D&D 5E Fixing the fighter (I know...)

[Sacrosanct]

[sarcasm]Knowing this is objectively BS...[/sarcasm]

Sorry Sacrosant but you can't go around saying like that. I actually agree with almost everything else in your post, but you can't claim it is an "objective true". For instance, that "there must be a mechanically simpler class" is objectively false.

No it's not. If no class as it's core is mechanically simple, how can you have a mechanically simpler option? Subclasses add features, not take them away. If the core fighter is complex, then there is no option for all of the players out there who want a simpler mundane fighter. There are many of said people. I'm one of them. And we gave our survey feedback, which Mearls and co saw and knew that their design goal needed to include that option. It was a design goal to have a simpler mechanical class. That was one of the requirements of the game's design.

So it's not false. It's true. The foundation (the class) must be mechanically simple. From there you can add complexity via subclass features, feats, etc.

If you are saying that being a caster solves our problems with the Fighter then you're just admitting that the game effectively favors casters by giving them more options.

Saying "Become a Caster" when we complain about the Fighter kinda proves the point that the Fighter is lacking don't you think??

My answer to their comment (saying I'm relying on a magical feat) was "good thing there tons of other (non magical) feats that prove the same point", and your interpretation of that is to assume I'm saying the only way is to be a caster? I'm literally saying the opposite with what you quoted. That there are many non magical feats that prove the same point.

Now I did say earlier that if you want an ability that replicates spells but want to call it something else but does the exact same thing, then you should learn magic (because that's literally the purpose of magic). But that's not the same as saying you have to learn magic to have any sort of out of combat functionality. I even gave an example of how when I converted my halfling f/t from 1e, I chose the urchin background (skills) and dungeon delver (feat at level 4) and skulker (feat at level 6) as a champion fighter and he played exactly like the f/t from his 1e days. That right there is a clear example of having a champion single class fighter with a lot of out of combat proficiency, second only to a devoted rogue.

 

[Undrave]

Putting tradition aside, how come the 'simple class' is ALWAYS the same archetype? Why isn't there more than one newbie friendly class?

 

[Sacrosanct]

• *A simpler class that has less moving parts is not just a newb class, or for new players. Many experienced players prefer that style, just like many experienced players prefer a mundane class

Putting tradition aside, how come the 'simple class' is ALWAYS the same archetype? Why isn't there more than one newbie friendly class?

Repeating my first post in this thread.

But to answer your question, it's because casters have more complexity by the very nature of having spells. The only way you can do it simpler is to give the caster class only a few spell options. Who wants that? Warlock comes closest. But there are people, and many of them (also experienced players) who like to have a classic mundane hero (like heroes of lore and myth), and that's why it's the fighter. Because that's what people want.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Wow. Tough crowd.

 

[Mistwell]

[sarcasm]Knowing this is objectively BS...[/sarcasm]

Sorry Sacrosant but you can't go around saying like that. I actually agree with almost everything else in your post, but you can't claim it is an "objective true". For instance, that "there must be a mechanically simpler class" is objectively false.

If the game must support the common play style of simplicity, it needs one or more mechanically simpler character option, not certainly a whole class.

Uh, isn't he referring to the Champion option? Certainly I am not finding the Battlemaster "simple". If he is meaning the entire class and not that one subclass, then yeah you're correct and he's incorrect. Fighter can definitely be complex. Or at least medium level of complexity.

 

[Undrave]

Because that's what people want.

People are famously bad at knowing what they want when that thing doesn't exist.

There's nothing about 'throwing fireballs' that is inherently complicated.

I mean, look at Mario

I think a Cantrip-based class focusing on simple point and shoot damage spells with what amount to magical 'fighting styles' to enhance them could have been an interesting design space. Vancian casting seems to be the thing that causes trouble, otherwise people can wrap their head around PP or Mana in video games just fine.

 

[Garthanos]

The only way you can do it simpler is to give the caster class only a few spell options.

