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

[Sacrosanct]

I'm not sure how you would categorize unreliable analysis but I'd categorize that in the not doing analysis category. I mean what's the point of doing unreliable analysis?

because even unreliable analysis can have value. The point is you shouldn’t put all your faith into it. And view it critically. Not that you shouldn’t ever do any. I’ve already explained this. I do this as my day job, I know what I’m talking about here

Well, you say that but then you say things like "why play a champion fighter if you want out of combat ability"



You do see why your other stances like the one I quoted kind of seem to undermine your OP and other statements about there being valid grievances right?

Way to take that partial quote out of context. It was in response to you saying they never had any out of combat ability. Which is false. And what you wanted was significant out of combat ability (at low levels). So my point is that if that’s what you want, a PC that has significant out of combat utility, why are you choosing the class you say has none? Nothing in those comments implies I am denying the grievances are real. There’s a big difference between “significant” and “any” out of combat functionality

 

[Sacrosanct]

Thanks for the reset @Umbran!

@Sacrosanct - I'd intended to go back to the OP tonight and re-read it again anyway, but Umbran's post really drove that need home

Specifically for the Champion, I think the classes apparent "lack" is just more that the features feel lackluster when you get them, regardless of what they are mechanically or not.

Many of the fighter subclasses give you bonus skill proficiency options. So that would be an easy start to boosting the perceived benefits of the subclass.



So at 3rd level, I would say we could offer proficiency in either Acrobatics or Athletics and expertise in one of those skills of your choosing.

At 7th level, with remarkable athlete add expertise in the other skill (this kind of presumes that a fighter takes one of them to start with from Fighter skills I guess?)

I don't mind the extra fighting style at 10th. I would always be open to another one of those frankly and wish more fighters got that as an option.

The theme of the subclass is to deal devastating blows. I'm not feeling a 19-20 Crit at 3rd and a 18-20 at 15th is really embracing that concept.

Maybe double down on the Critical hit focus of the Subclass as well? Give them a brutal critical type thing where when they do crit, they do +1 weapon damage die on top of the normal crit. Maybe also expand the crit ranges? so at 3rd make it 18-20, at 15th make it 17-20?

I agree with most of what you post here, even if the fine details might be off. I think all of the above keeps things simple with no moving parts as they are mostly passive (a design requirement of the champion) while boosting up success at combat and out of combat challenges

 

[FrogReaver]

because even unreliable analysis can have value. The point is you shouldn’t put all your faith into it. And view it critically. Not that you shouldn’t ever do any. I’ve already explained this. I do this as my day job, I know what I’m talking about here

Interesting - I thought you said you were a requirements writer and tester at the start of this thread. Came up when you objected to something I said about design. Any other parts of your day job you want to mention to us before it sounds like you are just making them up as you go along?

And just to make sure I understand your stance on analysis - your saying that analysis in D&D has value but just don't put all your faith in it. Sounds good so far. So why weren't you valuing the analysis I was providing?

Way to take that partial quote out of context. It was in response to you saying they never had any out of combat ability. Which is false. And what you wanted was significant out of combat ability (at low levels). So my point is that if that’s what you want, a PC that has significant out of combat utility, why are you choosing the class you say has none? Nothing in those comments implies I am denying the grievances are real. There’s a big difference between “significant” and “any” out of combat functionality

Yea I'm not following this. Are you saying the champion fighter has no out of combat ability?

 

[Sacrosanct]

Interesting - I thought you said you were a requirements writer and tester at the start of this thread. Came up when you objected to something I said about design. Any other parts of your day job you want to mention to us before it sounds like you are just making them up as you go along?

psst. Requirements writing and testing, and data analysis are the same job. They are intrinsically connected to each other. That’s literally what the testing part is. So before you accuse someone of lying, you might want to know what the subject of what you’re talking about is first

And just to make sure I understand your stance on analysis - your saying that analysis in D&D has value but just don't put all your faith in it. Sounds good so far. So why weren't you valuing the analysis I was providing?

