D&D 5E Fighters are amazing!

[Bayonet]

From reading this, it seems that the people who tend to like wizards don't like fighters, and want them to be different.

The people who DO like fighters think the fighters are okay as they are, and don't really need to change.


I move that we have another 16 pages of squabbling in order to figure this out.

 

[Ashrym]

I don't entirely disagree with you (especially with the bits I snipped). I also agree with the battle master being effective but note he cannot both supernova with action surge & lots of superiority dice and keep his combat options open by rationing those dice. I would rather the superiority dice were "superiority points" that were used for their effect but did not boost damage. Once you add the damage they are drawing you to the burst damage effect rather than the "free" combat options effect. I understand it was to give some compensation for when the effect failed but I think it can pull you more to being increased damage with a potential bonus effect.

That's why I mentioned stretching them out by using standard attack options. The battlemaster has a choice in that nova or in pacing. Effects don't necessarily fail either; they use the same formula as spell DC's with multiple save options. They look appear to be weaker than actual spells because of the short rest and heavy damage components to which they are attached but are useful.

Mostly though "I attack" is used as it is the most effective option. Other positioning type effects are so nebulous in TotM that it's hard to make them worthwhile (though FATE like aspects could sort of work)

TotM existed before complicating the options in 4e and was successfully done, but the style doesn't arbitrarily change options and positioning. We still pulled out mini's and maps when it was more complicated in the combats, the battles are simpler if tables want them to be and there are more options in the DMG for tables who want more complexity, and terrain features etc are always part of the option. Forcing movement can be very useful, or such actions as tipping a brazier of hot coals, or flipping up a table for cover, and still be relevant in TotM easily enough.

Even the basic attack can simply be more descriptive than "I attack", which is a player choice in his or her own narrative.

Further more in practice is 6-8 encounters what is actually happening? I have managed 4 or 5 at most . 6-8 stretches my credulity of realism (FWIW) plus it must only really crop up in those orc guarding pie style dungeons with lots of little rooms & limited response. Similarly one or no short rests happen far more often than 2, which has happened once so far in my 20 odd sessions. Two seems like the max rather than the average with the average being a bit less than one.
Mind you 3-4 encounters split by a short rest is pretty close to 6 with 2 just slightly more favourable to the long rest cycle guys.

Groups not following the guidelines and then complaining there is an issue are creating their own issues.

Short rests are natural breaks in the action developed as part of a story where the players have the opportunity provided by the DM and the players have the desire to make use of that rest. It can be with more easier encounters or less harder encounters but versimilitude and realism are maintained by doing so as part of the narrative. A good time for a break, for example, is after routing a moat house before moving down the river to the next area. Encounters are normally combat encounters as well; non-combat encounters use less resources.

Breaks are all about pacing the story and are as simple as adding an opportunity as a DM sees a need. Usually we see 1-2 short rests that start with our attempts to have a short rest after making sure we can take that short rest.

 

[SirAntoine]

Wizards should at least learn some spells for free, when they advance in level, and rewriting their spellbooks with what they knew should be possible even if it takes a long time.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

From reading this, it seems that the people who tend to like wizards don't like fighters, and want them to be different.

The people who DO like fighters think the fighters are okay as they are, and don't really need to change.


I move that we have another 16 pages of squabbling in order to figure this out.

there is also a not 0% amount of us that love the flavor of fighter (or at least a militant non spell caster hero) and don't like the fighter mechanics.... those people are the ones that want new class/subclasses too

 

[sidonunspa]

We're getting side tracked. Wizards do not represent all spell casters and champions do not represent all martial classes. Wizards are not in serious trouble without their spell books because all it does is stop them from trading in prepared spells and using rituals until it's replaced; a pain to be sure, but not crippling to the class by any means.


I disagree that without feats there isn't much to fighters. I believe this for multiple reasons:

As i said before.... play a champion with JUST heavy armor mastery (not a "choice" feat.. its always on, minimal "thinking" required and the Shield Mastery Feat... always an option, can use any time, no limit on uses) and then play one without those feats...

its a night and day difference in survivability (-3 damage seems small until your hit 10 times and saved 30hp of healing time/spells/potions) and flexability (shove as a bonus action, cover-like bonus from dex save spells and effects.. the most common save)

1) That has no impact on anything in the class progression other than the two bonus feats/ASI's that would be used for ASI's which improves skills and saving throws. It's perfectly viable to invest in CHA or WIS on a DEX built fighter for better skill capabilities.

and not pick up new skills along the way... proficiency bonus is huge, without feats they will always be nearly passable when using those skills...

saves are nice but again, without the proficiency bonus (another choice though feats) your "mhu".... a +2 to charisma save is not going to do much against a DC: 15 save or suck effect... a +5 on the other hand...

