them.

 

[Zubatcarteira]

The issue with armor and shields is that it's very, very easy to get them with multiclassing in 5e, and One D&D is just making it even easier to get them with a level 1 feat. It's not a big advantage in terms of class features overall, often casters will have AC higher than Fighters since they can use a shield without lowering their damage as much.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I hate to break it to you, but yes they do. That's kind of a key class feature.

I'm sorry but I have not in 5ish editions over almost 30 years seen that outside of 3.5 "golf bag" and even then most people had 1 defualt and a bunch of "in one case use"

One that's valuable because you never know what better weapon you might find in the adventure.

I mean I am pretty sure my bladesinger/artificer is going to find a longsword... the DM isn't going to roll random. MY artificer the DM DOES roll random (at the table at that) so we could end up with a weapon we don't normally use but it would have to be earth shaking awesome for us not to just throw it in the party pool

It might be your experience that fighters only use one weapon, but that very much is the exception and not the norm.

NO I don't believe it is. that is why when back in 3e it DID happen it was called out as odd and funny on there boards

And it's most certainly a player issue and not design issue, because design says they can use all of them.

everything is a player issue according to you

 

[GMforPowergamers]

The issue with armor and shields is that it's very, very easy to get them with multiclassing in 5e, and One D&D is just making it even easier to get them with a level 1 feat. It's not a big advantage in terms of class features overall, often casters will have AC higher than Fighters since they can use a shield without lowering their damage as much.

5e bounded accuracy means the whole table most likely has a similar AC even if they get it different ways.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I'm sorry but I have not in 5ish editions over almost 30 years seen that outside of 3.5 "golf bag" and even then most people had 1 defualt and a bunch of "in one case use"

Your anectdotal experience is not evidence. Also, it doesn't override the actual rules, which states fighters can use all weapons. Just because you don't do that doesn't mean the rules don't have it as an important feature. The class description doesn't say "Weapon prof: 1 main one and a backup"

everything is a player issue according to you

When you're ignoring the actual rules and design to implement a player preference, then yeah. That's literally the definition of a player issue vs design issue.

"Man, this car sucks! It only goes up to 30 mph!"
"No, the car lets you go to 100 mph, you just stop at 30. Press the gas pedal further down."
"Stop saying it's a me thing, the design is bad!"

 

[Sacrosanct]

5e bounded accuracy means the whole table most likely has a similar AC even if they get it different ways.

No. That's not what bounded accuracy means. Like, at all. It's also not even accurate. The whole table does not have similar ACs, not at any level or tier of play.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

When you're ignoring the actual rules and design to implement a player preference, then yeah. That's literally the definition of a player issue vs design issue.

no one is ignoring rules...

"Man, this car sucks! It only goes up to 30 mph!"
"No, the car lets you go to 100 mph, you just stop at 30. Press the gas pedal further down."
"Stop saying it's a me thing, the design is bad!"

except teh fighter can't get to 100mph like the bladsinger hexblade or warcleric can... saying "If you imagine a way to roll down hill with a push start" isn't an answer

 

[soviet]

Your anectdotal experience is not evidence. Also, it doesn't override the actual rules, which states fighters can use all weapons. Just because you don't do that doesn't mean the rules don't have it as an important feature. The class description doesn't say "Weapon prof: 1 main one and a backup"

I think 'one main weapon and a backup' is for sure how it's nearly always used in play. Early on you probably have an image of your character as using one kind of weapon, maybe because it looks cool or because it reflects some part of their culture or personality. To a large extent the feats and fighting styles you pick will also corral you into a particular configuration. Later on you will pick up a magic weapon of one kind or another and then you're pretty much locked in. Yeah I guess if you're a longsword guy and then you find a vorpal quarterstaff +10 you can switch over but other than that the ability to use all weapons is pretty much a nothingburger. It's not like different weapon types make a big difference anyway.

 

[Clint_L]

Fighter damage may be fine. I'm more interested in them getting other things to do than be a Rock'em Sock'em Robot.

Me too! What's a thing you have in mind for OneD&D?

I'm trying to think in terms of thematics. I'm asking myself, "what is the heart of each melee class?"

Barbarians: rage
Paladins: mission
Rogues: stealth
Monks: ki
Fighters: ...hmmm. Experience? Knowledge?

This made me realize that one thing fighters possibly lack is a clear enough class concept. When you look at the class description, it is pretty broad ("well-rounded specialists"). But the core idea that is conveyed is of the student of battle, in some form or another. Like the tough sergeant, or grizzled veteran. What those archetypes have in common is knowledge of how to fight. Tactics, really.

Which led me to reflect that the D&D fighter is too heavily built around strength (or dexterity, for a few builds). Intelligence should also play a role in how fighters are designed to play. Could we come up with a new baseline fighter ability that allows them to combine strength and intelligence in some way? Would that make them too MAD?