D&D 5E Fighters are amazing!

[seebs]

Maybe, but does the name really matter?

I think the issue isn't so much the name as the flavor and mechanics.

Like, "does it work in an anti-magic field"? Of course it does, it's not a spell!

I don't think this has to be "just as many things and just as powerful in every way as paladin or ranger spellcasting".

And basically, you've got this wall of text here about balance and tradeoffs, and you're saying that as though anyone has ever said or even hinted at something that it would contradict or correct, and I don't think they really have. I don't think the thing people are actually asking for is unbalanced; I think you're just assuming that they want all this extra stuff they haven't said they want.

And honestly, I think battle master does a pretty good job of this, in that it gives you a selection of powers you can learn, and a consumable resource to use them. Just with a little more range, so they aren't all basically cantrip-level.

 

[sidonunspa]

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.

and oddly it's the same people that bitch at the table when the wizard, paladin, or ranger pulls off something amazing with those bits

"wait how can he do that?"

I had heard that at so many cons back in the (early) 3.0 days it was not even funny anymore.

 

[Sacrosanct]

and oddly it's the same people that bitch at the table when the wizard, paladin, or ranger pulls off something amazing with those bits

"wait how can he do that?"

I had heard that at so many cons back in the (early) 3.0 days it was not even funny anymore.

Maybe in your experience, but not mine. In my experience, people who want all the fiddly bits play the complex PCs, and people who like the simpler classes play those, and they don't bitch about each other because they understand that if they wanted to play the opposite, they could. That is, I never heard one person complain that the magic user could do too much if they played their fighter because they knew that they could play one too if they wanted. The game gave options for both preferences, and rather than try to force everyone to conform to their particular style, a player just played the classes that appealed to the m the most.

 

[seebs]

That's been my experience. The one thing I've seen a couple of times is a desire for stuff more like what you get in some systems like Exalted, where you're allowed to have Epic Heroism where martial-type characters can do game-changing things by strength rather than by magic. And that's really at least partially just about flavortext rather than mechanics.

But for instance, I'm playing a monk, and I'm planning to go with the martial arts style, and I like that I get options for things I can do (like knock people prone) which don't require "spells".

 

[KarinsDad]

And honestly, I think battle master does a pretty good job of this, in that it gives you a selection of powers you can learn, and a consumable resource to use them. Just with a little more range, so they aren't all basically cantrip-level.

Have you seen a Battle Master in play? We have one in our game and he is definitely more capable than anyone else.

A reaction Parry stops D8 (plus a couple IIRC) hit points. That's stronger than Healing Word (which cannot be used as a reaction) and it recovers with every short rest.

An advantaged plus D8 extra damage Feinting is strong. Maybe not as powerful as a first level spell, but definitely stronger than a cantrip. For example, in the 65% chance to hit case for a D8+3 attack, that bumps DPR from 5.1 to 11.115. That's better than double damage. This is nearly equivalent to a one round Haste spell and better than a one round Hex or Hunter's Mark spell (the duration of which those concentration spells sometimes are).

And if the party can often manage only one or two fights between short rests and the player takes advantage of that, holy crap. The guy is effectively equivalent to a Champion 2 or 3 levels higher (doing more average damage and taking less damage).

 

[SirAntoine]

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.

Fighter maneuvers would still be less useful individually.

 

[Sacrosanct]

It seems to me there's a lot of "I want my cake and eat it too" going on. If you want fighters to have powers that are on par with a magic user's powers, that means you also have to have the restrictions that come alone with it, and I haven't seen that. Fighter have better HP, better armor, no concentration saves, no material components, more attacks, etc, etc. So of course they shouldn't have powers that scale and are on par with magic users. If you want those powers, then play a class that has them. Better that than to take away the other options for players who like a different style, which is what happens when you want every class to have all kinds of powers.

 

[Fralex]

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."