Interesting removing options make things simpler how about that why is this needing pointed out? ... and up thread you have people saying there are players who are ignoring options apparently making simpler options that work well on there own is desired by some caster players. It appears to be what people want.

 

[Salthorae]

So you go about changing parameters like chance to hit, chance to fail a save, not factoring in arcane recovery or action surge, and provide a more realistic number of combat rounds in the day than 20...

And you final conclusion is that wizards do more damage than fighters that don’t boost combat through ASI’s

Why didn’t you just skip all the other stuff and just say - I agree

I used the same parameters I always do (and treantmonk does) in calculating practical expected damage. The only parameters I "changed" were what you said at the start, "no combat feats", which to me also means not using ASI for boosting your stats. If you're going to limit the fighter to that, you need to also limit the Wizard to that as well.

Standard to hit ratios, and standard chance to fail their saves. Factoring in Arcane Recovery is moot if you're assuming continuous 20 round combat. If it's 20 rounds of combat over a day that is different, but that isn't the impression I got from your post. Even if you factor the most efficient Arcane Recover option for this scenario (2x 3rd level spells), that only puts the Wizard's expected damage up to 400.95. That is STILL 21 points short of the Champion (most boring/vanilla option) over the 20 rounds.

I did factor in Action Surge, you obviously didn't actually read my post.

My final conclusion in the scenario YOU posited, single target damage, is that the Fighter does more damage than a wizard over the same duration without combat feats taken or ASI spent on boositng stats.

In a burst situation, it FEELs like the wizard does more damage, but over an adventuring day, the fighter is actually dealing more single target damage than the wizard given the parameters that you set in your example.

So in fact, my point was that I DON"T AGREE with your premise. The fighter is good at their job already as the math proves regardless of what we FEEL and only gets better if you optimize them.

You said to "do the math":

Then do the freakin math instead of personal attacks!

I did the math and it doesn't support your position.

Before someone brings up Scorching Ray. I did the math on that too, even with Arcane Recovery it's objectively worse than fireball. It maxes out at 344.825 expected damage over 20 rounds with AR and firebolt rounding out the balance of 20 rounds.

Objectively that makes this no combat ASI fighter much worse than the wizard at combat - and that's just in the damage realm.

Even if they did the same amount of damage (they don't), how would that "objectively prove" the fighter is worse than the wizard. It would "objectively prove" that the most vanilla fighter is the same at combat for single target damage over 20 rounds as a Wizard who burned all of their 3rd, 4th, 5th, & 6th (including Arcane Recovered ones) on Fireball spells. Not that they're worse at it.

Putting tradition aside, how come the 'simple class' is ALWAYS the same archetype? Why isn't there more than one newbie friendly class?

There is:

• Fighter (champion) = newbie-friendly combat class (melee or ranged).
• Warlock (pretty much any patron,, Tome Boon) = newbie-friendly spellcasting class.
• Rogue (Thief) = newbie-friendly skill monkey

 

[Sacrosanct]

Uh, isn't he referring to the Champion option? Certainly I am not finding the Battlemaster "simple". If he is meaning the entire class and not that one subclass, then yeah you're correct and he's incorrect. Fighter can definitely be complex. Or at least medium level of complexity.

I'm referring to the core fighter base class. From there you can add complexity (EK, BM, etc). But it's impossible to have a simpler option (like champion) if the core class is complex

People are famously bad at knowing what they want when that thing doesn't exist.

Huh? The mundane fighter has existed since literally day 1 as the fighting man, and has been an option in every edition (except 4e and some extent 3e).

 

[Mistwell]

I think you are holding an impossible evidentiary standard. It’s be like ignoring all evidence in a criminal trial unless there’s video evidence of the crime...

There was nothing impossible about his standard. Indeed he went right for the issue I was thinking of - you don't seem to talk much about actual play experience, which is where this issue is really at. Do you just not play very often these days? Because a lot of what you seem to be saying is theory-only.