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

[CleverNickName]

@FrogReaver : I think this thread stopped being about the Fighter class several pages ago.

 

[FrogReaver]

@FrogReaver : I think this thread stopped being about the Fighter class several pages ago.

Not for me! I'll fight for the fighter till the bitter end!

 

[Salthorae]

Variant Human (Crossbow Expertise) Rogue 16 dex 14 con and 14 cha. Charlatan background. More expertise. More skills. More Damage. After level 2 the rogue gets cunning action for even better out of combat effectiveness.

The rogue in question is doing about 50% more damage than fighter and from range while still being better out of combat than he is!

Yes, one more Expertise and one more skill. Cunning action is a combat only ability.

You can take a bonus action on each of your turns in combat. This action can be used only to take the Dash, Disengage, or Hide action.

If you use Cunning Action at 2nd level, you're not using crossbow expert.

Show me your math that your crossbow expert is doing 50% more damage.

Best I see is 27% more if you manage to trigger sneak attack. if you don't trigger sneak attack the damage is the exact same. If you use your Cunning Action and trigger sneak attack your rogue is doing 22% less damage. If you use your cunning action and don't manage to trigger sneak attack then the rogue is doing 50% less damage. A rogue has too many things to do with their bonus action to use the bonus attack from Crossbow Expert every round after level 2. A rogue is also not always going to trigger sneak attack. A fighter is hitting every round.

So a rogue who invested in being better at combat looks roughly on par with a fighter who invested in being better at non-combat.

That doesn't bother me.

If the rogue invested in being more rogue-ish than improving their combat ability and they were on par with the fighter damage or better, that would bother me. But they're not. As soon as you take away the bonus action crossbow attack. The rogue lags behind regardless of sneak attack.

 

[Sacrosanct]

To avoid a strawman argument you really need to state these grievances. You have written a long thought post making it very clear that you want to argue off a specific point. Then you fail to list any points of grievance about the champion sub-class directly. Only the below "fixes" are mentioned. So now we are all required to make straw man arguments because your inferring a problem without defining it, then if you don't like our answer you just claim its a strawman argument and that was never your intended point of topic. So before I try and add any input here... I am going to ask "what your solutions below are fixes for?", then we need you to stat the grievances you hear that cause them to be required, or no forward progress can be made due to lack of mutual understand of what the issues is to begin with.



Better movement and expertise in skills they already had? So they are simply just better at what they already did... Do they have mobility issues or some deficiency caused by the skills they already have? Without explanation your just stealing thieves Expertise class feature.



Proficiency in all saves? I mean again, your making the class stronger, but without explanation your just stealing Diamond Soul feature. What use with the champion sub-class are you fixing?



So your making them much harder to kill through damage resistance which is like stealing the barbarian rage feature without the flaws and unlimited in use since you don't have any requirement to maintain it or limited number of activations like rage does.

Overall it looks like jealousy of other class, but more over you could easily multi-class to gain 2 of the 3 features. They do make the champion sub-class better but actually, all together they would make it pretty broken in my opinion, since you stole three of the best and most unique features of other classes. I might suggest something with a lighter touch, like a blanket damage reduction equal to champion's constitution modifier, advantage on all saving through vs instead of proficiency (because its still capped by the modifier), and an extra skill proficiency from the fighter skill list for variety. However, I can't say that's at all in the right train of thought because it has not been clearly defined that the issue is survivability or versatility of build, so I am forced it to guessing at the risk of being told this is a strawman argument.

Lol, you say I’m making a strawman and no further progress can be made in discussion, then proceed to post two very long responses? Wow, that takes a bit of cognitive dissonance to achieve that, I’ll grant you.


Also, it’s hardly a strawman because a) many other posters knew what I was referring to, and b) many of the posts in this thread are literally expressing the grievances I was referring to (the same complaints in every fighter thread). So you’re either trolling me, or you’ve never read a single thread where people complain about the lack of out of combat functionality. Or are you arguing that no one has in fact complained that fighters are lacking in out of combat functionality? Which is what is required for my post to have been a strawman—an argument no one has made

 

[Sacrosanct]

The you should be able to tell us what about 5e D&d makes it immune to analysis...

Apparently all the thread was created to do was to claim that fighters are perfectly fine and nothing needs done

I think you really need to look up what a strawman fallacy is. Nothing I’ve said remotely infers any of this. And if you do know what it is, your continued use of it means I can only assume you’re not arguing honestly.

Me saying white room analysis is unreliable doesn’t remotely mean you can’t do analysis of DnD at all. Come on now.

And I created this thread honestly,to address issues some people seem to have. That’s why I offered and asked for suggestions. And saying the fighter currently is fine also doesn’t mean there is no room for improvement or nothing needs to be done.

