D&D 5E Fighter Survey Response

[MechaTarrasque]

I reiterated my stance that the Battlemaster is what the Fighter should be. The Maneuvers system and superiority dice should be the baseline for the Fighter class (and really, many of the other melee classes) the same way that Spellcasting and spell slots ares the baseline for all the magic classes. And to throw that system by the wayside is just stupid.

If you add these four archetypes to the four Fighter archetypes we already have (Champion, Battlemaster, Eldritch Knight, Banneret) and you ask someone "What's the underlying base mechanical assumption that gives all Fighter their iconic identity regardless of subclass?" what is our answer currently?

Action Surge and Second Wind.

That's it.

All Barbarians have Rage; all Bards have Spellcasting and Bardic Inspiration; all Clerics have Spellcasting and Channel Divinity; all Druids have Spellcasting and Wildshape; all Monks have Ki; all Paladins have Spellcasting, Smite, and Channel Divinity; all Rangers have a lot of junk; all Rogues have Sneak Attack; all Sorcerers have Spellcasting and Metamagic; all Warlocks have Invocations, Patrons and Pacts; all Wizards have Spellcasting, Spellbooks, and non-prepared Ritual casting).

For Fighters though, they get a second action in a round and some self-healing. That's all. Every other meaningful mechanical feature for the Fighter currently is completely different for each and every single Martial Archetype. There is nothing the Fighter as a class has which I think is a really cool thing it gets to hang its hat on. Every single cool thing comes out of each individual subclass, and these four new ones are no different. Which I think sucks. Because it give the Fighter as a class no real identity.

Now I'm sure some people are happy with that, because they thinks Fighters should have no individual identity. Personally though, I think that just makes the Fighter class almost superfluous.

So I made it quite clear in my survey that I much preferred the archetypes they had made previously for the Cavalier, Scout, and Monster Hunter that used the Maneuver and superiority die system of the Battlemaster as the mechanical baseline of all new Fighter archetypes. And in each case, they received a set selection of some already-in-existence Manuevers, but then also got additional new Maneuvers and features that they and only they got based upon the fluff and story of the archetype. And that what mechanical underpinnings they used for the Knight and Samurai especially could and should have easily been encapsulated within the superiority die system.

After all... the Knight and Samurai got some cool features. And what were the mechanics under them? "Use this feature 3 times and you get them back following a Long Rest". And thus I ask why you couldn't instead incorporate that feature as a Maneuver that is activated by a superiority die why? Because if you did... not only would the Knight and Samurai get those kinds of abilities, they'd also get to do all the cool extra damage and "special combat maneuvers" that all Battlemasters (should be 'all Fighters') get to do.

And then finally... I also said that doing an end-around on the DMs who don't want to use Feats by making subclasses that have ostensibly unique features but are actually just giving them Feats automatically is really kinda cheesy. Fighters already get extra slots as part of their class make-up to select additional ASIs/Feats, under the assumption that all these combat-related Feats are potential Fighter class abilities. So a Fighter can easily get the Sentinel or Sharpshooter feat if the DM allows for it, thereby getting those mechanics.

But if a DM has decided not to use Feats... it's because they don't want to deal with having those types of mechanics in their game. So to then re-introduce them to the game anyway by just handing them out to Fighter subclasses automatically does not put them in a very good light in my eyes. I feel it's like WotC just thumbing their eye at their DMs who choose to not use Feats.

So yeah... I wasn't overwhelmed by the Fighter UA.

I have always assumed that the majority of DM's who don't allow feats do it because "we didn't use feats back in the day" or "feats in 3x and 4e were so bad that they turned me off of them forever" (which I would be hard pressed to argue against), rather than "I don't like those mechanics."

 

[WarpedAcorn]

I reiterated my stance that the Battlemaster is what the Fighter should be. The Maneuvers system and superiority dice should be the baseline for the Fighter class (and really, many of the other melee classes) the same way that Spellcasting and spell slots ares the baseline for all the magic classes. And to throw that system by the wayside is just stupid.

*Stands up to begin a slow clap*

I agree completely that Maneuvers should be the staple of the Fighter class. Honestly, I think I would prefer those techniques over Action Surge (which is definitely a stronger ability, but for has been less fun for me than the Maneuvers).

