D&D 5E Fighters are amazing!

[koga305]

While I agree that generally speaking your DM ought to let you take sensible actions (like attempting to disarm or take cover), the viability of those actions as regular combat options does to an extent depend on feats. If it takes my action (or at least one of my attacks) to knock someone prone, it may not be worth it, but if I can do it as a bonus action (which makes sense for an experienced shield wielder), it becomes a great tactic.

Feats also allow you to do things that would normally be impossible. If a player didn't have an ability that made him or her able to do it, I wouldn't allow them to duck behind their shield as a reaction to avoid a dragon's fire breath, because the rules already assume that player is doing everything they can to avoid the fire breath. Just like I wouldn't give advantage on an attack roll if the player said "I aim for the head," because a character's skill at aiming is factored into their attack bonus.

That said, fighters are able to do just fine in a game without feats. Remember, grappling and shoving only take up one of your several attacks, so use those liberally to gain an advantage! If you grapple + prone a foe, they stay proned until they can escape the grapple (as an action!), and many foes aren't proficient in Athletics - a great way for Fighters to get some battlefield control in!

 

[sidonunspa]

I hate to tell you this, but all of those things you can do in 1e, or any edition really. And if you have a DM who says you can't attempt anything if it isn't explicitly written? They are a bad DM. Especially if you're playing 1e.

99.9% of the time, whenever a player wanted to do something that wasn't explicitly written as a rule, like knocking prone an opponent, or ducking behind a shield, or whatever, it came down to either an attack roll or an ability check.

So, let me get this right... in your game

any time I take a reaction to duck behind my shield to save vs. an area attack spell/effect like dragon breath you would be like "Ok, done?"

every fight I would run up... as bonus action, shove a target with my shield to knock my opponent down using my Athletics skill (because if you a fighter who can do that, why won't you) then attack them with my sword (at advantage)


at 15th level, when I have 3 attacks a round.......run into a fight with spear and shield, use attack 1 to shove target to the ground, sling shield on my back, draw my long sword, attack with my other two attacks and then attack with my off hand attack as a bonus action, then turn on action surge for 3 more attacks... which I use stab someone, move 20' attack someone with my other sword, then throw my spear at -5 for +10 damage (if i hit) to stop the guy on the horse from running off and warning the guards?

(and exp if you can guess what movie inspired the above)

 

[sidonunspa]

That said, fighters are able to do just fine in a game without feats. Remember, grappling and shoving only take up one of your several attacks, so use those liberally to gain an advantage! If you grapple + prone a foe, they stay proned until they can escape the grapple (as an action!), and many foes aren't proficient in Athletics - a great way for Fighters to get some battlefield control in!

not worth it unless the target has a high AC.... you do better just attacking and dealing damage, dead target = less attacks on the GM's side.

unless you and shove someone as a bonus action its not worth it (unless you ALSO deal damage in the process that is)

remember getting up only costs 1/2 move and they can still take an action (and even pick up a drop'd weapon) that does not provoke an attack of opportunity

 

[Sacrosanct]

So, let me get this right... in your game

any time I take a reaction to duck behind my shield to save vs. an area attack spell/effect like dragon breath you would be like "Ok, done?"

every fight I would run up... as bonus action, shove a target with my shield to knock my opponent down using my Athletics skill (because if you a fighter who can do that, why won't you) then attack them with my sword (at advantage)


at 15th level, when I have 3 attacks a round.......run into a fight with spear and shield, use attack 1 to shove target to the ground, sling shield on my back, draw my long sword, attack with my other two attacks and then attack with my off hand attack as a bonus action, then turn on action surge for 3 more attacks... which I use stab someone, move 20' attack someone with my other sword, then throw my spear at -5 for +10 damage (if i hit) to stop the guy on the horse from running off and warning the guards?

(and exp if you can guess what movie inspired the above)

I'm saying you don't need feats in order to do other actions besides "just attack" like you claimed. It seems now you've shifted your argument into one where you can't do those things without having bonus actions or reactions, and that's equally flawed. Actions are actions, whether they are just "actions" in AD&D, or "Actions, bonus actions, reactions" in 5e. Every round you can do X amount of certain things.

I've been playing AD&D continuously since 1981 (skipped 3e and 4e), and I've never seen a game or played with anyone who felt like they couldn't attempt to shove, trip, whatever just because there wasn't a rule for it.

I myself like fighters, and I can tell you I've done a lot more than just attack. Some examples;

"I want to leap on the table and jump off, tackling the bugbear." DM: "Ok, make a Dex check, then an attack roll."
"I want to trip that orc coming by me so it can't get to the MU." DM: "Ok, make an attack roll."
"I want to dive behind that pillar to avoid the dragon's breath, hoping to gain a bonus above what my normal ST is." DM: "Ok, that will take your action, but I'll give you a +4 bonus to your ST."
"I want to use my shield to knock the orc down." DM: "Ok, that will take one of your attacks. Make an attack roll, and then we'll compare strength checks. You get a +1 bonus for every point you made your attack roll by."

 

[billd91]

So, let me get this right... in your game

any time I take a reaction to duck behind my shield to save vs. an area attack spell/effect like dragon breath you would be like "Ok, done?"

