D&D 5E Fixing the Fighter: The Zouave

[Tony Vargas]

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.

"Hero."

Ironically, Rob Kuntz recounted, recently, how Arneson and a friend demo'd what would become D&D to Gygax, &co, and the PC choice was Hero or Wizard - everyone but Gygax chose Hero.

 

[5ekyu]

The Fighter has the Protection Style, but that clashes with Opportunity Attack, and there's the secret class feature, Sentinel, which is like a Fighting style of its own that was shunted off to the Feats section so everybody else can cannibalize it.

Then you have the Cavalier build which has actual marking

The Fighter would have been way better at protection if it had been given extra reactions to use and probably Sentinel as a basic feature. Or allowed all Fighters to use the Battlemaster's Goading Attack, without the extra damage.



Why is it so hard to understand?!

Everybody gets 4 skills, everybody gets a Background and most get at least 1 tool as well. That's the BASELINE! You should judge a class on what it adds to the baseline! Even the Barbarian (who is also in need of help) adds a few Rituals to that baseline! The same way all classes put DEX to their AC and can use a dagger. You judge the combat prowess on what it ads to that baseline!

It's like when you do algebra and remove the same stuff from both side of an equation. I.e. "There's a 2x on both side of the equation so we can remove them from each side and not consider them in our further calculation" That '2x' is backgrounds!

No. Imo you are wrong.

Here is why...

How big is adding 10 hp to every character?one time add 10 to max.

At first level, pretty big. Really big in fact for some classes. Less for others. Wizard at 16 base plus Con vs fighter at 20 base plus Con is huge difference compared to 6 vs 10.

But at 11th level that same 10 hp is trivial.

Now in both cases the "net" change is 10 hp, buts its impact is not even tho we removed 9 levels from each side.

What matters is not the " net chsnge" looked at in isolation but how much the character can do overall.

A fighter who wants to can start with 2 skills from class, 2 skill and 2 tools from background and up to 2 skills from race. That is 6+2. The rogue can start with 2 more.

So that difference is not the " net" 2 vs 0 but really more the 2 tools plus 6 or 8 possible. Of course you thrn get expertise, reliable vs extra feats but also other advantages like armor HP etc.

It's how much fo these things as a whole in conjunction add up, how much does it make you able to be doing stuff or not. It's not about wiping away some stuff and then narrowing in on one piece.

Put another way, giving you acfollar and Jerry 20 dollars is just not a big deal if you both had millions already.

The more you cut out and ignore in your comparison the less reliable it is.

 

[Arnwolf666]

No. Imo you are wrong.

Here is why...

How big is adding 10 hp to every character?one time add 10 to max.

At first level, pretty big. Really big in fact for some classes. Less for others. Wizard at 16 base plus Con vs fighter at 20 base plus Con is huge difference compared to 6 vs 10.

But at 11th level that same 10 hp is trivial.

Now in both cases the "net" change is 10 hp, buts its impact is not even tho we removed 9 levels from each side.

What matters is not the " net chsnge" looked at in isolation but how much the character can do overall.

A fighter who wants to can start with 2 skills from class, 2 skill and 2 tools from background and up to 2 skills from race. That is 6+2. The rogue can start with 2 more.

So that difference is not the " net" 2 vs 0 but really more the 2 tools plus 6 or 8 possible. Of course you thrn get expertise, reliable vs extra feats but also other advantages like armor HP etc.

It's how much fo these things as a whole in conjunction add up, how much does it make you able to be doing stuff or not. It's not about wiping away some stuff and then narrowing in on one piece.

Put another way, giving you acfollar and Jerry 20 dollars is just not a big deal if you both had millions already.

The more you cut out and ignore in your comparison the less reliable it is.

I could
Never grasp why not just start players out at 2nd or 3rd level if you don’t like hit points at 1st level. It seems to be the simplest solution that keeps everything balanced in a way that you don’t have to change other things.

 

[Undrave]

No. Imo you are wrong.

Here is why...

How big is adding 10 hp to every character?one time add 10 to max.

At first level, pretty big. Really big in fact for some classes. Less for others. Wizard at 16 base plus Con vs fighter at 20 base plus Con is huge difference compared to 6 vs 10.

But at 11th level that same 10 hp is trivial.

Now in both cases the "net" change is 10 hp, buts its impact is not even tho we removed 9 levels from each side.

What matters is not the " net chsnge" looked at in isolation but how much the character can do overall.

A fighter who wants to can start with 2 skills from class, 2 skill and 2 tools from background and up to 2 skills from race. That is 6+2. The rogue can start with 2 more.