The only thing I disagree with you on are the iconic identity. Action Surge and Second Wind are there, but when I think of what makes Fighters unique its Action Surge and Multi-Attack. Other classes can get 2 swings, but no one else can get more than that. Having said that, Multi-Attack is also a super boring feature...especially compared to Maneuvers than can actually do things other than damage are infinitely more interesting.

 

[SkidAce]

I reiterated my stance that the Battlemaster is what the Fighter should be. The Maneuvers system and superiority dice should be the baseline for the Fighter class (and really, many of the other melee classes) the same way that Spellcasting and spell slots ares the baseline for all the magic classes. And to throw that system by the wayside is just stupid.

If you add these four archetypes to the four Fighter archetypes we already have (Champion, Battlemaster, Eldritch Knight, Banneret) and you ask someone "What's the underlying base mechanical assumption that gives all Fighter their iconic identity regardless of subclass?" what is our answer currently?

Action Surge and Second Wind.

That's it.

All Barbarians have Rage; all Bards have Spellcasting and Bardic Inspiration; all Clerics have Spellcasting and Channel Divinity; all Druids have Spellcasting and Wildshape; all Monks have Ki; all Paladins have Spellcasting, Smite, and Channel Divinity; all Rangers have a lot of junk; all Rogues have Sneak Attack; all Sorcerers have Spellcasting and Metamagic; all Warlocks have Invocations, Patrons and Pacts; all Wizards have Spellcasting, Spellbooks, and non-prepared Ritual casting).

For Fighters though, they get a second action in a round and some self-healing. That's all. Every other meaningful mechanical feature for the Fighter currently is completely different for each and every single Martial Archetype. There is nothing the Fighter as a class has which I think is a really cool thing it gets to hang its hat on. Every single cool thing comes out of each individual subclass, and these four new ones are no different. Which I think sucks. Because it give the Fighter as a class no real identity.

Now I'm sure some people are happy with that, because they thinks Fighters should have no individual identity. Personally though, I think that just makes the Fighter class almost superfluous.

So I made it quite clear in my survey that I much preferred the archetypes they had made previously for the Cavalier, Scout, and Monster Hunter that used the Maneuver and superiority die system of the Battlemaster as the mechanical baseline of all new Fighter archetypes. And in each case, they received a set selection of some already-in-existence Manuevers, but then also got additional new Maneuvers and features that they and only they got based upon the fluff and story of the archetype. And that what mechanical underpinnings they used for the Knight and Samurai especially could and should have easily been encapsulated within the superiority die system.

After all... the Knight and Samurai got some cool features. And what were the mechanics under them? "Use this feature 3 times and you get them back following a Long Rest". And thus I ask why you couldn't instead incorporate that feature as a Maneuver that is activated by a superiority die why? Because if you did... not only would the Knight and Samurai get those kinds of abilities, they'd also get to do all the cool extra damage and "special combat maneuvers" that all Battlemasters (should be 'all Fighters') get to do.

And then finally... I also said that doing an end-around on the DMs who don't want to use Feats by making subclasses that have ostensibly unique features but are actually just giving them Feats automatically is really kinda cheesy. Fighters already get extra slots as part of their class make-up to select additional ASIs/Feats, under the assumption that all these combat-related Feats are potential Fighter class abilities. So a Fighter can easily get the Sentinel or Sharpshooter feat if the DM allows for it, thereby getting those mechanics.

But if a DM has decided not to use Feats... it's because they don't want to deal with having those types of mechanics in their game. So to then re-introduce them to the game anyway by just handing them out to Fighter subclasses automatically does not put them in a very good light in my eyes. I feel it's like WotC just thumbing their eye at their DMs who choose to not use Feats.

So yeah... I wasn't overwhelmed by the Fighter UA.

I don't always quote for truth....

but when I do its [MENTION=7006]DEFCON 1[/MENTION]

 

[hejtmane]

I reiterated my stance that the Battlemaster is what the Fighter should be. The Maneuvers system and superiority dice should be the baseline for the Fighter class (and really, many of the other melee classes) the same way that Spellcasting and spell slots ares the baseline for all the magic classes. And to throw that system by the wayside is just stupid.

If you add these four archetypes to the four Fighter archetypes we already have (Champion, Battlemaster, Eldritch Knight, Banneret) and you ask someone "What's the underlying base mechanical assumption that gives all Fighter their iconic identity regardless of subclass?" what is our answer currently?

