D&D (2024) Fighter (Playtest 7)

[fluffybunbunkittens]

Wait, Warlock Thirsting Blade invocation now gives blade-Locks 3 attacks at lv11?

So it's not even other martials also getting the Fighter's special thing, it's a random caster.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Wait, Warlock Thirsting Blade invocation now gives blade-Locks 3 attacks at lv11?

So it's not even other martials also getting the Fighter's special thing, it's a random caster.

The warlock continues their legacy of feeling like blatant cheaters and I'm here for it. Especially when the warlock is still going to lose hard to a fighter at melee (melee feats being Str or occasionally Dex based).

 

[Charlaquin]

Wait, Warlock Thirsting Blade invocation now gives blade-Locks 3 attacks at lv11?

So it's not even other martials also getting the Fighter's special thing, it's a random caster.

The Warlock has always gotten Fighter Extra Attack progression, it’s just been limited to Eldritch Blast beams. Giving it to them with their Pact Weapon is just allowing bladelocks to remain competitive with blastlocks. And this only works because warlocks are the caster equivalent of the “simple fighter” - the one that can just say “I attack” every turn, and maybe expend a use of their short rest based resource to add a bit of spice once or twice in an encounter.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

The warlock continues their legacy of feeling like blatant cheaters and I'm here for it.

Hey, I like bladelocks, it's just such a hilarious feature steal. 'hey we heard Fighter has like one thing of their own yoink'

Especially when the warlock is still going to lose hard to a fighter at melee (melee feats being Str or occasionally Dex based).

TGiving it to them with their Pact Weapon is just allowing bladelocks to remain competitive with blastlocks.

I know, I know, I'm not worried about them being better melee warriors (they'd still be more effective by just sticking to being mobile Eldritch Blast turrets), it just feels wrong when a lv11+ Barbarian looks at what they get.

 

[Kurotowa]

Wait, Warlock Thirsting Blade invocation now gives blade-Locks 3 attacks at lv11?

So it's not even other martials also getting the Fighter's special thing, it's a random caster.

I mean, people have always said that 5e Warlocks were a martial class poorly disguised as a caster. :insert How Do You Do Fellow Kids meme: I saw people recommend an Eldritch Blast build Warlock over an Arcane Archer Fighter for a similar but superior play experience. So this isn't so much Warlocks stealing the Fighter's lunch as bringing the Bladelock side up to equal footing with the Tomelock side.

The better question to ask is, "Should a third attack really be the Fighter's special thing or should be it be something most martials get?" Certainly we're having enough debates about how Barbarians don't have a proper damage bump at the start of Tier 3.

Edit: And I took long enough on my post that everything got covered already. Oh well. I'll just say, don't pull Bladelock down to the Barbarian's level, raise it up to the Tomelock's. That's how you kill the Bladelock dip. By making the entire package good enough to actually play. And raise Barbarians up too while you're at it.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

"Should a third attack really be the Fighter's special thing or should be it be something most martials get?"

We all do know the answer to that. One can wish.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

I'm glad Eldritch Knight's extra attacks have a future now, with the War Magic change. And they even let EK use arcane focuses, but... in a world where every bard and warlock can cast using their weapon, EK still cannot (unless it's a quarterstaff), but needs to engage in the ridiculous weapon juggling. And thus, sword+boarders cannot cast Shield while having a weapon out (unless they pay a feat tax in War Caster), and two-handers need to argue with their DMs about it only requiring two hands when attacking with the weapon...

Just something to note on the survey. How can you hit so close, yet be so far off.

 

[mamba]

But for selling to the popular market, what is popular is right.

then why are you saying that it is not 'design by committee' if everything popular makes it in and everything slightly less popular is thrown out...

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

The problem is that the game community doesn't want to let go of its broken or abusable options, despite some things needing reigning in for the health of the game. So far, the only two times I've seen designers fight back against the communities' desires are on Wild Shape Temp HP and on Twin Spell. And you know what? I don't trust them to hold the line on that, let alone fix something like Shield or Simulacrum.

Popularity is important, but WotC needs to remember that what's right isn't always popular and what's popular isn't always right.

But for selling to the popular market, what is popular is right.

Not always if you are looking for innovation rather than incremental progress. The vast majority of people were very happy with their Blackberries in 2005. No one was really asking for an iphone and I don't think think these kind of popularity surveys would have got them there.

Perhaps the majority can't even imagine the iphone of D&D. Doesn't mean they wouldn't clamor for it if it's built.

 

[Mistwell]

Tastes are not equal in all things. A lion's and gazelle's tastes in dinner doesn't mean a happy dining experience for both. Designing a game by committee might be popular, but the whole is less than sum of its parts.

Man, people here seem to love to turn to food metaphors. I've never once seen it be helpful for a conversation, and that one fits the pattern of being unhelpful for anyone to understand the topic or draw better conclusions from it. How about we use D&D examples rather than metaphors. It tends to work better.

To show the whole is less than the sum of its parts, you have to, yah know, show it. You can't just assert it and then declare it so. They've designed the game by community feedback, their primary competition has designed their game by community feedback, many industries have designed their products by community feedback, and empirical data shows that designing things by obtaining feedback from the community of your consumers tends to work well to benefit that community of consumers in liking the end product. If you disagree, you will need some sort of evidence beyond your gut instincts which disdain other people's gut instincts.