D&D 5E Fighters are amazing!

[KarinsDad]

I like some of the fighters abilities, but what the class lacks is depth. The champion is the baseline, and it acts like an anchor to hold other subclasses like the battlemaster or eldritch knight back because it would be bad if those subclasses overshadowed the champion to a great degree. But more importantly what I have always wanted for a fighter class, that no edition of D&D has ever presented well, is flexibility of choice that is currently present with spell casters. I want the fighter and other martial classes to be able to learn or gain more maneuvers just like a caster can gain or choose new spells. Once all classes have access to a toolbox of abilities I believe the playing field will be more level. But that is tradition versus trying something new and original argument, and 5E did not take that path.

I think what you are describing is called a Paladin or a Ranger in 5E: a fighter with a fairly reasonable number of spells. But to gain the extra spells, he has to give up his 4 attacks per round at higher level. Pros and Cons. Giving too many maneuvers (or more spells) to a fighter would make him like a Paladin or a Ranger versatility-wise, but he would still be dishing out nearly twice the damage at high level.

One also should consider that making Fighters too good (and as per this thread, a lot of people think that they are great), would really minimize the use of Rangers and Paladins in games as the "subpar" fighter types.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Well, say yes within reason, of course. Like everything else.

Well, the rule is actually to say yes to everything, no matter how insane, unlikely, or bizarre. You rely on your fellow players to give you things consistent with what as come before because you trust them to also listen to what you say.

And the reason is because "within reason" is a judgement call that can be different for different people (ie, "you can trip that guy because it makes sense!" or "you can't trip that guy, there's no rules for that!"), and whenever you say no, you shut down the flow of the scene.

But, D&D isn't improv, and the DM can serve as a limiter. DMs really need to embrace the idea of saying yes anyway, though. Starting from yes, presuming yes, using "yes, and," only saying no when they can say "no, but."

 

[KarinsDad]

Well, the rule is actually to say yes to everything, no matter how insane, unlikely, or bizarre.

...

But, D&D isn't improv, and the DM can serve as a limiter. DMs really need to embrace the idea of saying yes anyway, though. Starting from yes, presuming yes, using "yes, and," only saying no when they can say "no, but."

This philosophy is why D&D is not improve and does have a DM. If the DM is just going to say yes to everything, don't even bother to have a DM. Let the players create the adventure improve and just use the mechanics to handle the results. If a given player states that an Adult Blue Dragon shows up, that's what happens. If a different player states that the Adult Blue Dragon starts doing vaudeville instead of attacking, that's what happens.

On second thought, I'll stick with having a DM and using Fralex's view of saying yes within reason.

 

[Mistwell]

(we learned this last night in my 3e game when the paladin used his only attack to knock someone down in the hopes of stopping him from rigging a bell.. on the guards next action he got up moved 15 feet.. and rang the bell.. yes the paladin got an opportunity attack as the guard moved out of his threat range, and he hit.. but did not kill him..

He should have grappled him turn one, not shoved him (unless he was shoving him down something, like stairs, or a pit). Grapple is what prevents movement.

 

[seebs]

I think what you are describing is called a Paladin or a Ranger in 5E: a fighter with a fairly reasonable number of spells. But to gain the extra spells, he has to give up his 4 attacks per round at higher level. Pros and Cons. Giving too many maneuvers (or more spells) to a fighter would make him like a Paladin or a Ranger versatility-wise, but he would still be dishing out nearly twice the damage at high level.

One also should consider that making Fighters too good (and as per this thread, a lot of people think that they are great), would really minimize the use of Rangers and Paladins in games as the "subpar" fighter types.

I think you're missing a key distinction here, which is that they're asking for maneuvers which are not spells. So, more like what the battle master gets, but possibly with more impressive or tactically-significant manuevers as an option. So, not spells, but abilities acquired in a way somewhat similar to how casters get spells. Which is sort of what 4e was doing, in some ways.

 

[I'm A Banana]

This philosophy is why D&D is not improve and does have a DM. If the DM is just going to say yes to everything, don't even bother to have a DM.

Indie RPG's got there like a decade ago, man, where have you been? Suffice it to say that a night of dungeon-crawling adventure is not incompatible with this.

Let the players create the adventure improve and just use the mechanics to handle the results. If a given player states that an Adult Blue Dragon shows up, that's what happens. If a different player states that the Adult Blue Dragon starts doing vaudeville instead of attacking, that's what happens.

Well, that last player clearly isn't really paying attention to their fellow-players and the context that they offer in (that player isn't listening to the others), but there are ways to bring that back around without negating the contribution. Like maybe now the world has a fantasy equivalent of Vaudeville and the Blue Dragon is a little bit insane from a previous psionic attack. If that's what people think is going to be fun, run with it!

There are more structured ways to do this that D&D has occasionally toyed with, though (and improv is deceptively structured). Like how AD&D druids need to fight each other to gain levels -- that is a player, in choosing to be a druid, also choosing to have that fight in the game at some point. You could imagine, say, having a hard cap on the levels of Illusionist you can gain without slaying a blue dragon and learning their secrets. Or whatever.