What do you think your save was in the first place? You did something to protect yourself and avoided the brunt of the damage. Successfully saving is what determined if you got your shield up in time or not.

every fight I would run up... as bonus action, shove a target with my shield to knock my opponent down using my Athletics skill (because if you a fighter who can do that, why won't you) then attack them with my sword (at advantage)

Just because the DM is willing to allow some actions doesn't mean you're necessarily going to define the terms in which they happen (particularly using 5e terms). Knock down the opponent? Sure. Roll to hit and then roll d20 under your strength while your target rolls under his strength or dexterity (whichever is higher). Whoever gets the better margin of success wins. If you win and have a second attack in the round, then you get to smack him with a bonus because he's prone.

The point is - you use what the player wants to achieve and fit the best mechanics you can adapt to those plans. It's the player's imagination that enables the PC to attempt to do what he's doing - not the rules. The rules are a managing structure, not an enabling one.

 

[Gadget]

I hate to tell you this, but all of those things you can do in 1e, or any edition really. And if you have a DM who says you can't attempt anything if it isn't explicitly written? They are a bad DM. Especially if you're playing 1e.

99.9% of the time, whenever a player wanted to do something that wasn't explicitly written as a rule, like knocking prone an opponent, or ducking behind a shield, or whatever, it came down to either an attack roll or an ability check.

I know some people like to have rules for everything and I can get that; it's nice to be able to reference a consistent rule between groups. But please, please don't make the flawed assumption that if there isn't a rule, you can't do it. Hundreds of thousands of gamers were able to do this just fine for decades.

Because your post above? That seems to prove the saying, "In new school play, anything not expressly permitted is forbidden, and in old school play, anything not expressly forbidden is permitted." That's a pretty popular meme going around and the accuracy is debated, but your statements seem to reinforce it.

While I like the idea of simplicity and rulings not rules as much as the next person, I think this is a little disingenuous on the face of it. Sure, you can get your DM to let you try some cool thing you saw on that show you like, but there is a limit; and expecting the DM to be an expert game designer on the fly to make a balanced and consistent rulings on complex actions like that is a bit much. Especially if other characters have to expend resources and build options to get the same benefit. Otherwise you're just back to playing Cowboys and Indians on the playground with the other kids. Which is fine if that's what your after, but I've found such systems favor those players with high charisma and can argue the best with the DM on how their maneuver makes sense, is perfectly logical and should of course be allowed.

My opinion could be unduly influenced by childhood memories of less than mature plays though, so one could take this with a grain of salt.

 

[Sacrosanct]

My opinion could be unduly influenced by childhood memories of less than mature plays though, so one could take this with a grain of salt.

Noted, and credit to you for acknowledging it I say that because my experiences are different. The vast majority of the time the DM just came up with what sounded reasonable and we went with it. As noted, 99% of the time this was pretty much just an attack roll or ability check, so there was a pretty solid level of consistency there.

 

[koga305]

not worth it unless the target has a high AC.... you do better just attacking and dealing damage, dead target = less attacks on the GM's side.

unless you and shove someone as a bonus action its not worth it (unless you ALSO deal damage in the process that is)

remember getting up only costs 1/2 move and they can still take an action (and even pick up a drop'd weapon) that does not provoke an attack of opportunity

THat's what the grapple is for. Their move is 0 while grappled so they can't stand up until they escape the grapple, which takes their action (and they have to roll against your Athletics for it!). Alternatively, they can just attack... anyone within 5', with disadvantage because they're prone. Really a solid lockdown move for anyone with a good Athletics score and the resilience to take a couple of hits.

 

[Joe Liker]

EDIT: Ninja'd!!

remember getting up only costs 1/2 move and they can still take an action (and even pick up a drop'd weapon) that does not provoke an attack of opportunity

But he's not just knocking them prone. He's knocking them prone and grappling, which means its speed becomes 0. You cannot stand from prone if your speed is 0, so it cannot stand up until it escapes the grapple.

Unless you're sure you can kill it in this round instead, it will often be worthwhile to pin a foe in this way, granting advantage to all melee attacks against that enemy.

 

[billd91]

While I like the idea of simplicity and rulings not rules as much as the next person, I think this is a little disingenuous on the face of it. Sure, you can get your DM to let you try some cool thing you saw on that show you like, but there is a limit; and expecting the DM to be an expert game designer on the fly to make a balanced and consistent rulings on complex actions like that is a bit much. Especially if other characters have to expend resources and build options to get the same benefit. Otherwise you're just back to playing Cowboys and Indians on the playground with the other kids. Which is fine if that's what your after, but I've found such systems favor those players with high charisma and can argue the best with the DM on how their maneuver makes sense, is perfectly logical and should of course be allowed.

My opinion could be unduly influenced by childhood memories of less than mature plays though, so one could take this with a grain of salt.

You don't need to be an expert game designer - you just need to have an idea what you want to achieve in the game. Do you want to reward cool ideas? Make the mechanic relatively easy and give the end result a little bit of a bonus. Want to up the challenge? Make the mechanic harder but give a bit more effect to sweeten the deal. And if you overdo it, don't overdo it the next time. As far as dealing with PCs who had to build something to get the effect, make it a little harder for anyone without that build to do it so that the investment is strictly better.

The one other thing you need is trust. Be honest with the players if you make things too easy and have to reel things back in. Give the players their due input opportunities. Make a decision you can defend with a decent rationale. Establish that and you won't have problems like in Cowboys and Indians - heading off those is pretty much exactly what having a trusted DM is for. And if you can't trust your DM to ameliorate those issues, then you're probably playing with the wrong DM.