D&D 5E Fighter Survey Response

[phantomK9]

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.

Agreed 100%.
In fact not only did I tell them the exact same thing in the survey under general comments for the Fighter class, I've even worked up how to do that for my games. It basically works out to just giving the core Fighter class a couple of Superiority Dice and Maneuvers at 2nd level. And then at 6th and 14th level rather than getting additional feats, all Fighters get another Superiority Die and a couple more Maneuvers.
Battlemasters then would be the Archetype that gets to increase their Superiority Die type as well as even more Maneuvers as they level up, plus their own unique abilities as already written.

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.

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.

Truth.
Which is why I've been so confused why not a single sub-class has ever had any improvements upon those two basic functionalities.
How about a subclass that gives Action Surge one more time per rest, or increases the die type of Second Wind, or lets you reroll the Second Wind die if you don't like the result. Lots of options and design space that have just been completely ignored (well that and Fighting Styles) which frankly should have gone to the Champion.

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.

Having the core Fighter class being built with Superiority Dice and Maneuvers in mind would really clear up a lot of issues.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

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.

I see I misunderstood. I thought you were suggesting that Battlemasters be the subclass, and that other concepts be modelled by simply making more maneuvers available. Didn't realize you were thinking in terms of the Scout. (But clearly you'd also need to modify the Scout first, since Scouts don't get tripping/riposting/disarming/menacing, except as part of the base Fighter chassis leveraging Extra Attack for pushing/disarming.)

It's interesting that you love the Cavalier and Scout and dislike the Knight, whereas I dislike the Cavalier and the Scout and kind of like the Knight (aside from wanting to choke the author with a paperback copy of Strunk & White). Clearly they serve different aesthetics. I guess some people just like dice more than others.

 

[DEFCON 1]

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.

I have no problem whatsoever with the Maneuver system becoming more robust! In fact, I think the Maneuver system should be just as robust as the Spellcasting system! I believe Maneuvers should be for weapon-users what Spellcasting is for spellcasters-- the default! All weapon-users use combat maneuvers just like all magic-users use spells. And the type of weapon-user you are changes which maneuvers you have access to select from, just like every caster has their own individual spell list to select spells from.

But WotC didn't do that. Instead, they cordoned off the one "martial combat" system they had into a single archetype of a single class. And they did weapon-users a great disservice. And had to give most of them spells just to give them other unique abilities they could use in combat, in a mechanical system that was easy to use and easy to understand. They could have given paladins and rangers maneuvers rather than spells (and probably made a lot of players happy), but they didn't have faith in their new system.

Hopefully, they realize the strength and versatility of the Maneuver / Superiority die system and they support it going forward rather than writing it off to history.

 

[DEFCON 1]

(But clearly you'd also need to modify the Scout first, since Scouts don't get tripping/riposting/disarming/menacing, except as part of the base Fighter chassis leveraging Extra Attack for pushing/disarming.)

That is true. The maneuvers those UAs gave out did not use really any from the BMs list (expect I think Precision Attack although they didn't call it that.) Which I do think could and should be changed a bit (through normal playtest iteration.)

I mean, the new Knight is being set up as a tank and gets abilities that you mostly get through the Sentinel Feat and Goading Attack maneuver. So why you'd forsake your feat and maneuver system like that and just hand those abilities over to a supposedly "new" subclass (without also giving them all the benefits that go along with those two subsystems) is beyond me.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I have no problem whatsoever with the Maneuver system becoming more robust! In fact, I think the Maneuver system should be just as robust as the Spellcasting system! I believe Maneuvers should be for weapon-users what Spellcasting is for spellcasters-- the default! All weapon-users use combat maneuvers just like all magic-users use spells. And the type of weapon-user you are changes which maneuvers you have access to select from, just like every caster has their own individual spell list to select spells from.

But WotC didn't do that. Instead, they cordoned off the one "martial combat" system they had into a single archetype of a single class. And they did weapon-users a great disservice. And had to give most of them spells just to give them other unique abilities they could use in combat, in a mechanical system that was easy to use and easy to understand. They could have given paladins and rangers maneuvers rather than spells (and probably made a lot of players happy), but they didn't have faith in their new system.

