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

[Tony Vargas]

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?

The alternatives at the time were cleric and magic-user.

Which of the three do you think should have been able to handle Aragorn?

 

[Hussar]

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.

ROTFLMAO - that's what, five straight posts from you complaining about what I've said, rather than adding anything productive to the thread. Are you sure you actually want to talk about the fighter?

Or maybe you just wanted one of those affirmation threads where everyone pats you on the head and tells you how right you are.

Me, I saw the flaw in your argument, pointed it out and suddenly we've got a productive thread where people are actually directly addressing the flaws in the fighter. Funny that. Sure, I didn't build a class myself. Fair enough, I totally suck at that sort of thing. But, at least I'm trying to move things forward instead of spouting endless streams of logical fallacies and claiming other posters are lying or not arguing in good faith. Perhaps if you actually would like to return to the topic of the thread, things might be less frustrating for you?

 

[Garthanos]

The alternatives at the time were cleric and magic-user.

Which of the three do you think should have been able to handle Aragorn?

Warlord.... no wait.
The Ranger and Paladin both were created as sub fighters and I still prefer building them that way for 4e... I admit to a touch of traditionalist connection.

Lets stay the instead extended the fighter by allowing everyone to have skills and a ranger became a fighter who picked naturalist and perception skills.

Then along came someone wanting to play lancelot or cu culainn and a character could then take oaths to gain enhancements instead of gaining magic items. And the oaths provided benefits like a magic item sometimes did.

And someone noticed that you could have a rogue by simply taking some of those skills to emphasize and using lighter armor (and maybe the skill system already encouraged the lighter armor more distinctly for some of those skills)

and so on and so forth.

 

[Garthanos]

Tactical (homebrew)
At the start of your turn, you can decide to add your Intelligence modifier to your attack rolls or your damage rolls when using the Attack action. This benefit lasts until the end of your turn.

At first I thought ... well Meh but then I looked closer AND hold on a moment sweet!!!! It's a tactical choice and if one was indeed an Eldritch Knight its like getting to either Guide your blade with magic or Enhance it (some may always do one or the other). I am assuming you have a tactical Variant/Sub Build or Int driven Battlemaster Maneuvers to go with that.

 

[DND_Reborn]

At first I thought ... well Meh but then I looked closer AND hold on a moment sweet!!!! It's a tactical choice and if one was indeed an Eldritch Knight its like getting to either Guide your blade with magic or Enhance it (some may always do one or the other). I am assuming you have a tactical Variant/Sub Build or Int driven Battlemaster Maneuvers to go with that.

Actually, nothing special to go with it, but while it might seem meh you are right it is great, but involves investing in INT which many fighters are loath to do.

Consider INT 14 with +2 mod.

You can choose to add +2 to attack rolls OR +2 to damage rolls on any attacks you make with the attack action. This matches the +2 attack via Archery and the +2 damage via Dueling... it is more versatile and applies in ways others don't.

And, of course, the higher the INT score, the better the bonus.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Sorry to circle back to this, but I needed my DMG for 5e encounter math, and I kept being either AFK or AFB...

a Deadly encounter for a 20th level party has an XP threshold of 12,700. 2x Storm giants and an XP threshold value of 40,000 for a group less than 3 PC's.

That's per PC, of course, but, yes, even a single Storm Giant is probably going to be a problem for a 5e Fighter 20.

So yes, within BA I would expect a 20th level fighter to lose to 10 Storm giants. But they might seriously be able to take out 10 Hill giants

Hill Giants are CR 5 (1,800 XP). 10 x 1800 = 18,000

Adjusting for numbers, that's 2.5, shifted to x3 for a "party of less than 3..."

54,000 vs that 12,700 deadly threshold of the 20th level fighter.

So 5e's encounter guidelines agree with Hussar that the greatest of fighters (or any other lone PC, in theory) can't just up and kill 10 giants, not even the least of true giants.

But, hey, two other eds have encounter guidelines... And, they're easier to remember, so:

3.x

Hill Giant is CR 7, making it a standard encounter for a party of 4 at 7th. Each 2x the number of monsters is +2 EL, so 8 would be 13th, and 16, 15th, so call it 14th.
Same applies in reverse so a party of 1 is very roughly equivalent to a party 4 levels lower, thus those 10 hill giants are theoretically a speedbump - for a fighter of 18th level (or any other 18th level character... according to the EL calculations, which don't adjust for Class Tier or anything).

4e

The least of true giants would be minion 13 Hill Giant Thugs. 5 minions equal a standard at paragon, so a 13th level fighter could take 5 of them as an ordinary encounter. Monster exp values double at 5 level intervals, so (coincidentally) an 18th level fighter (or other lone PC) could take all 10.


...

Of course, that's just what the guidelines say. A 13th, or even lower level 3.x chaingun tripper on Enlarge potions could probably mow through 10 hill giants. Likewise, in 4e, with Cleave, C&GI, and/or other close burst exploits - or, particularly, the notorious minion-blender stance, Rain of Steel, available as early as 9th.

 

[Hussar]

Shhh, @Tony Vargas, I'm okay with someone telling me I'm lying when it's pretty obvious to everyone else that I'm not. When one person doesn't understand what I'm saying but everyone else immediately grok's it, I no longer consider that to be my problem.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Shhh, @Tony Vargas, I'm okay with someone telling me I'm lying when it's pretty obvious to everyone else that I'm not. When one person doesn't understand what I'm saying but everyone else immediately grok's it, I no longer consider that to be my problem.

I'd just been meaning (OK, wanting... Ok, compelled - y'all knew I was a geek, already, anyway) to do the encounter math for days and finally had a convenient moment.

 

[Garthanos]

Actually, nothing special to go with it, but while it might seem meh you are right it is great, but involves investing in INT which many fighters are loath to do.

Consider INT 14 with +2 mod.

You can choose to add +2 to attack rolls OR +2 to damage rolls on any attacks you make with the attack action. This matches the +2 attack via Archery and the +2 damage via Dueling... it is more versatile and applies in ways others don't.

And, of course, the higher the INT score, the better the bonus.

If one was making it Warlordy... allow it to apply to a nearby ally.

 

[DND_Reborn]

If one was making it Warlordy... allow it to apply to a nearby ally.

If I did, it would require your bonus action to grant the bonus to their attacks or damage rolls, but using YOUR INT modifier, NOT theirs!!