Which is really just to say that players putting plot threads in the DM's hands is not something new to the game.

On second thought, I'll stick with having a DM and using Fralex's view of saying yes within reason.

One flaw in that advice is "within reason" is subject to wildly differing individual interpretations. One DM's "within reason" means fighters are limited to "I attack." Another's has everyone stunting off of everything.

"Say yes unless you can't" is a little more forceful, and helps turn the default, as was mentioned upthread, to "it's permitted unless it's explicitly forbidden."

 

[KarinsDad]

I think you're missing a key distinction here, which is that they're asking for maneuvers which are not spells. So, more like what the battle master gets, but possibly with more impressive or tactically-significant manuevers as an option. So, not spells, but abilities acquired in a way somewhat similar to how casters get spells. Which is sort of what 4e was doing, in some ways.

Maybe, but does the name really matter?

In 4E, martial powers were considered slightly different from arcane powers, but they were still powers (and I do disagree with the person I was responding to, 4E did give fighters as many options as spell casters except for the few additional minor At Will cantrips of wizards).

Limiting the type of power, spell, maneuver, or whatever one wants to call it to weapons or melee-like capabilities does not mean that is is not a special ability that adversely affects NCPs or helps PCs.


The point stays the same. Giving a Fighter more maneuvers and allowing him the same 4 attacks per round at high level makes him significantly better than a Paladin or a Ranger.


I suspect that if the Battle Master had different "levels" of maneuvers and gained them like spell casters (i.e. more lower level weaker maneuvers, fewer higher level better maneuvers) and limited them to Daily use like spell casters, these same people that state that fighters are not versatile enough would be complaining about how restrictive their maneuvers are.

The thing about balance is that something has to give. People want their cake and eat it too. They want their uber fighter with high hit points, high AC, cool feats (of which the fighter feats are a lot better so far than the spell caster feats), multiple strong attacks per round, and they want the versatility of spell casters where the spell casters slowly gain that versatility over many levels. Fighters are not as versatile, but they are more durable and do more consistent damage over time. Making them more versatile on top of that is imbalancing.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I think you're missing a key distinction here, which is that they're asking for maneuvers which are not spells. So, more like what the battle master gets, but possibly with more impressive or tactically-significant manuevers as an option. So, not spells, but abilities acquired in a way somewhat similar to how casters get spells. Which is sort of what 4e was doing, in some ways.

It's not much of a distinction, let alone a key one. Calling something other than a spell that has the same effect as a spell doesn't make much difference to many people. It seems the feedback was pretty clear on this for the playtest. Lots of people don't want every single martial class having lots of spel....er....powers. A lot of people don't even want to deal with those fiddly bits and resources when they play. Most of the time I don't.

 

[Mistwell]

I think you're missing a key distinction here, which is that they're asking for maneuvers which are not spells. So, more like what the battle master gets, but possibly with more impressive or tactically-significant manuevers as an option. So, not spells, but abilities acquired in a way somewhat similar to how casters get spells. Which is sort of what 4e was doing, in some ways.

They get the most feats in the game, so why can't feats fill at least some of the niche you're referencing?

 

[KarinsDad]

Indie RPG's got there like a decade ago, man, where have you been?

Avoiding RPGs like this.

One flaw in that advice is "within reason" is subject to wildly differing individual interpretations. One DM's "within reason" means fighters are limited to "I attack." Another's has everyone stunting off of everything.

This is called a feature, not a flaw.

Nothing stops players from asking for more at any table. The DM is free to say yes or no, and the players are free to say hello or goodbye.


It can be just as bad (read as annoying to the other players) when the party whiner gets his way all of the time because the DM always says yes. Liberalism (and hence entitlement) should be limited to politics, not D&D. IMO. YMAAMV.


As I taught my daughter long ago, moderation in all things. Always saying yes is not moderation. I'd prefer a middle of the road reasonable DM who makes rational adjudications any day to one who is too strict (says no most of the time) or too lenient (says yes most of the time). That middle of the road DM might not always allow me to have my PC try to do what I want him to try to do, but that would tend to be when I would be making unreasonable requests ("I want to throw my grappling hook with rope attached up 80 feet, have it catch, swing across the 100 foot chasm, attack the enemy, and I want to do all of this one handed because I have a shield strapped on"). Sure, a say yes DM might make that hard to do with high DCs and might make it take multiple rounds, but why waste everyone's time with such a hairbrained scheme? Just take the darn shield off so that you can throw a grapple and swing on a rope properly in the first place. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn't, but don't try to attempt nonsensical things just to get a minor +2 AC advantage if you get to the other side.

Back in the 3E days, I once had a situation where the PCs had to climb up a rope to get to a cave and when they got there, several of them expected that they had their shields ready when they got to the top (the fight started as soon as the first PC climbed up). I replied with "Oh, you wanted to climb with shields on? Ok. For those PCs who want to do this, let me up the DC and we will re-roll. I thought that everyone was just climbing normally.". This was a case of just say yes, but not because I always said yes. It's because it was reasonable (although extremely difficult) for PCs to do this.