D&D 5E Fixing the Fighter: The Zouave

[Oofta]

It's not that I don't agree - obviously, I don't agree that a solution to an undeniable & long-standing problem isn't needed - it's just that there's a lot of room between "not needed" and "must be stopped at all costs."

Because, let's face it, there's a lot of wiggle room in the nominal balance of class designs, so even if the fighter were to get a load of non-combat enhancements, what would it hurt?

Say you gave the Fighter Expertise, for instance, would that really make the Bard and Rogue less viable classes?

Who said "needs to be stopped at all costs?"

The fighter can get the benefit of expertise by spending one of their bonus feats. Flexibility is one of the benefits of 5E.

You want to give fighters another bonus feat, perhaps a specific feat? Feel free, I won't stop you.

I simply don't think it's necessary because it hasn't been an issue in any edition. It's even less of one in 5E.

I only posted today because I'm baffled/surprised that people think the fighter has been broken basically since the inception of the class.

 

[Arnwolf666]

I think wizards get more spell options because that is just the nature of wizards and magic. There’s always new spells to discover and hidden esoteric spells and forbidden or secret knowledge. But people got pissed at pathfinder for too many feats and options and they are kind of careful about introducing a new feat or maneuver because of that. They probaly want the fighter class pretty self contained in the PHB where wizard players are kind of used to searching tomes for hidden gems. Not saying I agree with that strategy. But that’s probaly it in a nutshell. And probaly they are more likely to create a new archetype rather than a maneuver imho.

 

[Garthanos]

I think wizards get more spell options because that is just the nature of wizards and magic.

An imaginary thing has a nature... hmmmmmmmm

 

[Garthanos]

But that’s probaly it in a nutshell. And probaly they are more likely to create a new archetype rather than a maneuver imho.

Basically this is the curse of specialization. The wizard was allowed ultimate flexibility...

 

[Tony Vargas]

I only posted today because I'm baffled/surprised that people think the fighter has been broken basically since the inception of the class.

Theoretically it was OK in '74 before the Thief changed the rules on it (and, y'know, when the cleric didn't even cast at level 1, and MUs were buried under restrictions & limitations.

Though, really, while prettymuch everything was broken it didn't matter much, did it?

But, as the game increasingly made all classes fully-contributing in combat the reason for keeping the fighter inferior out of combat became outmoded. By 3.0 the fighter should've become near as much a skill class as the Rogue - if, indeed, they ever needed to be separate classes.

To pose a similar question: imagine a class that just combined all the best combat toys of the fighter with all the best non-combat toys of the rogue. Would it have been remotely OP? No. It might have rated Tier 3.

 

[Arnwolf666]

Theoretically it was OK in '74 before the Thief changed the rules on it (and, y'know, when the cleric didn't even cast at level 1, and MUs were buried under restrictions & limitations.

Though, really, while prettymuch everything was broken it didn't matter much, did it?

But, as the game increasingly made all classes fully-contributing in combat the reason for keeping the fighter inferior out of combat became outmoded. By 3.0 the fighter should've become near as much a skill class as the Rogue - if, indeed, they ever needed to be separate classes.

To pose a similar question: imagine a class that just combined all the best combat toys of the fighter with all the best non-combat toys of the rogue. Would it have been remotely OP? No. It might have rated Tier 3.

I think u nailed it on the head. But if you try to get rid of the thief class you will really piss people off.

 

[Garthanos]

I was recently reviewing the The Feats listed for Cu Cuhlaine, in the ulster cycle, The Support Feat, The Edge Feat, The Daemon Feat, The Eight-man Feat?, The Bruising with the Sword feat, the Heros War Cry, the Return Strike, the Mounting of the Spear, the Sickle Chariot, the Wheel feet, The Support Feat, The feat of Quickness, The Gae Bolga, The Cast of a Wand, The Salmon Leap, the Feat with the Body, the Cat Feat, The Ball Feat, the Flatten Shield feat, the Thunder Feat, the Javelin Feat and more... nyeh a handful of maneuvers are fine... sigh

 

[Tony Vargas]

I think u nailed it on the head. But if you try to get rid of the thief class you will really piss people off.

Like many much-needed fixes to the game, the window of opportunity to implement it without riots & book burning probably closed when CDs were still a new thing...

 

[Garthanos]

To pose a similar question: imagine a class that just combined all the best combat toys of the fighter with all the best non-combat toys of the rogue. Would it have been remotely OP? No. It might have rated Tier 3.

Add Ranger and Warlord... and remember the paladin was just a type of fighter eat his stuff and make oaths something you can take to gain power if you have the wisdom to hold them.

 

[Garthanos]

sigh