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

[Vaalingrade]

I was just looking back at 3e and thinking about how wacky some of the mechanics were and how I don't miss them. Everything used to provoke an Attack of Opportunity.

Try to trip a foe? Attack of Opportunity.
Try to grapple a foe? Attack of Opportunity.
Try to stand up? Attack of Opportunity.
Try to disarm a foe? Attack of Opportunity.
Make a ranged attack? Attack of Opportunity.
Cast a spell? Attack of Opportunity.
Sneeze? Attack of Opportunity.
Look sideways? Attack of Opportunity.
Think bad thoughts? Attack of Opportunity.

I remember building a fighter, using up 2 feats and pumping up Int in order to do something like just trip someone without provoking an attack and not losing an attack, a trick that the battlemaster can just do. There are a few things from 3e that I miss, but they way fighters worked (or more generally how characters were built) is something I don't look back on fondly.

Don't forget the -4 for trying without the feat tax!

 

[TwoSix]

My main group is literally scarred for life by 3E's awful AoO rules.

They just think everything is going to trigger one. It's been two editions, guys, you'd think they'd get better, and I continually reassure them that it's quite hard to trigger one in 5E, but...

I can't complain too much as I thought 5E had a 5' step movement-action disengage until a couple of years ago.

The amount of time we still call for Spot or Diplomacy checks is sadly all too frequent.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

The amount of time we still call for Spot or Diplomacy checks is sadly all too frequent.

for years we have said "Perception, spot, notice What ever it's called"

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I am in no way the target audiance of the 'basic fighter' I dislike (to the point of it annoying me when OTHER people take that subclass at my table) however there are fans of it, and there is a reason to keep something basic... or as you say 'tutorial' in the game

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. Yeah he was a towering Dragonborn (IIRC), but his attitude was that Fighters sounded "boring". And that was in the edition when they were arguably least boring!

Other people aged between and 10 and 45, what have they picked? Mostly the same three classes:

Ranger - a large part of this is because it sounds exactly like what people want, it's just the mechanics suck - also people love the idea of the pet.
Warlock - This seems to have more "basic appeal" than other caster classes, and given its more straightforward to play as well, that's probably a good thing.
Druid - I don't really understand this but new people seem to instantly gravitate to it, albeit not as much as Ranger and Warlock. One of my friends was forced by his daughter to buy whatever sourcebook it was which had the Circle of Spores Druid in, because she'd read about it online and would not play anything else in the game he was intending to run (she's been keenly observing our D&D games since a young age when allowed!).

Paladin, Cleric, Rogue are probably the next three. As noted no new-to-D&D or new-to-RPGs player has wanted to play a Fighter, and I think only one wanted to play a Wizard and cited Harry Potter in making that choice.

This is all experience not fact but I am just incredibly skeptical about the whole "simple Fighter" option.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

The amount of time we still call for Spot or Diplomacy checks is sadly all too frequent.

Oh god, I had to argue with a 5E DM that Diplomacy no longer existed a couple of years ago. He was very sure it did. I was like "Look at our character sheets, I promise we're not gaslighting you!". It was a situation where it would have made sense to roll Diplomacy but not really to roll Persuasion too.

 

[Minigiant]

Counter proposal.

1. Maneuvers should have be a base optional variant system. Similar to spells but not core like multiclassing.
2. Superiority dice let you do maneuvers better.
3. Warrior classes can get superiority dice easiest by trading out Action Surge, Second Wind, etc...
4. Subclasses like Battlemaster (and Hunter) advances and accumulates superiority dice fastest.

Basically Maneuvers should have been in the PHB right after Feats. This way everyone can attempt to trip or disarm, and everyone knows how it works but there is a path to do it better.

 

[TwoSix]

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. Yeah he was a towering Dragonborn (IIRC), but his attitude was that Fighters sounded "boring". And that was in the edition when they were arguably least boring!

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.

 

[Oofta]

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. Yeah he was a towering Dragonborn (IIRC), but his attitude was that Fighters sounded "boring". And that was in the edition when they were arguably least boring!

Other people aged between and 10 and 45, what have they picked? Mostly the same three classes:

Ranger - a large part of this is because it sounds exactly like what people want, it's just the mechanics suck - also people love the idea of the pet.
Warlock - This seems to have more "basic appeal" than other caster classes, and given its more straightforward to play as well, that's probably a good thing.
Druid - I don't really understand this but new people seem to instantly gravitate to it, albeit not as much as Ranger and Warlock. One of my friends was forced by his daughter to buy whatever sourcebook it was which had the Circle of Spores Druid in, because she'd read about it online and would not play anything else in the game he was intending to run (she's been keenly observing our D&D games since a young age when allowed!).

Paladin, Cleric, Rogue are probably the next three. As noted no new-to-D&D or new-to-RPGs player has wanted to play a Fighter, and I think only one wanted to play a Wizard and cited Harry Potter in making that choice.

This is all experience not fact but I am just incredibly skeptical about the whole "simple Fighter" option.

I like playing basic fighters, my first PC was a champion fighter. If I had more opportunities to play I'd consider playing another one. Just because it's not for you doesn't mean it's not for everyone.

 

[Oofta]

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.

I've had a fighter or two in every home game I've played or run. According to DndBeyond they're quite popular.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

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. 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.

I like playing basic fighters, my first PC was a champion fighter. If I had more opportunities to play I'd consider playing another one. Just because it's not for you doesn't mean it's not for everyone.

"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.