2) Not all fighters are champions. Champions are the simple option and benefit from multiple fighting styles, ability check bonuses, improved critical accuracy, and survivor; feats aren't an inherent part of the subclass benefits. If a person doesn't think that the intended simpler option in the champion is appealing then they can play a battlemaster, eldritch knight, or different martial class completely. Monk or Rogue for some good options.

see above, even if you choose "simple" feats like gaining skills or packing up a new save or gaining DR: 3 against melee attacks (heavy armor mastery) you are still light-years better then a stranded champion

feats do not always = complexity so this argument falls flat.

3) Since not all fighters are champions the other subclass key features like maneuvers and spell support are still there.

see above

4) Fighters do not have a long list of basic powers but they also do not just swing attack. Basic attacks, grappling, knockdown, and push are each standard attack options that use a single attack during the attack action. Players who play fighters just swing by choice. Those attacks increase in permutations as multiple attacks increase, and battlemasters or other classes with similar abilities are simply better at them. It doesn't matter if these are handled by stating them in sequence by the player or if the player decides to "codify powers" by stating, for example, that an 11th level fighter gets "grappling pin attack", "swing attack" ([W]+STR to 3 targets within 5 ft range), or "battle flurry" (choose 1 target, make 3 basic attacks against that target). Many of the codified powers that existed were upgrades of existing options that emulates multiple attacks. A person can go through the options and list several with snazzy names in 5e for similar effect and a whole lot of at-will "powers". Another option is to use the ready action and see what a person can do using his or her reaction; that how a person jumps in front of an eldritch blast and take the hit meant for someone else, for example. It doesn't bother me to force a wizard back 15 feat with 3 consecutive shove attacks, through an arch or doorway, and restrict his line-of-sight; that's a standard fighter option. Between standard attack options, standard options aside from attacks, using items or equipment, and using backgrounds and skills outside of combat the character has several options even if he's a champion fighter.

I broke down before how dealing damage is commonly a far far better option then special maneuvers, unless you can get away with using them as a bonus action. the only acceptation is high AC targets, shoving them to get advantage on your next 2 attacks may be worth it.

but most of the time you want to take the target out so it stops dealing damage... the more actions you take away from the GM the better is it for your party

On that same note from item 4, battlemasters don't need to use maneuvers or superiority dice to use those listed options. Battlemasters are better at such options by also applying maneuvers on top of damaging attacks as a bonus and possibly on attacks to which those standard options won't apply. They can also mix and match standard attack options with superiority dice maneuvers if they so choose. This means they don't run out of superiority dice as fast and that they have more permutations available to which the action may be applied.

Using the standard rest system means battlemasters start with 1-2 maneuvers per combat encounter. Usually 2 but at 6-8 combats and 2 short rests it can vary a bit. The end up with 2-3 per combat encounter with a guarantee one will be available every combat. They can do things like trip a griffon with a bow while it's flying, trade in an attack to grant another attack beyond their reach within sight and hearing that can potentially go to a stunning attack/smite/sneak attack character, or grant half moves without opportunity attacks. If they action surge they can spend up to 6 dice on maneuvers in a single turn in various combinations. Then they can apply their free artisan proficiency for a nice lifestyle while working on political influence from within the guild with some CHA investment to go with it.

see what I said above, the CHA investment is really not worth it unless you have a CHA skill.

how do you get one after character creation 1) take a year to learn it... if the GM is nice 2) feat 3) mutli-class

Fighters are great in 5e. They just are codified on the same power structure as other classes because that's not the standard for any class.

never said they were not a good class... but they are far far far better when you allow feats.

they get more bang for the buck from feats then any other class because they can get more of them

 

[Minsc]

Wow, great news!

I've always been a big fan of Fighters (rp-wise), but I've always thought the mechanics were kind of boring.

Since WotC took over, it seems they've really spiced the Fighter up, and this version looks to be the best!

I'm starting my first game in over 10 years this week. I am jumping in as a 5th level character, and I'm pretty sure it'll be a Fighter.

But do I go with Pole Arms? Sword and Board? GreatSword or GreatAxe?

I don't even own the PHB yet (it gets delivered today!!), so I don't know where I'm going with this character yet. I'm just so psyched!!

I've got to say, the OP's story (on page 2) of the Fighter wailing on that Hydra is just awesome.