Hopefully, they realize the strength and versatility of the Maneuver / Superiority die system and they support it going forward rather than writing it off to history.

But, it isn't the "one martial combat system they have." Superiority dice are an offshoot. The main martial combat system is simplistic but robust and widely-available. It consists of everything you can do with attack actions and improvised actions in combat. It works well enough that I quite enjoy fighters, despite never having touched a single superiority die in the whole time I've been running or playing 5E.

I wouldn't object to fleshing out the superiority die system (maybe even enhancing it to the point where I'd be willing to play a Battlemaster), but you can't ignore the baseline system. "Kick the other guy in the chest to knock him down and then Action Surge a total of five GWM attacks at advantage" is kind of the Fighter's thing. If you just roll basic attacks all the time then of course the Fighter's going to be boring--you're not making any decisions, which will make you wish you were an Eldritch Knight (or, okay, maybe a Battlemaster) instead.

 

[abirdcall]

Truth.
Which is why I've been so confused why not a single sub-class has ever had any improvements upon those two basic functionalities.
How about a subclass that gives Action Surge one more time per rest, or increases the die type of Second Wind, or lets you reroll the Second Wind die if you don't like the result. Lots of options and design space that have just been completely ignored (well that and Fighting Styles) which frankly should have gone to the Champion.

There is one. The Purple Dragon Knight.

 

[Valetudo]

There is one. The Purple Dragon Knight.

which is the worst subclass or maybe I should say weakest.

 

[guachi]

The six ASIs fighters get are more than anyone else and allow a wide variety of fighters without needing to resort to new archetypes.

It's a large reason I don't actually like the Knight, Sharpshooter, and Samurai. Take Battlemaster, a few interesting maneuvers, and a feat or two and have at it.

I also agree that Battlemaster should have been the base of the class. Though if they actually wanted some reason to have numerous archetypes they could have restricted the level 6 and 10 ASIs to a small list of appropriate feats the player gets to choose from. However, the wonderful flexibility of extra ASIs and feats allows a large array of character types without needing to invent yet another archetype.

 

[flametitan]

which is the worst subclass or maybe I should say weakest.

It is a little underwhelming, especially if you wanted the Warlord, but it's hard to compete when the battlemaster is such a frontloaded subclass. I'd argue that if you don't try to play it like the warlord, you can get it to at least be more impactful to have than a champion (though I suspect it will be a thankless impact). I don't know if it would be on par with the UA stuff, but the UA stuff isn't fully balanced/loophole proofed.

 

[DEFCON 1]

But, it isn't the "one martial combat system they have." Superiority dice are an offshoot. The main martial combat system is simplistic but robust and widely-available. It consists of everything you can do with attack actions and improvised actions in combat. It works well enough that I quite enjoy fighters, despite never having touched a single superiority die in the whole time I've been running or playing 5E.

I wouldn't object to fleshing out the superiority die system (maybe even enhancing it to the point where I'd be willing to play a Battlemaster), but you can't ignore the baseline system. "Kick the other guy in the chest to knock him down and then Action Surge a total of five GWM attacks at advantage" is kind of the Fighter's thing. If you just roll basic attacks all the time then of course the Fighter's going to be boring--you're not making any decisions, which will make you wish you were an Eldritch Knight (or, okay, maybe a Battlemaster) instead.

I don't know if we should really add the GWM part of your comment to the discussion since it's technically a feat and thus not a part of the baseline... but I do concede the baseline right now does include Grapple and Shove alongside Attack. Personally... I just find that more... limited I guess... to what the baseline should be. Now, you do in fact allow the addition of other stuff into the equation by including the Improvised action, which would certainly cover some things. But I think that I just prefer the more solid baseline that all the Maneuvers demarcate as accomplishable and thus expand the martial menu out to more than just Attack, Grapple, Shove and Improvise Other Stuff (which presumably would cover things like Trip, Disarm, Parry etc.)

They didn't the Paladin the ability of Goading Attack... instead they just invented a new spell that's only for him (Compelled Duel) which does exactly the same thing mechanically other than duration. At that point, I just can't help but wonder why the Paladin shouldn't just be using the Maneuver system too if they wanted to just give those Maneuver powers to him anyway.