Because it was fundamentally flawed, with the reasons I and others already gave you

Yea I'm not following this. Are you saying the champion fighter has no out of combat ability?

No, that’s what you said that I was responding to.

 

[FrogReaver]

psst. Requirements writing and testing, and data analysis are the same job. They are intrinsically connected to each other. That’s literally what the testing part is. So before you accuse someone of lying, you might want to know what the subject of what you’re talking about is first

Insinuation that you could have been. No accusation though. Now I'm sure you are going to explain to me how this isn't so but it seems to me like whatever analysis skills you use in testing is significantly different than the type of analysis one would do in analyzing a game, or optimization etc. So while I'm not saying it's not analysis - it would appear that there's vastly different forms of analysis and that being an expert on one type doesn't mean you necessarily know anything about another type. A reasonable assessment no?

Because it was fundamentally flawed, with the reasons I and others already gave you

You mean the reason that involved you using different and less appropriate assumptions to reach your numbers.

No, that’s what you said that I was responding to.

I see, so do you think champion fighters have significant out of combat capabilities - or even moderate out of combat capabilities?

 

[Sacrosanct]

Insinuation that you could have been. No accusation though. Now I'm sure you are going to explain to me how this isn't so but it seems to me like whatever analysis skills you use in testing is significantly different than the type of analysis one would do in analyzing a game, or optimization etc. So while I'm not saying it's not analysis - it would appear that there's vastly different forms of analysis and that being an expert on one type doesn't mean you necessarily know anything about another type. A reasonable assessment no?



You mean the reason that involved you using different and less appropriate assumptions to reach your numbers.



I see, so do you think champion fighters have significant out of combat capabilities - or even moderate out of combat capabilities?

regardless of the specific analysis, there are common groundwork rules that are universal. I already gave these to you, but I’ll repeat them. The biggest being the “garbage in, garbage out” saying. I.e, you have to have good methodology or it doesn’t matter how many numbers you run. The result will always be bad. And as I and others already pointed out, you had serious glaring flaws in your analysis because your core premise was bad. You didn’t account for many things that needed to be accounted for, for starters.

also, I didn’t give you any numbers. And I have no idea what you mean by less appropriate assumptions. Everything I listed are very real factors that need to be accounted for.

 

[FrogReaver]

regardless of the specific analysis, there are common groundwork rules that are universal. I already gave these to you, but I’ll repeat them. The biggest being the “garbage in, garbage out” saying. I.e, you have to have good methodology or it doesn’t matter how many numbers you run. The result will always be bad. And as I and others already pointed out, you had serious glaring flaws in your analysis because your core premise was bad. You didn’t account for many things that needed to be accounted for, for starters.

also, I didn’t give you any numbers. And I have no idea what you mean by less appropriate assumptions. Everything I listed are very real factors that need to be accounted for.

possible I'm getting you and someone else confused with the numbers. It's easy to do that on these mega threads. I apoligze if that's the case.

So, what flaws are you citing?

 

[ClaytonCross]

My point about cognitive dissonance was about you saying no progress can be made, and how you can’t have further discussion, and then literally post several paragraphs of discussion that you just said you couldn’t have.

I posted several paragraphs explaining what is needed to make useful contributions to your point and why your lacking it. That does not provide forward progress toward solving the fighter. Its a request for more information so that we can.

You also seem to be under the impression that unless I personally have grievances, I can’t offer solutions to people who do. So I go back to my initial response to you. The grievances folks have had re the fighter and lack of out of combat abilities are well documented. The exist even in this very thread. So for you to say I must state them in detail or you have no idea what I’m talking about is either incredible ignorance on your part about this topic, which I don’t believe, or you’re willfully ignoring the point to take pot shots or trolling. I’m guessing it’s the latter by your immediate dismissal of my suggestions as ineffectual and unusable (your opinion is hardly objective truth)

