D&D 5E (2014) Giving Fighters nice things...

[FormerlyHemlock]

I am considering the following changes to Fighters and would like to get some feedback:

Hit Die: D12
Extra Attack: 4th, 9th, 15th
Indomitable: Goes from a re-roll to an auto-success.

Champions: 5th level: Free Savage Attacker feat.
Champions: Remarkable Athelete: Add your entire proficiency to Str, Dex, and Con checks that do not already include it. Increase your vertical and horizontal jump by 1X Str Mod for standing and 2x STR Mod for running jumps.

Eldritch Knight: Choose any two schools.

Battle Master: At 7th level, you can expend an additional Superiority Die on a maneuver.

The obvious downside to moving around Extra Attack is that it creates "dead levels" where the fighter gets nothing. E.g. 20th level is now a big fat nothing for the fighter. 5E's design has striven quite hard to avoid dead levels. May or may not be a problem for you in actual play, but it's something to be aware of.

The change to Indomitable looks totally fine to me. Arguably what it should have been in the first place.

The Champions fixes are fine.

Eldritch Knight: choosing any two schools might be fine in isolation, but they're already the strongest fighter subclass, and you're already boosting the base Fighter chassis. I'd recommend against this one.

Battlemaster: seems fine.

Overall, I think the changes you suggest are all right and will probably do about what you think it will for your game (make fighters more popular/awesome), but the combined weight of all of them makes the fighter very different from the base PHB fighter and risks making the Barbarian even worse by comparison than it already is by PHB rules. It won't break your game but it will change it, just as much as handing out powerful magic weapons will or using a DMG rest variant.

That's what I've got to say.

all looks fine to me, except for the free feat.

Yeah, but it's a notoriously weak feat, arguably the worst in the game. Giving out weak feats for free is okay by me. It's not like giving out Heavy Armor Master or Lucky.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Fighters are already one of the most powerful classes. With these changes, I don't know why anyone would bother playing a Paladin, War Cleric, Barbarian or other martial option.

With these changes, I would play a Paladin when I want to be the party tank instead of a damage dealer. I'll be able to wear heavy armor, throw around Sanctuary spells to protect my buddies, use Shield of Faith if necessary, heal, and multiclass as appropriate to Sorcerer/Warlock for additional versatility. I wouldn't go past Paladin 9 (Aura of Vitality, Revivify) but that's not because of the changes to Fighter--I already wouldn't go past Paladin 9 by PHB rules.

Barbarian is similar: I would go Barbarian to get some durability without having to wildshape. I wouldn't go past Barbarian 5, and maybe not past Barbarian 2 (Barbarian 1/Bladelock 5 is already a better Barbarian than a Barbarian 6 is; Barb 5/Rogue 5 is also pretty fun in a Tarzanish way). But that's already true under PHB rules--this fighter boost changes nothing.

No comment on War Cleric, because I hate clerics and am biased.

Ranger is still more attractive than the fighter with the boosts in this thread for roles that involve sneaking and summoning hordes of minions. The main difference here is that this fighter can afford to e.g. be a Fighter 15/Ranger 5 for sneaking (Pass Without Trace) AND Horde breaker for a 5th attack AND four attacks. Or he could e.g. be a Fighter 15/Moon Druid 5 and get minion conjuration (animals) AND sneaking (Pass Without Trace), and all he has to give up is his ability to wear metal armor--and he might be relying on Mage Armor anyway, if he's an Eldritch Knight.

Still, rangers remain competitive with this fighter. E.g. at 5th level, the Ranger would have three attacks (horde breaker) to the fighter's two. The fighter doesn't pull even or ahead except in fights against solo monsters, until level 9, at which point the Ranger has Conjure Animals. And the ranger will always have more spell slots than an Eldritch Knight, and a completely different flavor of magic. If an EK is 80% fight and 20% magic, a ranger is 65% fight and 35% magic. (Guesstimating.)

The reason I think this fighter is fine (won't break your game) is that it doesn't obsolete anything that wasn't already obsolete. It just gives you the payoff sooner.

But personally I think the PHB fighter is just fine as written, at least in games which include feats. I think the PHB fighter has real issues in featless games but that's a topic for another day.

 

[UnknownDyson]

My biggest issues are with the hit die changes and the alterations on extra attack. I don't know how experienced the people who are posting are with playing the fighter but the fighter isn't a weak class. The fighter should have less health than the barbarian. You giving the fighter d12 hit dice steps on the toes of the barbarian and invaldiates its niche which is being resilient and having the most health. Giving the fighter earlier access to its extra attacks means that there is little to work toward at higher levels (as mentioned above) and makes the fighter objectively better than other front line classes until late game when they get their capstone abilities.

The free feat for the champion is kind of broken, you pick a variant human champion and you get two free feats no cost. That opens the door for a lot of feat abuse as it decreases the cost of picking a feat over ability scores.
The biggest weakness that the fighter has is a lack of social (ribbon) skills that enhance roleplaying. What you're doing is devaluing all of the other classes that aren't full casters.

 

[Patrick McGill]

Yeah, 5e is the Fighter's edition. All the min maxers I play with dip into fighter and/or rogue. The things Fighter gets are just too handy for any build.

 

[Blue]

I do care about game balance and relative strength of classes and archetypes against each other. Could you explain why you feel these prospective changes alters that negatively?

Fighters are fine as they are now. The battle master is a little front-loaded - too much good things when you get it compared to other classes, which sometimes is mistaken for the champion being weak.

