D&D (2024) Fighters if superiority dice was something all fighters get

[GMforPowergamers]

I find the entire concept of the "basic Fighter", especially the laughable idea that they're for "new players", foolish at best, and actively disingenuous is more like it.

I've started quite a few new players in 4E and 5E, and how many them wanted to be a Fighter at all, let alone a "basic Fighter"? Let me tell you.

Exactly ZERO.

Not one. No-one has even been remotely interested in a playing a Fighter as their first character. The least-nerdy most basic/mainstream person I've played D&D with, who is definitely a non-nerd, and only played D&D a few times (though he swears he enjoyed it), picked a goddamn Swordmage in 4E. He didn't pick a Fighter.

Agreed. I'm thinking back on hundreds of characters I've seen over the last few years among a dozen groups, and I've seen exactly 3 fighters. And one of them was a 4e fighter, which broke the "simple fighter" mold anyway.

same...

You know who i find DOES play champion fighters... 30-40 year old players (who all brought beer to game... I don't know that matters but it is a thing) who played pre 4e and want 'simple fighters' or people who are level dipping for increased crit to go with extra attack and action surge (okay that is only 1 time... but he brings beer too...)

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I mean, there is no subclass that no-one loves. No matter how bad or obscure or pointless.

I dislike champion... and I dislike beastmaster... but GODs do I HATE wildmagic... all three from the PHB no less.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

same...

You know who i find DOES play champion fighters... 30-40 year old players (who all brought beer to game... I don't know that matters but it is a thing) who played pre 4e and want 'simple fighters' or people who are level dipping for increased crit to go with extra attack and action surge (okay that is only 1 time... but he brings beer too...)

To be fair the guy who always plays funky-ass Warlocks/Sorcerers (until 5E he always played Rogues, but he loved 4E's Rogue so much 5E's Rogue "broke him" and now he just plays Warlocks/Sorcerers) in my main group is 100% reliable as bringing beer and good beer at that.

 

[Oofta]

Same. We've got two Fighters in 5E, both very experienced players, one of them has complained that his character is "boring" a number of times. 4E we had one (but I played really only in one group in 4E), and he was Battlerage Vigor and totally out-of-control insane awesome.

Interestingly looking at the groups I've played 5E in Paladin is the most popular "melee" class by some margin. And most of those are not old-fashioned "holy" Paladins, but other kinds.

"Not for you or anyone you've played 5E with", you mean?

I mean, there is no subclass that no-one loves. No matter how bad or obscure or pointless. Someone loves it, and will play it by preference. Even Purple Dragon.

I'm not saying no-one likes it. I'm saying the logic that it's "for new players" or "training wheels" or indeed that it "needs to be in the PHB" is really faulty. Even you are an ultra-experienced veteran player, and you like it, not some new player. New players aren't into that kind of thing, in my experience. Especially younger ones. It's grogbait.

Well, my experience that the people who should be playing the base fighter are exactly the ones that levitate to the most complex classes. Personally I think any class can be boring if you fall into a repetitive pattern, we certainly see it with warlocks.

But that's not what this thread is about. Even if you "spiced up" the fighter class it wouldn't matter. We have plenty of alternative archetypes, so if people aren't playing it now they won't play it.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I dislike champion... and I dislike beastmaster... but GODs do I HATE wildmagic... all three from the PHB no less.

Beastmaster is weird for me. Conceptually, I like the idea, and in my experience, newer players (especially female ones, but not exclusively) like the idea, but I loathe the poorly-implemented and poorly-patched mechanics of it. Just let their pet hit things without some elaborate "action economy" for god's sakes. Make it have a pile of HP and sad damage and they'll love it and it won't be a problem.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Even if you "spiced up" the fighter class it wouldn't matter. We have plenty of alternative archetypes, so if people aren't playing it now they won't play it.

i promise you if tomorrow WotC put out a book with 4e style (or Bo9S style) warlord and fighter (names don't matter) I would see a HUGE uptick in martial non magic useing characters at my tables for however long we play this edition.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Beastmaster is weird for me. Conceptually, I like the idea, and in my experience, newer players (especially female ones, but not exclusively) like the idea, but I loathe the poorly-implemented and poorly-patched mechanics of it. Just let their pet hit things without some elaborate "action economy" for god's sakes. Make it have a pile of HP and sad damage and they'll love it and it won't be a problem.

let me rephrase... the reason I dislike/hate those subclasses is becuse they match concepts I want to play/run players with but have mechanics that make doing so too much of a chore.

 

[Oofta]

i promise you if tomorrow WotC put out a book with 4e style (or Bo9S style) warlord and fighter (names don't matter) I would see a HUGE uptick in martial non magic useing characters at my tables for however long we play this edition.

And ... I guarantee that it wouldn't affect my table. Experiences differ.

Now if we brought back avengers I might be interested.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Well, my experience that the people who should be playing the base fighter are exactly the ones that levitate to the most complex classes.

But those people wouldn't be interested in playing D&D if you made them play that. Because they don't want vanilla. They want strawberry chocolate fudge.

And let's be real, very few 5E classes are significantly hard to play for a modern, moderately intelligent (like average) person. Maybe Wizards are a bit fiddly and odd? That's about it.

i promise you if tomorrow WotC put out a book with 4e style (or Bo9S style) warlord and fighter (names don't matter) I would see a HUGE uptick in martial non magic useing characters at my tables for however long we play this edition.

I have no doubt that we'd see fewer Paladins and Barbarians and more Fighters if they were distinctly 4E-style. Warlords, not so sure, I never actually saw one played for more than a couple of sessions in 4E.

That said 5E is also missing a properly-designed "Swordmage"-type class (and Booming Blade and Greenflame Blade are both sad, silly and confusing to newer players), and if that existed it would also draw a lot of players. Just like a guy who wears light armour, but is utterly deadly with a sword, and maybe doesn't cast spells, but has magic abilities - 4E had a bunch of classes like that, and people loved them.

 

[TwoSix]

i promise you if tomorrow WotC put out a book with 4e style (or Bo9S style) warlord and fighter (names don't matter) I would see a HUGE uptick in martial non magic useing characters at my tables for however long we play this edition.

Exactly this. There's no reason that their shouldn't be a warrior-type class with resource-gated exception-based abilities just like magical types get.