So that difference is not the " net" 2 vs 0 but really more the 2 tools plus 6 or 8 possible. Of course you thrn get expertise, reliable vs extra feats but also other advantages like armor HP etc.

It's how much fo these things as a whole in conjunction add up, how much does it make you able to be doing stuff or not. It's not about wiping away some stuff and then narrowing in on one piece.

Put another way, giving you acfollar and Jerry 20 dollars is just not a big deal if you both had millions already.

The more you cut out and ignore in your comparison the less reliable it is.

So what you are saying is, if you take EVERYTHING a character can do in consideration then the difference between a Rogue and a Fighter is minimal?

I agree, when the two characters are in the same party, their net contributions will be somewhat similar. But I still think the Rogue pulls ahead. The Fighter is not THAT much better in the Combat pillar than the Rogue compared to HOW MUCH better the Rogue is outside of combat.

You still need to pair down to the bare class in the context of picking your class.

It also occurred to me that there is no generic feat that grants expertise... feels like something that would make the Extra Feat a bit more palatable.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

But I still think the Rogue pulls ahead.

Then play a rogue.

The Fighter is not THAT much better in the Combat pillar than the Rogue compared to HOW MUCH better the Rogue is outside of combat.

That would depend on a great many factors, the most obvious being the ratio of combat to out of combat encounters, which differs enormously between groups. It's no good your rogue being an ace lockpicker and trapspringer if the adventure doesn't feature any locks or traps.

It also occurred to me that there is no generic feat that grants expertise... feels like something that would make the Extra Feat a bit more palatable.

You can simply remove the human/half orc/half elf flag from Prodigy, or allow the UA skill feats - I expect the reason they didn't make it into Xanathar's Guide was because they where found a bit uninteresting - they certainly won't break anything.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Then play a rogue.

I you were going to DEX instead of STR, often a better idea, sure, though if you're only interested in effectiveness in & out of combat, there's casters to consider, as well.

But, generally, if you're even considering fighter, (or rogue or barbarian), you're probably there because the character concept excludes other class options.

That would depend on a great many factors, the most obvious being the ratio of combat to out of combat encounters, which differs enormously between groups

Yep, which is why all classes should have something significant to offer in each pillar. And, all classes do - in the combat pillar.

 

[5ekyu]

I could
Never grasp why not just start players out at 2nd or 3rd level if you don’t like hit points at 1st level. It seems to be the simplest solution that keeps everything balanced in a way that you don’t have to change other things.

Agreed. My norm is start at 2nd - get yo 3rd in like 3 sessions, then 4th in same and then to 5th. At 5th it flows down *and * final character is set. Up until then its intro and you can change things pretty freely.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I you were going to DEX instead of STR, often a better idea, sure

The point is, if you believe a class is superior, then you should play that class. It doesn't mean what you believe is true. As pointed out previously, if there was a consensus that there was a problem with fighters they wouldn't be commonly played.

Yep, which is why all classes should have something significant to offer in each pillar. And, all classes do - in the combat pillar.

As already pointed out, combat is the only pillar in which what it says on a character sheet matters much. Out of combat is mostly discussion and role playing, and all players contribute irrespective of what the character sheet says.

 

[5ekyu]

So what you are saying is, if you take EVERYTHING a character can do in consideration then the difference between a Rogue and a Fighter is minimal?

I agree, when the two characters are in the same party, their net contributions will be somewhat similar. But I still think the Rogue pulls ahead. The Fighter is not THAT much better in the Combat pillar than the Rogue compared to HOW MUCH better the Rogue is outside of combat.

You still need to pair down to the bare class in the context of picking your class.

It also occurred to me that there is no generic feat that grants expertise... feels like something that would make the Extra Feat a bit more palatable.

There is prodigy which hits humans and halfs. So you have three very strong fighter friendly races that can dial in a skill, tool and expertise *if * that is something you choose to do.

To me, the fighter's greater strength over the rogue is durability, and sustain driven by the HD, AC and second wind etc. The rogue can often match the damage output due to sneak but when sneak is countered, it's gone. The fighter as a martial pretty much just works. The rogue is balanced around sneak but fails miserably when that gets denied and it's just not that hard to do.

I love rogues and find them just fine, but they dont play as reliably in my ecperience as the fighters do. Fortunately both have a good assortment of subs too.

BTW I think the latest YA pack might have some gighter uses HD stuff or somesuch.

 

[Garthanos]

As already pointed out, combat is the only pillar in which what it says on a character sheet matters much.

Mattering much isn't always about time spent.
Looks at noncombat problems solved by spells unilaterally throughout the history of D&D (occasionally even in 4e via rituals which are not always costed perfectly)... and raises an eyebrow? really? color me skeptical