Action Surge and Second Wind.

That's it.

All Barbarians have Rage; all Bards have Spellcasting and Bardic Inspiration; all Clerics have Spellcasting and Channel Divinity; all Druids have Spellcasting and Wildshape; all Monks have Ki; all Paladins have Spellcasting, Smite, and Channel Divinity; all Rangers have a lot of junk; all Rogues have Sneak Attack; all Sorcerers have Spellcasting and Metamagic; all Warlocks have Invocations, Patrons and Pacts; all Wizards have Spellcasting, Spellbooks, and non-prepared Ritual casting).

For Fighters though, they get a second action in a round and some self-healing. That's all. Every other meaningful mechanical feature for the Fighter currently is completely different for each and every single Martial Archetype. There is nothing the Fighter as a class has which I think is a really cool thing it gets to hang its hat on. Every single cool thing comes out of each individual subclass, and these four new ones are no different. Which I think sucks. Because it give the Fighter as a class no real identity.

Now I'm sure some people are happy with that, because they thinks Fighters should have no individual identity. Personally though, I think that just makes the Fighter class almost superfluous.

So I made it quite clear in my survey that I much preferred the archetypes they had made previously for the Cavalier, Scout, and Monster Hunter that used the Maneuver and superiority die system of the Battlemaster as the mechanical baseline of all new Fighter archetypes. And in each case, they received a set selection of some already-in-existence Manuevers, but then also got additional new Maneuvers and features that they and only they got based upon the fluff and story of the archetype. And that what mechanical underpinnings they used for the Knight and Samurai especially could and should have easily been encapsulated within the superiority die system.

After all... the Knight and Samurai got some cool features. And what were the mechanics under them? "Use this feature 3 times and you get them back following a Long Rest". And thus I ask why you couldn't instead incorporate that feature as a Maneuver that is activated by a superiority die why? Because if you did... not only would the Knight and Samurai get those kinds of abilities, they'd also get to do all the cool extra damage and "special combat maneuvers" that all Battlemasters (should be 'all Fighters') get to do.

And then finally... I also said that doing an end-around on the DMs who don't want to use Feats by making subclasses that have ostensibly unique features but are actually just giving them Feats automatically is really kinda cheesy. Fighters already get extra slots as part of their class make-up to select additional ASIs/Feats, under the assumption that all these combat-related Feats are potential Fighter class abilities. So a Fighter can easily get the Sentinel or Sharpshooter feat if the DM allows for it, thereby getting those mechanics.

But if a DM has decided not to use Feats... it's because they don't want to deal with having those types of mechanics in their game. So to then re-introduce them to the game anyway by just handing them out to Fighter subclasses automatically does not put them in a very good light in my eyes. I feel it's like WotC just thumbing their eye at their DMs who choose to not use Feats.

So yeah... I wasn't overwhelmed by the Fighter UA.

See i knew something was nagging me about the sub classes I liked some things but others I was like gerr you just hit the nail on the head. Maybe that is why i was in the middle I like some of the features but was a little underwhelmed about other and the rest should be using the Maneuver and superiority die as there base since we already have three fighters class that do not and two that are not complicated if you want easy play for beginners.

Now that would make Arcane archer cool where they use superiority die to create magic arrows and they can chose three types of damage out of a list and more as they level allowing the players to focus on a theme if they want. They could also scale in damage by levels based of the superiority dice. This would not make them over powered either because they can already use scaling dice from Battlemaster.

When everyone thinks of knights they think of lances and horseback combat they left out the lance part I know in the kits of old they added Cavalier but that is what most people think of with Knights.

Anyways great type up and I think you nailed the part I could not quite put my finger on that was gnawing at me about the subclasses

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

After all... the Knight and Samurai got some cool features. And what were the mechanics under them? "Use this feature 3 times and you get them back following a Long Rest". And thus I ask why you couldn't instead incorporate that feature as a Maneuver that is activated by a superiority die why? Because if you did... not only would the Knight and Samurai get those kinds of abilities, they'd also get to do all the cool extra damage and "special combat maneuvers" that all Battlemasters (should be 'all Fighters') get to do.