Don't get me wrong, I do believe a DM should say "yes, and..." as often as they can handle, because like improvised skits it's more interesting to build on what others try to establish in the scene than completely invalidate it. But in improv skits the power is equally distributed among each player. D&D gives the DM most of the authority in driving the scene, while at the same time making them the "servant" to the PCs in an entertainer kind of way. The relationship the PCs have to each other is very much like an improv skit, but the PC-DM power dynamic is less so. They're not trying to act out a story with the DM, they're trying to play a game that will hopefully make for a fondly-remembered story afterward. Nobody tries to "win" an improv; the players decide for themselves whether their characters succeed based on what they think will be most entertaining for the audience. D&D players trust their DM to decide whether their characters succeed based on how well the players... play. They need to get a fair challenge, which in this case includes being able to try things there are no specific rules for and get an honest evaluation by the DM whether it's valid. They rely on the DM to be their freedom/fun safety net; they should be allowed to try any kind of stunt they want, safe in the knowledge that if they go too far the DM will be there to catch them. In this metaphor, acrobatic injuries represent unfun play experiences, the height at which the net is set is inversely proportional to how much the DM allows (and remember you can still get hurt if the net is too close to the hard floor), and the rope and trapezes represent RAW.

Actually, thinking about all this made me realize something. "Yes, and..." is a pretty good guideline for interactions between PCs, but I think a better catchphrase for the intrepid DM is "yes, but..." Because really, you should allow your players to at least try most outside-the-box ideas, but you shouldn't make it easy for them. "And..." is what happens as a result of the players' failed or successful attempts. That's what should be built on.

And because I can't help but share these whenever they're relevant, the SilverClawShift Campaign Journals are a great example of a DM who gives his players a perfect amount of freedom. They're also the best RPG-originated stories I've read. I hope I can be that good someday.

 

[sidonunspa]

It seems to me there's a lot of "I want my cake and eat it too" going on. If you want fighters to have powers that are on par with a magic user's powers, that means you also have to have the restrictions that come alone with it, and I haven't seen that. Fighter have better HP, better armor, no concentration saves, no material components, more attacks, etc, etc. So of course they shouldn't have powers that scale and are on par with magic users. If you want those powers, then play a class that has them. Better that than to take away the other options for players who like a different style, which is what happens when you want every class to have all kinds of powers.

I don't want them to have "powers" per say.. but I like the options fighters can gain through feats

Shield Mastery, Sentinel, and Heavy Armor Mastery for example

when you strip away feats all the other classes have cool things to fall upon, they don't need them

fighters get more stat boosts because the designers expected them to get more feats

play a champion with Heavy Armor Mastery and Shield Mastery then play one with +2 to Str and +2 to Con... they feel very different and have different capabilities

heck without Heavy Armor Mastery the Barbarian is a better tank.. nude.

 

[Blue]

It seems to me there's a lot of "I want my cake and eat it too" going on. If you want fighters to have powers that are on par with a magic user's powers, that means you also have to have the restrictions that come alone with it, and I haven't seen that. Fighter have better HP, better armor, no concentration saves, no material components, more attacks, etc, etc. So of course they shouldn't have powers that scale and are on par with magic users. If you want those powers, then play a class that has them. Better that than to take away the other options for players who like a different style, which is what happens when you want every class to have all kinds of powers.

I wasn't one of the earlier posters that you are responding to, but I have a bit of a twist on this.

I'd like fighter to be able to focus to be useful out of combat as spellcasters can be. Things like "good AC" don't have an effect on points from other pillars of the game.

That said, the increased feat availability for the fighter can fit this niche well. There are a lot of useful out-of-combat feats that will get much less exposure then others because of the opportunity cost. Woefully, these usually come after abilities and combat feats so for most of the lifespan of the fighter they aren't around while the casters still have their utility spells.

(I'm not saying there is not an opportunity cost for those utility spells - there absolutely is. Just that casters can prep both combat and utility and use the slots how they are needed starting at low levels, plus customize those per day, and the fighter need to lock in feat choices that usually have a narrow use.)