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

[Tony Vargas]

The bottom line - if skills get any fix at all - something about the current rogue is going to get taken away - either by giving his stuff to other classes - or limiting his stuff to traditional rogue skills.

And, it's not like the Rogue's sitting in Tier 1 with the neo-Vancian set.

Really, though, the problem of the fighter lacking breadth and the Rogue needing niche protection are related: the two of them put together wouldn't exactly be OP - just make Sneak Attack an action that includes an attack, so that it's incompatible with Extra Attack.

 

[Tony Vargas]

you can still understand the point I'm trying to make, and even are capable of building a home-brew class based on the arguments I was making. ... has resulted in prodding you to create a complete class that addresses all my criticisms.

Reminds me of the origin of the Ranger: a player really wanted to play an Aragorn, the fighter was inadequate so, rather than bring that class up to snuff, his DM creates a superior, narrowly-thematic new class.

 

[Sacrosanct]

You might not agree with me, and that's fine. Disagreement is groovy. But, you can still understand the point I'm trying to make, and even are capable of building a home-brew class based on the arguments I was making. Seems rather productive to me. Funny how apparently my "lies" and "unproductive argumentativeness" has resulted in prodding you to create a complete class that addresses all my criticisms.

I'd call that pretty darn productive, but, hey, apparently I'll just be told I'm lying again.

pretty sure the only time anyone said you were telling falsehoods was when you were telling falsehoods. See how that works? Stop repeating falsehoods and no one would say you’re lying. seems pretty simple.

 

[Garthanos]

We

Reminds me of the origin of the Ranger: a player really wanted to play an Aragorn, the fighter was inadequate so, rather than bring that class up to snuff, his DM creates a superior, narrowly-thematic new class.

Well exactly

 

[Phion]

I'm not sure how that disagrees with my assessment - MOST would not put it in athletics. You are one - certainly not most.

Touche, I was going more with the angle that it shouldn't be dismissed as viable option but yes it is not typically picked up by other players from what I have seen.

 

[Phion]

It would have been quite nice if all fighters automatically got expertise in athletics specifically as a starting proficiency bonus (not included if multiclassed into the fighter).

It would also have been nice if they added more opportunities to get a fighting style with a wider range of choice as they levelled up.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Most fighters take athletics, and those who dip into rogue use expertise on it nearly all the time IME. Knocking a target prone can create huge benefits as I have seen anyway. In fact, my own character in the next game will be this very sort of build.

We have house-rules for improving Fighting Styles (slightly, nothing major).

 

[CleverNickName]

Most fighters take athletics, and those who dip into rogue use expertise on it nearly all the time IME. Knocking a target prone can create huge benefits as I have seen anyway. In fact, my own character in the next game will be this very sort of build.

We have house-rules for improving Fighting Styles (slightly, nothing major).

Could you share those house-rules here? I'm working on something very similar, and I'm kinda stuck...

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Reminds me of the origin of the Ranger: a player really wanted to play an Aragorn, the fighter was inadequate so, rather than bring that class up to snuff, his DM creates a superior, narrowly-thematic new class.

There's an implicit premise here that an Aragorn ought to be a fighter. If somebody were complaining that they couldn't build Aragorn as a warlock, I think most of us would just say "well, duh". Aragorn has features ABC, warlocks have features XYZ, ABC != XYZ, therefore Aragorn is not a warlock. But for some reason, with the fighter I'm instead seeing the logic that Aragorn has features ABC, fighters have features XYZ, ABC != XYZ, therefore the class is inadequate. Why?

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Could you share those house-rules here? I'm working on something very similar, and I'm kinda stuck...

I'm not @dnd4vr , obviously, but Mike Mearls had a very clean and straightforward "Superior Fighting Style'' feature in his Weapon Master draft that you might want to look at.