 

[Pickles JG]

TotM existed before complicating the options in 4e and was successfully done, but the style doesn't arbitrarily change options and positioning. We still pulled out mini's and maps when it was more complicated in the combats, the battles are simpler if tables want them to be and there are more options in the DMG for tables who want more complexity, and terrain features etc are always part of the option. Forcing movement can be very useful, or such actions as tipping a brazier of hot coals, or flipping up a table for cover, and still be relevant in TotM easily enough.

Indeed though I have always previously played D&D with minis & a map - probably because I started with a wargames club in the (very late) 70s. I have played Feng Shui a whole lot exclusively TotM & things like exact movement speed become far less important than when you are counting squares; similarly other precise positioning tricks. In that game cool stunts are done because they are cool not because they are effective yet oddly I find excessive attack description in D&D tiresome.

Forced movement effects are about my favourite thing about 4e combat & they are just not as interesting in TotM - I am a super lax generous DM regarding this stuff too.
When I got 13th Age I was disappointed by the random numbers that AOE spells effected but in TOTM it's usually me, the DM, arbitrarily designating numbers of targets so it might as well be random. I am glad the wizard in the party is an evoker so he can ignore friendly fire to a large extent which reduces that ruling.

Anyway I am now a bit lost as to my point since I am really enjoying the 5e game I run (on google hangout sans maps) & dread the map drawing that other DMS in Adventurers League play use - if a fight takes 10 minutes I really do not want to spend 15 minutes watching a map get drawn.

Even the basic attack can simply be more descriptive than "I attack", which is a player choice in his or her own narrative.

In Feng Shui cool stunts are done because they are cool not because they are effective yet oddly I find excessive attack description in D&D tiresome.

Groups not following the guidelines and then complaining there is an issue are creating their own issues.

Short rests are natural breaks in the action developed as part of a story where the players have the opportunity provided by the DM and the players have the desire to make use of that rest. It can be with more easier encounters or less harder encounters but versimilitude and realism are maintained by doing so as part of the narrative. A good time for a break, for example, is after routing a moat house before moving down the river to the next area. Encounters are normally combat encounters as well; non-combat encounters use less resources.

Breaks are all about pacing the story and are as simple as adding an opportunity as a DM sees a need. Usually we see 1-2 short rests that start with our attempts to have a short rest after making sure we can take that short rest.

What happened to 5e can suit any playstyle?*

Anyway I have been running Lost Mines of Phandelver & I think the only situations where you might get into 6 or more fights in one day are Cragmaw Castle & The Mines themselves. (without lots of random encounters to "fix" it - massively in excess of the number the module would generate)

I think my part may have done all of the Castle in one day but I think that was only 5? encounters - they combined some, avoided some & the rogue soloed a bit.
The Mines included a long rest so probably two days of 3 or 4 encounters.

It is not me not following the guidelines it's the module designers & those damned players doing what they want willy nilly.

*I suspect I have subconciously moved to a style with fewer more dangerous encounters, which will work about the same as 6-8 easier ones. Get up, fight a couple of terrible villains. Spot of lunch, fight another more. Drop of tea then one more monster before supper & bedtime.

 

[Pickles JG]

Wow, great news!

I've always been a big fan of Fighters (rp-wise), but I've always thought the mechanics were kind of boring.

Since WotC took over, it seems they've really spiced the Fighter up, and this version looks to be the best!

Swords for everyone!


(4e one was good too, but you had to also like 4e)

 

[Henry]

But do I go with Pole Arms? Sword and Board? GreatSword or GreatAxe?

I don't even own the PHB yet (it gets delivered today!!), so I don't know where I'm going with this character yet. I'm just so psyched!!

Just go for the eyes.

 

[Henry]

It is not me not following the guidelines it's the module designers & those damned players doing what they want willy nilly.

*I suspect I have subconciously moved to a style with fewer more dangerous encounters, which will work about the same as 6-8 easier ones. Get up, fight a couple of terrible villains. Spot of lunch, fight another more. Drop of tea then one more monster before supper & bedtime.

If it's the players rushing headlong into the next danger without resource recovery then they asked for it. if it's the prewritten adventure at least that's something you can "salt to taste" in your session's recipe.

When I read your piece about pacing it gave me a chuckle, made me think of comedian Eddie Izzard's piece about genocidal dictators:

"So what's their schedule like, then? Death, Death, Death, Death, Death... LUNCH.... Death, Death, Death... Afternoon Tea... Death, Death... Quick Shower..."