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

[Garthanos]

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!!

Hmmm bonus action only 1 reactions ... bah give me back my minor action. However if you are just hitting an enemy and revealing there openings it makes sense without any separate action - so on a hit any ally or yourself gains a bonus on the next subsequent attack against that same enemy

 

[Arnwolf666]

Warlock can be close if you build for it.

Isn’t that what a warlock does. Spam eldritch blast. I know some people do it differently. But that’s what I watch 90% of warlocks do

 

[Arnwolf666]

The Champion fighter is the ideal sidekick or drop-in character

No. I see alot of experience players prefer the
Champion over the battle master because they like the simplicity and that the class feels like the learned today fight on their own through brawling the hard way. Battle master has the feel of a fighter that trained at the equivalent of formal swordsman school like the dueling schools during the renaissance. Less artsy.

 

[DND_Reborn]

No. I see alot of experience players prefer the
Champion over the battle master because they like the simplicity and that the class feels like the learned today fight on their own through brawling the hard way. Battle master has the feel of a fighter that trained at the equivalent of formal swordsman school like the dueling schools during the renaissance. Less artsy.

Actually, I prefer the Champion over the Battlemaster simply because of bookkeeping. I despise the idea of Superiority Dice and using them. I would have preferred the Battlemaster have at-will abilities, even fewer of them, with less bonuses.

 

[Garthanos]

Actually, I prefer the Champion over the Battlemaster simply because of bookkeeping.

4e encounter powers you do not have to remember what you have done between one fight and the next are significantly less brain over head than 5e short rest which is closer to just another daily gadget. That remembering from one fight to the next seems an annoyance to me.

 

[Garthanos]

Once you reveal your trick... you cannot pull it off against the enemies its revealed to makes more sense than a disarm being exhausting and requiring some 1 hour rest too.

 

[Ratskinner]

Sounds like Fighter + Rogue, really.

Heroes might get a 'tragic flaw,' though. Something they can overcome, now & then... or, y'know... finish their Story as a Tragedy.

OK, you're get'n into Champions! disads here. Psych Lims, Hunteds...

Not quite. I didn't want to write too superlong of a post, but these things aren't just anti-quirks that you pick for the sake of ignoring them later. They would be grist for leveling mill via the Heroic Achievements. The HAs would be things like "Turn a villainous lieutenant." or "Get the villain's daughter to fall in love with you." never something as simple as "Slay 100 orcs" always a story arc.

If something like "Tragic Flaws" are involved, I would make them GM-invoked. Like, you go to do something and the GM says: "Yeah, too bad you're a <whatever the flaw is>>, and you fail." This might come with an Inspiration point or something. Optionally, the player can refuse, and take the course of action they wanted to, but they would suffer some sort of ongoing problem because of it.

 

[Undrave]

I think the thing that bugs meabout the 5e Fighter is that it's just built on the same skeleton as the 3e one isn't it? What was the thing said about Fighters in 3e when people complained it wasn't strong enough? "They get more feat than everybody!"

The basic Fighter is basically still the 3e Fighter : More attacks, more feats, less skills, more armor and weapons.

Sure, it has more bells and whistles, but it doesn't feel like there was much reflection put into WHAT a base Fighter should be.

I think the Sentinel Feat should have been included in the core fighter, probably as two different ability (first you get the 'stop movement on a Opportunity Attack' and later on you'd get the 'get opportunity attack when enemy attacks someone else' bit). Maybe even throw in an extra Reaction at later level? That could have been sweet...

But it doesn't really do much to help in the other pillars.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I think the thing that bugs meabout the 5e Fighter is that it's just built on the same skeleton as the 3e one isn't it?

Not really. Where's the superior BAB? The elegant progression?

What was the thing said about Fighters in 3e when people complained it wasn't strong enough? "They get more feat than everybody!"

To be fair, the 3e fighter got 18 feats, vs 7. 5e, 7 vs 5.
Also 5e feats: still optional.

I think the Sentinel Feat should have been included in the core fighter, probably as two different ability.

Wouldn't've hurt.

Maybe even throw in an extra Reaction at later level? That could have been sweet...

Fighter should get extra reactions at the same rate as extra attacks.

But it doesn't really do much to help in the other pillars.

Nope.

 

[Garthanos]

Wouldn't've hurt. Fighter should get extra reactions at the same rate as extra attacks.

That 1 reaction sure seems feeble indeed.