D&D 5E Fixing the fighter (I know...)

Sacrosanct

Legend
I didn’t want to hijack the other thread. And I know we’ve had dozens of these discussions. But there’s always a key part that seems to be missing in those other discussions, one I mentioned in that thread. That is, looking at the fighter class in total context. I.e, “casters can do X, and fighters can’t” while ignoring all the things fighters can do that casters can’t.

But first, let me just address a strawman that always gets thrown out there. No one who says the fighter doesn’t need fixing is saying the edition is perfect and you can’t criticize it. So let’s just avoid that type of hyperbolic strawman right now, and keep it out of the thread.

Ok, continuing...what I mean by total context is:

  • *The game is designed for all common play styles, so there must be a mechanically simpler class like the fighter
  • *Not every class is going to appeal to you, based on point number one, thus proposed changes aren’t needs. They are wants. That’s a difference
  • *Based on the requirements of class design, the champion fighter does exactly what it’s supposed to do. Ergo, not broken. Not doing what you want =/= broken
  • *The fighter has additional beneficial features that casters do not get, such as heavy armor, any weapon, more hit points, infinite sustained damage capability, additional feats (which often are more impactful and powerful than any other built in class feature of other classes). These benefits can’t be ignored when comparing what a nova class can do that can do better things, but with many other restrictions tied on that balance them out (limited uses, interruption, components, squishier, concentration, etc)
  • *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

So, knowing all of the above are objectively true, how do you “fix” the fighter while keeping all of the above in play? Many things I’ve heard are just giving the fighter powers that are basically for all intents and purposes, spells. I.e., who cares what you call it if does the exact same thing as a spell does and it’s reality bending. Those suggestions break several of the points above, however. It takes away from the simple class some people prefer, takes away the mundane class some people prefer, and combined with the additional benefits, can make the class unbalanced.

For purposes of this discussion, I’m looking for suggestions that don’t counter any of the above requirements. Also, I know players who want more “powers” options out of their fighters can always play an Eldritch knight or battlemaster so the champion can be left well alone, but for this discussion, let’s assume we are talking about the champion.

In my opinion, there are a couple of things that could be done that still meet the above list and can address many of the grievances I hear. These are:
*changing remarkable athlete to give full prof bonuses to any str or dex skill, and double prof bonus to any two proficient skills. -OR- maybe something along the lines of having a climbing and swimming speed that equals your movement speed, and jumping distances increase by prof bonus.
*the first four ASI improvements also allow you to choose one saving throw you’re not proficient in, and gain that proficiency.
* with each additional ASI improvement past the first four, choose one damage type, and gain resistance to that damage (various elemental, psychic, slashing, etc)
 

log in or register to remove this ad




FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
Anyways to answer the OP’s question - simple can be defined a variety of ways. I’m not convinced something as simple as the champion is actually needed or in general desired. I think we are more in love with the idea of a super simple fighter than we are actually in love with super simple fighters.

Every class appeals to me on some level - except the champion fighter. Seems I’m not the only one in this boat.

If something was designed to be broken and requirements were still met then that thing is still broken...

Ultimately you can have simple classes while not removing nearly all moving parts. However, I doubt you can have a class that doesn’t need fixed (I’m sorry, doesn’t have major opportunities to be made better) that relies on no moving part mechanics, when in a game where most classes have moving part mechanics - that is without making the moving part mechanical classes nearly always inferior.
 

Shiroiken

Legend
The core fighter class is perfectly fine, for the reasons you list above. When the Fighter "needs fixed," it's because of the DM's style of gaming, allowing the 5MWD or similar. The longer between rests the day goes, the better the Fighter gets.

I feel their failure was in the sub-classes. Champion and Battlemaster basically fit the niche for almost all simple and complex types, with Eldritch Knight allowing for the gish type. The Battlemaster and EK are both mechanically powerful enough as it is. The Champion needs a bit of a boost, but not a lot. I'd have Remarkable Athlete add even if you are proficient, because as is, it's a poor man's jack of all trades. While I've not actually seen a Champion reach level 10, the Additional Fighting Style seems hard to utilize, since most characters focus one type, leaving Defense as the default second option, but I don't have a solution to it.
 

Sacrosanct

Legend
Given those objective truths that you note above, what about the fighter needs to be "fixed"?

I've played one to 20th in a group with high-level casters and never felt outshone, so I'm curious what is the gap that you want to shore up with this?

Personally I don’t think it needs to be changed or fixed. But a lot of people do, so perhaps there’s merit to at least looking at the argument. And if so, how can it be changed to alleviate those complaints without violating one of the aforementioned requirements.
 

Sacrosanct

Legend
Anyways to answer the OP’s question - simple can be defined a variety of ways. I’m not convinced something as simple as the champion is actually needed or in general desired. I think we are more in love with the idea of a super simple fighter than we are actually in love with super simple fighters.

Well, in my OP, I defined simple as being mechanically simple. Few moving parts. So there you go...

Every class appeals to me on some level - except the champion fighter. Seems I’m not the only one in this boat.

If something was designed to be broken and requirements were still met then that thing is still broken...
.

I do systems testing as a day job, and write requirements every day. No one designs requirements to be broken. That makes no sense. No class was designed to be broken. The fighter certainly isn’t. The champion was designed for people who wanted a mundane mechanically simple class. And in that, it succeeded well. Remember, don’t judge a class by the people it wasn’t designed for. Judge it by how well it was received by the people it was designed for. And in that regard, it’s succeeded.
 



Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Top