First I never said your suggestions are ineffectual or unusable... I said, "Do you care to actually explain your issues with the champion sub-class, instead of ineffective and unusable generalities?" I am not talking about your suggestions. I am talking about you saying the subclass had issues and not mentioning what the issues are. How can I know if your suggested fixes are good if I don't even know what they are fixing? I have not dug through every single post and every single thread to guess what solutions your talking about. I am not willfully ignorant to your intent. I am asking you to clarify what specific problems you are addressing. I highly recommend, creating a list of the problems of which you are seeing and would like to address then we can look at your suggestion or make suggestions of our on based on this. Your making this presumption that everyone here has read every post on every thread and knows which ones you mean. I am not replying to every post. You created the thread, you created the topic. I am asking for clarification to consider what you said. That is not against you personally or against your suggestions. It is simply a request for clarification.

So good day. If you don’t have any further suggestions in how we can add out of combat functionality to the fighter while maintaining the requirements I outlined in the first post, I’ll kindly ask you to stop threadcapping.

Threadcapping? I am asking you about the subject for further clarification. How can you be more relevant that trying to understand the original posters intent? To that end again, I am trying to ask you a question. I made one suggestion that perhaps an extra class proficiency of the players choice would add to the flexibility of the class. However, I am not sure if this address the complaints you are speaking of because you didn't list them. If you can provide some examples of what issues your hearing about, then I can adjust or add to this. I am not attacking you, please stop trying to make it sound like I am and twisting my words. I really want to know what issues you are hearing for the subclass of what which your suggestions are trying to fix. That way I can see where you going and we can both have a more meaningful conversation.

I am trying my best to be helpful and address your subject. Please bear with me and try to answer my question directly.

 

[Hussar]

I can't believe I slogged all the way through that. :wow:

The thing is, this whole thread is based on a false premise. The premise is that there is this apparent need to make fighters equal to casters. That's not the issue. The basic issue is this:

Fighters play the same game all the way through. From 1st level to 20th level, a fighter doesn't really change a whole lot. Sure, they might succeed more often and they can do more of the same stuff they could attempt at 1st level, but, they can't do anything actually different.

Casters, OTOH, do not. They play completely different games at 1st level and at 20th level.

The casters can grow into any fantasy archetype - your wizard can become Merlin or Dumbledore. But, the non-magical types have a hard ceiling that they cannot ever be allowed to break through. You can be Conan or Aragorn, but, you can NEVER be Beowulf or Hercules, or Odysseus. Because anything that is outside the realm of the mundane can only ever be accomplished by magic.

So, all these arguments about fighters getting this or that out of combat ribbon miss the point. It's not about being equal to the casters. It's about actually getting to emulate the fantasy stories that we read as children (or adults maybe). The casters, they get it right out of the gate. Play a caster long enough and you can emulate any fantasy "caster" you want, from Gandalf to... well... Dumbledore.

But, a fighter that can swim across the ocean? Drink a lake dry? Leap across the tops of trees? Don't be daft. You can't do that without magic.

So, while the casters are busy being the legends of stories, the non-casters get to be Conan or Fafrd - pretty cool in their own right, but, they never, ever are allowed to be anything more than that.

THAT'S the issue. That you can make yourself useful by taking this or that background, who cares? Any character could take the same background and be just as useful? You could take this or that feat twice over the course of 20 levels? Are any of those feats going to let you jump 60 feet? Fly? Turn invisible? Cut off heads? Slay 10 giants? Pierce the hide of the Nemean Lion?

Because, guess what? My wizard can do all those things. Sure, I can't do them all the time. Fair enough. But, I can do them infinitely more times than you can, because you can't EVER do them as a fighter.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

THAT'S the issue. That you can make yourself useful by taking this or that background, who cares? Any character could take the same background and be just as useful? You could take this or that feat twice over the course of 20 levels? Are any of those feats going to let you jump 60 feet? Fly? Turn invisible? Cut off heads? Slay 10 giants? Pierce the hide of the Nemean Lion?

Because, guess what? My wizard can do all those things. Sure, I can't do them all the time. Fair enough. But, I can do them infinitely more times than you can, because you can't EVER do them as a fighter.

I'm kind of baffled by the apparent assertion that fighters can't cut off heads or slay giants.