OneDnD Fighter Class rewrite

[Garthanos]

I like a lot of what you are proposing, but I haven't reviewed it in detail. One of the things I think a fighter needs to do is be the best at fighting. So I think it needs some benefits that are combatants don't get.

I am probably odd but I have started to think the best "balanced" way to make a fighter best at fighting is to make them what would be fully role flexible in 4e terms. But even in that I do think increasing the number of allowed opportunity attacks to match the extra attacks would help.

 

[Garthanos]

I like Warrior’s Multiattack
quite a bit however because I can build a 4e fighter who sort of does all three *(The against the horde functionality in 4e takes picking specific powers and some are pretty significant/very cherry ones. )

So in this idea what if Against the Horde was just a battlemaster maneuver. You only situationally ever need this.

Combine that with a universal rule of just letting anyone who has extra attack to be able to perform as many as they have extra attacks without spending their reaction as long as they still have their reaction.

Opportunity attacks also only occurs situationally. Though there is still that Sentinel feat to finish the Defender look and you may have been shooting for without feats.

Action Surge is the only reliable one of the three options you present there in my opinion.

And the above would in effect grant all three options.

 

[dave2008]

I am probably odd but I have started to think the best "balanced" way to make a fighter best at fighting is to make them what would be fully role flexible in 4e terms. But even in that I do think increasing the number of allowed opportunity attacks to match the extra attacks would help.

I wasn't thinking about increasing the number of attacks, but instead of allowing more things to trigger OA for the fighter. So casting, ranged attacks, and getting up from prone would trigger OA from the fighter, to name a few. I would possible include entering reach, but that steps on a feats toes.

 

[Garthanos]

I wasn't thinking about increasing the number of attacks, but instead of allowing more things to trigger OA for the fighter. So casting, ranged attacks, and getting up from prone would trigger OA from the fighter, to name a few. I would possible include entering reach, but that steps on a feats toes.

I figured you did actually there was a feat in 3x that allowed one opportunity attack per dex bonus. 4e had fewer ways to trigger them but the limit was a simple one per turn. I think associating the number you can respond to with your extra attack is very appropriate and scales well (kind of silly if I can attack 4 times normally but only 1 when someone hands me an opportunity?) regardless of whether you open up events that trigger them.

 

[dave2008]

I figured you did actually there was a feat in 3x that allowed one opportunity attack per dex bonus. 4e had fewer ways to trigger them but the limit was a simple one per turn. I think associating the number you can respond to with your extra attack is very appropriate and scales well (kind of silly if I can attack 4 times normally but only 1 when someone hands me an opportunity?) regardless of whether you open up events that trigger them.

Well that is just a difference in what we want. I already don't like the 4 attacks and would find it more ridiculous if fighter could take 4 reactions as well (for 8 possible attacks). I think what I find ridiculous you see as closer to epic. I would be fine with allowing extra reactions at the expense of actions/bonus actions on your next turn or something like that though ( I know, I know - I'm no fun).

 

[Garthanos]

Well that is just a difference in what we want. I already don't like the 4 attacks and would find it more ridiculous

I know there are real life people shooting four full draw arrows in 6 seconds, and others shooting many more using snap shot and multi-draw techniques ... your oh gosh how ridiculous is pretty close to reality, wait no your dont like is reality.

And a weapon stroke does not necessarily involve as much investment (and even less so when it is an opportunity action)

When you are doing 4 attacks you are supposed to be legendary and epic like Hiawatha and not mundane.

Might as well play a game without spell casters... yup no fun in 5e.

 

[dave2008]

I know there are real life people shooting four full draw arrows in 6 seconds, and others shooting many more using snap shot and multi-draw techniques ... your oh gosh how ridiculous is pretty close to reality, wait no your dont like is reality.

And a weapon stroke does not necessarily involve as much investment (and even less so when it is an opportunity action)

When you are doing 4 attacks you are supposed to be legendary and epic like Hiawatha and not mundane.

Might as well play a game without spell casters... yup no fun in 5e.

Not sure what the point if your response is, it just comes off as if you are trying to say that I am playing the game wrong. Don't know if that is your intent, but if it is that us more ridiculous than having 4 reactions in 1 round!

5e works great for us. It is OK that I like to play the game different than you, that my fantasy is different than yours.

 

[Garthanos]

Not sure what the point if your response is, it just comes off as if you are trying to say that I am playing the game wrong. Don't know if that is your intent, but if it is that us more ridiculous than having 4 reactions in 1 round!

Oh no I am sure you are playing rules as written and implied and any other form of unwrong you want to pick

5e works great for us. It is OK that I like to play the game different than you, that my fantasy is different than yours.

I was saying you seem to be applying "realism" standards to something that is both not supposed to be realistic and there are indications that the game as it stands is less extraordinary than real life.

I mean at level 5 having standards be high end quasi-realistic seems reasonable to me but not so much after level 10

 

[ECMO3]

I do not think more than 1 OA would work well for 5E because it breaks action economy and that would I believe severely unbalance the game because of the effect of bounded accuracy (more attacks means a much higher mean damage against a given AC and outrunning the intentional limits put in place with BA).

I think a better option is to base new abilities around the structures and mechanics already in place and in that respect have limited-use abilities to add damage or effects to provide that "epic feel".

 

[Garthanos]

I do not think more than 1 OA would work well for 5E because it breaks action economy

you mean like what the cavalier has they have increased number of opportunity attacks and progressively more as they get higher levels.

The original post suggests being able to use a somewhat similar for the core fighter it is not radical as an option replacing action surge (which makes it worse than taking the Cavalier and completely inferior by endgame but allows one flexibility of still taking a subclass). Arguably the original post enables 3 different approaches without switching to a subclass. Spell casters get many many more choices of that ilk based on their spell selection.