You really need to get out of this “it’s my way or it’s wrong” attitude. There is a ton of grey area, and things can both be fine and also be improved without needing to be optimized or they’re trash

 

[FrogReaver]

Yes, one more Expertise and one more skill. Cunning action is a combat only ability.

If you use Cunning Action at 2nd level, you're not using crossbow expert.

Show me your math that your crossbow expert is doing 50% more damage.

Best I see is 27% more if you manage to trigger sneak attack. if you don't trigger sneak attack the damage is the exact same. If you use your Cunning Action and trigger sneak attack your rogue is doing 22% less damage. If you use your cunning action and don't manage to trigger sneak attack then the rogue is doing 50% less damage. A rogue has too many things to do with their bonus action to use the bonus attack from Crossbow Expert every round after level 2. A rogue is also not always going to trigger sneak attack. A fighter is hitting every round.

So a rogue who invested in being better at combat looks roughly on par with a fighter who invested in being better at non-combat.

That doesn't bother me.

If the rogue invested in being more rogue-ish than improving their combat ability and they were on par with the fighter damage or better, that would bother me. But they're not. As soon as you take away the bonus action crossbow attack. The rogue lags behind regardless of sneak attack.

The benefit of cunning action is that it allows you to safely scout as it's easy to run away from enemies that engage you with cunning action.

Damage numbers shown below

 

[Tony Vargas]

Just pointing out the claim made was not about analysis, just white room theorycrafting analysis.

Aside from connotation, what's the difference supposed to be?

It was made I believe to point out the value different between that and analysis based on resukts actual play at the table in actual games.

RPGs can be played many different ways, and D&D in general, and 5e in particular, is subject to it's system being overridden by the DM at any time - overtly or otherwise. So the results of actual play may in no way be representative of the system, itself. Which, being presented as it is, merely as a starting point, arguably should never be used as-is, anyway. So, analysis of the system showing it to be un-useable garbage would actually be in accord with the design goal as a starting point.

And both approaches to analysis would be moot.

Since the rules are just a starting point, though, a better way of thinking about analysis of them would be as a tool in choosing a direction to go once you've left said starting point.

Because, the one thing you definitely don't want to do is just sit in the starting gate.
Even if there's no race going on, just pick a direction and go.

 

[FrogReaver]

@Salthorae

2nd Rogue Build - should meet your requirements

If the rogue invested in being more rogue-ish than improving their combat ability and they were on par with the fighter damage or better, that would bother me. But they're not. As soon as you take away the bonus action crossbow attack. The rogue lags behind regardless of sneak attack.

Variant human (Actor) Rogue + TWF Shortswords

Wow, look at this. Get's to take an out of combat feat and be better than the fighter you are proposing at combat (not by a lot but 10-15% and even better out of combat)

 

[ClaytonCross]

Lol, you say I’m making a strawman and no further progress can be made in discussion, then proceed to post two very long responses? Wow, that takes a bit of cognitive dissonance to achieve that, I’ll grant you.


Also, it’s hardly a strawman because a) many other posters knew what I was referring to, and b) many of the posts in this thread are literally expressing the grievances I was referring to (the same complaints in every fighter thread). So you’re either trolling me, or you’ve never read a single thread where people complain about the lack of out of combat functionality. Or are you arguing that no one has in fact complained that fighters are lacking in out of combat functionality? Which is what is required for my post to have been a strawman—an argument no one has made

I never said your original post was a strawman. As such this post by you is a strawman. What I said was you have to actually state your problem or you force everyone to else guess what your actual issue with the champion sub-class is which forces us to make strawman posts. That's not the same thing. If you think there is a "cognitive dissonance" in my post its likely because you didn't read or understand my post. Please, Read it (again?) and ask for clarification if you need more information... that's what I did. Ask for clarification. Instead of making personal attacks. I am full aware of what I said and what you said, my point was that you stated your point of view that there is a problem but failed to describe what the actual problem is that we are supposed to be addressing. As such readers are forced into arguments like this... because you just did, EXACTLY what I said you would do in my post.... proving me right. Ta da!

Do you care to actually explain your issues with the champion sub-class, instead of ineffective and unusable generaltities?

 

[Undrave]

Just because you can have fun with a character doesn't mean it doesn't have mechanical flaws, it just mean you don't value mechanical efficiency enough for the dip to affect your fun.

And playing a flawed character doesn't inherently make you a better player either, incidently...

@Salthorae

2nd Rogue Build - should meet your requirements




Variant human (Actor) Rogue + TWF Shortswords

Wow, look at this. Get's to take an out of combat feat and be better than the fighter you are proposing at combat (not by a lot but 10-15% and even better out of combat)

View attachment 114653

I think it could be reasonably argued that the Rogue is the best class in 5e overall, with no subpar subclass and excellent abilities in all three pillars of play.

It has a schtick but it doesn't trade efficiency in one pillar for efficiency in another. Most classes should be compared to the Rogue and made to match it frankly.