As an alternate take, there are currently two active polls - one about most seen and one about least seen classes. Seen less unseen gives a net rating for all of the class. Fighter is strongly in the #2 most seen class. Not something you'd expect if it was on the lower end of the curve.

 

[Lanliss]

Fighters are fine as they are now. The battle master is a little front-loaded - too much good things when you get it compared to other classes, which sometimes is mistaken for the champion being weak.

As an alternate take, there are currently two active polls - one about most seen and one about least seen classes. Seen less unseen gives a net rating for all of the class. Fighter is strongly in the #2 most seen class. Not something you'd expect if it was on the lower end of the curve.

True, it is seen a lot, but I have never considered building a single classed fighter. They have nice things, but no flavor on their own. In some cases this is a good thing (I want to build a Bladelock who is better at the Blade half than most, dip fighter a bit without it interfering with my flavor), but it also means that building a Level 20 fighter does not mean anything on its own.

You could be a great soldier (Soldier background) or a great Gladiator (Entertainer), or a traveling secretive swordsman (Sage), but simply having a fighter does not mean any of those things. On the other hand, I can build a 20th level of any other class, and have it be self explanatory. 20th level wizard? He is a great magic user, possibly an Archmage at some school. 20th level Warlock? He has served his patron well.

This is not to say that these changes add any greater flavor to the class, just that this is most likely (IMO) the reason Fighter and Rogue are seen so often.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

In contrast to Lanliss who would never want to play a single-classed fighter, Fighter is one of the few classes in 5E that I'd consider taking pure all the way to level 20. (Moon Druid and Monk are the others.)

Various flavors of multiclassed fighter are also good, but I'd also be perfectly happy to play a baker named Degalus Magnus Benedictus who is also a retired soldier, a Pythium patriot, and incidentally a 20th level Eldritch Knight. (Or any earlier level.) I couldn't say the same thing for paladin or warlock or thief or sorcerer or wizard or barbarian...

De gustibus non est disputandum.

 

[ccs]

Fighters do not lack power. What they do lack is the ability to do more then HP damage in combat and a lack of non combat agency. These issues become more pronounced the higher the level you look at.

Other than not being able to cast (most) spells, please, enlighten me as to what I can't do outside combat.

Fighters lack out-of-combat agency when their players make the mistake of only engaging in the combat aspect of the game.

 

[Eubani]

So what non combat abilities of any real use outside of combat do they get? Other classes have several abilities even if they are just ribbons which give them extra out of combat agency. Let me turn the question around, what do fighters get outside of combat that no other class gets?

I see the same garbage argument again and again that fighters just need to describe what other non codified thing they want to do and roll an ability check. Well guess what other classes can do that? I will tell you all of them, on top of the extras they get. For 40 years (bar the edition we dare not speak of) Fighter design has been nothing but nerd revenge fantasy with a hardcore group for whichever reasons take every chance possible to argue against the fighter getting anything but "I Attack".

 

[DaviMMS]

True, it is seen a lot, but I have never considered building a single classed fighter. They have nice things, but no flavor on their own. In some cases this is a good thing (I want to build a Bladelock who is better at the Blade half than most, dip fighter a bit without it interfering with my flavor), but it also means that building a Level 20 fighter does not mean anything on its own.

Fighter flavor is generic on purpose, so you can build an archer and a sword and board warrior with the exact same chassis. One of the regrets that the 5th edition designers say to have, is making both the class and the subclasses generic, and that’s one of the reasons all most recent subclasses have a theme attached to it.
Battlemasters and Champions can represent any kind of character that use weapons and don’t have magic. The recent subclasses try to represent a knight, an archer, a monster hunter, etc.

So what non combat abilities of any real use outside of combat do they get? Other classes have several abilities even if they are just ribbons which give them extra out of combat agency. Let me turn the question around, what do fighters get outside of combat that no other class gets?

That is one of the reasons I like scout, monster hunter and the cavalier more than I like the battlemaster. Even only some extra skills can already make your character feel different. Add that to one or two ribbons and even more is accomplished.

One reason I see that people don’t like going fighter till 20th level is because the levels between 11th and 17th are pretty uninspiring for battlemasters and champions.

I would probably go for 12th level looking for an ASI.

13th level is only indomitable, that, IMO, is the same of a dead level.

14th is another ASI, but by then you already had 4 ASI and your main stat is on max and you have your important feats.

15th level is a little better but still nothing to brag about. Battlemasters gain 1 superiority dice, two maneuvers you don’t care about and relentless. If you really care about two maneuvers and one superiority dice, you can go another class after 12th and get Martial Adept at 16th, and I don’t think relentless can secure a good level by itself. Especially after 1 garbage and 1 average level. Champions get only improved crits, that are fun but not that effective.

16th is another ASI, one you would get anyway by multiclassing at 12th.

17th is a good level with a second action surge and the ignorable 3rd use of indomitable.

18th is good for champions, who get the only really good ability of the archetype, and bad for battlemasters, who only improve their dice to d12s.

19th is yet another ASI. Another you would get by muticlassing.

And 20th is the long waited 4th attack.

So for me, the problems of not having single classed fighters is not because the class is bad, it is because you wait a lot after the 3rd attack for getting what you really want, while most classes give a lot even only by going 3 levels into it.

Eldritch Knights don’t have that problem, as the 13th level is compensated by 3rd level spells, with a special mention to haste, and they have an interesting 15th level. So instead of having 5 average-bad levels between 12th and 16th, they have average-good levels.