Extra opportunity attacks really only makes someone better able to "thou shall not pass" also remember enemies do not have to trigger them.

There was a UA that had completely open ended opportunity attacks but that was immediately instead of scaled

I actually suggested fewer than in the OP... it makes more sense to limit extra OA to a number like your normal extra attacks.

The cavalier at level 18 has an indefinite number of opportunity attacks even.

 

[ECMO3]

you mean like what the cavalier has they have increased number of opportunity attacks and progressively more as they get higher levels.

The original post suggests being able to use a somewhat similar for the core fighter it is not radical as an option replacing action surge (which makes it worse than taking the Cavalier and completely inferior by endgame but allows one flexibility of still taking a subclass). Arguably the original post enables 3 different approaches without switching to a subclass. Spell casters get many many more choices of that ilk based on their spell selection.

I am not sure what you are referring to in terms of progressively more. The Cavalier does not get additional opportunity attacks until 18th level with Vigilant defender and there is no progressive number.

With Vigilant Defender they can theoretically make a number of reactions limited only by the number of creatures in combat, but they still have to be triggered and they still only get one attack per trigger event. It is also not any reaction, but an opportunity attack specifically, so things like the Sentinel or Mage Slayer that allows a reaction attack do not apply because that is not an "opportunity attack". Finally it is a single attack with each opportunity attack, not an attack action with extra attacks and it is limited to one reaction per turn.

The unwavering mark feature uses a bonus action to make the attack, not a reaction, and you have to give up on another bonus action to use it, so it is limited to 1 additional attack per turn and 5 total per day, so that is not a reaction and not an opportunity attack.

Extra opportunity attacks really only makes someone better able to "thou shall not pass" also remember enemies do not have to trigger them.

I am not sure what you mean. Any reaction needs to be triggered, some abilities give additional ways to trigger OAs, but they do still need to be triggered.

 

[Quickleaf]

I just went back and updated the formatting of my OP to be legible in Dark Mode, and updated the links. Apologies for the delay in making it more accessible – I wasn't expecting this thread to resurface and I had to remove all formatting in order to reformat it correctly. Hopefully that helps for discussion going forward.

EDIT: Also, since I'm painfully aware of how a class write-up can become bloated, I did a quick comparison of my word count (sans designs notes) to the core fighter (sans subclasses, but including alternate class features). My version is just over 3,500 words, while the D&D Beyond version is 2,000 words. By comparison, the D&D Beyond rogue is about 1,750, the cleric is about 2,500, and the warlock is about a whopping 5,500 words. So my Fighter re-write is definitely at the uppermost level of where I would want the word count (i.e. complexity) to be, and in the future I'll be looking for places to bring that down closer to the cleric.

 

[NotAYakk]

Reaction attacks are usually powerful in terms of damge per round, but poor in terms of damge per second of table time.

If you want to make fighters hard to ignore, what I might do is give them a bonus if they have an OA on their next turn against that foe.

That has anniying state, but doesn't ibterrupt gameplay as much.

Stealing from 4e, a fighter might have the ability to mark a foe when they could take an OA. Then on your turn, you deal (level/2) extra weapon dice on your first hit on them.

That is impactful, scales with fighter level, and is naturally limited in both targets and output per target.

There is also counterplay from the other side; avoid being in range of that retribution, or make it too costly.

The more attacks fighters get let them trigger this on more foes, or more reliably on one foe.

 

[Garthanos]

Finally it is a single attack with each opportunity attack, not an attack action with extra attacks and it is limited to one reaction per turn.

Here it is, that was not what I suggested.... I was suggesting that 1 attack per enemy up to a number of times a round equal to your extra attacks (each one must be triggered individually) ie not a burst of them like you were spending a full attack action.

My suggestion was identical to a limited version of the level 18 ability. if 2 people trigger an opportunity at level 5 with my idea you get 1 opportunity attack on one and can still spend your reaction to attack the other. But a third will race past without impairment. Once you can do 3 attacks it will be the third one you need to spend your reaction on

The unlimited number occuring at 18 is basically something that was in a UA feat and identical to something in 4e that in actual use any one could do without issue it just made racing past someone without caution not a good idea. It practice it does not result in a huge number of attacks.

You are right though I forgot how truly limited the Cavaliers Mark is.... it's terrible 5e's defenders are lame. An enemy could even be out of reach of you by the time you get around to punishing them. And you could be ignored a huge amount of the time with impunity in spite of the mark.

 

[Charrend]

@Quickleaf Greetings! I know this thread hasn’t been used in nearly a year, but my group and I really like this rework. I see that you mention subclasses for it, but I can’t seem to find them. Have you posted them somewhere else? Hope to hear from you soon!

 

[Quickleaf]

@Quickleaf Greetings! I know this thread hasn’t been used in nearly a year, but my group and I really like this rework. I see that you mention subclasses for it, but I can’t seem to find them. Have you posted them somewhere else? Hope to hear from you soon!

Hi there Charrend! Glad to hear my tinkering is of interest to your group. I haven't had time to delve into subclass design specific to the mechanics I'm proposing (I am in an intensive architecture program that eats up the free time I had before). However, in my original post I mention a previous fighter rewrite I did called "The Warrior" which does have several interesting subclasses you might use as inspiration for your own designs. Sorry I couldn't be of further help!

 

[Pauln6]

I enjoyed reading this too. I'm a bit concerned that attack the horde synergises a bit too well with multiclassing. I cannot begin to think how much damage a paladin could dish out with only a couple of fighter levels, so maybe attacks based on half your fighter level might be better?

A rules light version to just slot in a few extra abilities as alternate class features might be something I will consider.