You'd also be stuck with the Battlemaster's lame capstone; and you'd have no way to model abilities on anything but a short-rest basis. Most of the Knight's interesting stuff is in fact at-will.

The only thing I disagree with you on are the iconic identity. Action Surge and Second Wind are there, but when I think of what makes Fighters unique its Action Surge and Multi-Attack. Other classes can get 2 swings, but no one else can get more than that. Having said that, Multi-Attack is also a super boring feature...especially compared to Maneuvers than can actually do things other than damage are infinitely more interesting.

Multiattack gets pretty interesting when you start using it for something other than just hitting the enemy. Push/grapple/disarm is a particularly interesting combo: you're at advantage on your Disarm attempt, and your enemy winds up attacking you barehanded at disadvantage for 1+Str per hit while you hammer him right back at advantage for d8+Str per hit. (Technically it could be d12+Str per hit if you're using a lance while mounted, but a DM who lets you grapple/prone an enemy while mounted is being... exceptionally permissive, to put it nicely.)

In the survey, I said that I like the existing Fighter, but I also find the Knight quite interesting because it allows effective tanking that doesn't involve grappling.

 

[DEFCON 1]

The only thing I disagree with you on are the iconic identity. Action Surge and Second Wind are there, but when I think of what makes Fighters unique its Action Surge and Multi-Attack. Other classes can get 2 swings, but no one else can get more than that. Having said that, Multi-Attack is also a super boring feature...especially compared to Maneuvers than can actually do things other than damage are infinitely more interesting.

Yeah, I can see where you're coming from on the Extra Attack thing. And that and Action Surge might be a better example for the main Fighter "schtick" than Action Surge / Second Wind. I could go with that!

But I also agree with you wholeheartedly that 3 and 4 attacks per round (and extra attacks from an extra Action due to Surge) is so boring that I wouldn't want to hang my hat on that as the primary schtick of the Fighter. You get to swing your sword more times in a round. There's nothing unique you can do with those swordswings compared to anyone else... but you do get to do a lot more of them! Great. Thanks for that, WotC!

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[abirdcall]

I would also add that they get more attacks than anybody and that should be considered part of the identity of the Fighter. Getting a 3rd attack on the attack action at 11th, that nobody else can get, is a significant part of the Fighter.

Most of the play time will be occuring between level 3-10. Abilities at level 11+ can't be defining because they don't exist most of the time.

 

[DEFCON 1]

You'd also be stuck with the Battlemaster's lame capstone; and you'd have no way to model abilities on anything but a short-rest basis. Most of the Knight's interesting stuff is in fact at-will.

Not true. If you take a look at the Cavalier and Scout, they have several abilities that are not connected to the superiority die system and are just given to them to use "at-will". As a matter of fact, the Knight's "Born In The Saddle" ability is almost an exact copy of what the Cavalier has.

As far as the Battlemaster's capstone ability (which is what, SD become d12s, can't remember), you don't actually have to give that capstone ability if you don't want to. You could easily have any particular archetype's SD cap at d10s or even just remain d8s if you wanted to give them other types of 'oomph'. Each subclasses might sacrifice some power of their superiority dice for some other ability or function, but they at least still get to do many basic weaponfighting abilities, like tripping, riposting, disarming, menacing them etc.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

But I also agree with you wholeheartedly that 3 and 4 attacks per round (and extra attacks from an extra Action due to Surge) is so boring that I wouldn't want to hang my hat on that as the primary schtick of the Fighter. You get to swing your sword more times in a round. There's nothing unique you can do with those swordswings compared to anyone else... but you do get to do a lot more of them! Great. Thanks for that, WotC!

But there is. With two attacks, "push prone + GWM attack at advantage" is (often) a loser. With four attacks, "push prone + GWM attack three times at advantage" is (often) a winner. Having lots of Extra Attack opens up new capabilities.

On a related note, it would be nice if Battlemasters could forego attacks to recharge superiority dice against a particular foe. If a Battlemaster knows how to attack "menacingly", why can't he attack menacingly against more than six orcs in the horde? Using Extra Attack as a resource for maneuvers as well as pushing/proning/disarming seems to fit well with the Fighter paradigm. Alternately, DMs can invent (or players can improvise!) new things to do with an attack during an Attack action. Fighters will always be better than anyone else at those things.