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

The Champion changes are cool.

I wouldn't bother with changing the extra attack thing - it just feels like a cluttering up of rules for a minor change that only makes a difference for an occassional level. I mean, it's fine, if you keep it but it doesn't add any feeling of oomph to me to bother with.

I don't like the battlemaster change. It provides for a bigger damage spike and that feels more like a roguish thing. And besides, the fun of the superiority dice is spreading them out over multiple attacks. But then, this change isn't really a damage increase, not even a dpr incraese - since that second die could be used on the next attack that round - except for using them on a critical hit, so you aren't really unbalancing anything here.

I've got no comment on the eldritch knight thing, beyond saying "expect your players to ask for the same thing for the arcane trickster."
 

log in or register to remove this ad

D&D is designed around three pillars but not every class has to be equally designed to fit all of those pillars.
Aye.

Besides, the rules already provide ways to increase the fighter's effectiveness in the other pillars. My background choice - criminal - has given me ties to seedy people in the world, and the tools to be the party's scout and lock picker.

My race choice - forest gnome - makes me quite capable in the wilderness, as I can call on the liitle woodland creatures for support. The minor illusion cantrip is bottomless toolbox for creativity.

And then I could round out that even more with feats (Could, but haven't, instead doubling down on my battlsmastery with Martial Adept)

No, none of that is fighter-specific. I'm just saying the fighter class doesn't need social/exploration stuff since the character can still fill in the blanks from other sources.
 

Aye.

Besides, the rules already provide ways to increase the fighter's effectiveness in the other pillars. My background choice - criminal - has given me ties to seedy people in the world, and the tools to be the party's scout and lock picker.

My race choice - forest gnome - makes me quite capable in the wilderness, as I can call on the liitle woodland creatures for support. The minor illusion cantrip is bottomless toolbox for creativity.

And then I could round out that even more with feats (Could, but haven't, instead doubling down on my battlsmastery with Martial Adept)

No, none of that is fighter-specific. I'm just saying the fighter class doesn't need social/exploration stuff since the character can still fill in the blanks from other sources.

Agreed. one of my favorite characters is a halfling f/t from 1e. When 5e came out, I converted him over strictly as a fighter with the urchin background and dungeon delver feat and he played pretty much the exact same.
 


D&D is designed around three pillars but not every class has to be equally designed to fit all of those pillars.

I'm not suggesting otherwise. However, I'd suggest that the Fighter is the most specialized / least balanced of the existing classes. Is there any other class designed around a single pillar to the exclusion of the others?

That's not necessarily a problem--if you want to focus on combat, the fighter is definitely the way to go. But if you want to be good at lots of things, any other class is significantly better.
 

I'm not suggesting otherwise. However, I'd suggest that the Fighter is the most specialized / least balanced of the existing classes. Is there any other class designed around a single pillar to the exclusion of the others?

That's not necessarily a problem--if you want to focus on combat, the fighter is definitely the way to go. But if you want to be good at lots of things, any other class is significantly better.


I think it's also worth noting something about the fighter class that people always seem to forget: the extra feat (if you're using feats). That feat can be used for anything, and it's above and beyond what any other class gets.

So the fighter does have a pretty big option to have an impact on the other two pillars depending on what you do with that extra ASI. Choose the dungeon delver feat, or the actor, or the ritual caster, or any of the several others that gives the fighter significant contribution to the other two pillars.

Rather than have a scout fighter subclass that states: "At 6th level get X, Y, and Z abilities that mirror the dungeon delver" or another arcane subclass that says "At 6th level, you get the ability to cast all ritual spells", it's better to not have those as subclasses and just give the fighter an extra feat so we as players can choose for ourselves.
 

If you don't get into a lot of combats, what makes a fighter able to compete with other classes?
You, as the player of said fighter, just have to start more fights. After the nth successful diplomacy check by the annoying Bard (how is it that high-CHA characters are always so annoying? IDK, but they are, aren't they), just up and punch out the ambassador, then y'all'll have a cool fight with his bodygaurds, and a chance to check out the mass-combat rules when the war starts.

a halfling f/t from 1e. When 5e came out, I converted him over strictly as a fighter with the urchin background and dungeon delver feat and he played pretty much the exact same.
I'm sorry to hear that. ;P
Actually, I don't quite believe it. The 5e version sounds like it should have been a big step up. I mean, compared to the 1e thief, let along compared to a 1e thief needing double experience to level long after he's hit the halfling's very low fighter level limit (it was, like 5th at best, wasn't it?). Not to mention being able to seamlessly go with finesse weapons in 5e.

I think it's also worth noting something about the fighter class that people always seem to forget: the extra feat (if you're using feats).
Nobody ever forgets the extra ASI at 6th level. They might forget the /second/ extra ASI, because they never get that high.

That feat can be used for anything, and it's above and beyond what any other class gets.
And there are many, many examples of uses for that feat that can help the fighter out in all sorts of non-combat situations. Thing is, any given fighter gets exactly one of them. (And it's the second-best option, after the one he took at 4th.)
 

I don't think the fighter is superb. Honestly I don't think they bring anything to the table that is not amply supplied by other classes. At best they are as good as other classes in combat, assuming really optimal ability usage.
Even a generally- build fighter stands with the best combat classes. Optimally-built Fighters are some of the best possible.
When it comes to combat: dealing out sustained damage and not dying due to incoming attacks over the course of the 25-30-round adventuring day, fighters excel.
Making them even more powerful in combat would lead to a definite balance issue while in combat, and would do nothing about the complaints regarding fighters on the other pillars.

But I do agree that the way to fix that is to give them breadth, rather than depth. Give em breadth in combat too; we need to make that "master of weapons" mean something.

One quick idea; give them all the weapon specializations-with the ruling that they can only have one active at a time. Suddenly you've got a fighter who has a reason for carrying and using more than one weapon.
I've never known a fighter who did only carry one weapon.
 

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?
Extra damage and extra HPs to a class that excels at both.
Legendary resistance as high end monsters. Second best class without feats.

Champion: A damage re-roll per turn, entire proficiency with all CON, DEX and STR checks. Completely overpowered because it would be the best default damage dealer and the best class with abilities/skills.
Eldritch Knight: More versatility with spells. Not that powerful with the reduced spells list.
Battlemaster: 2 die per maneuver. Depends on how you treat the requisites of the maneuver, for example a riposte with 2 attacks with extra damage...

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.
The battlemaster and EK can do more things than damage in combat.
Non combat I don't see them worse than other classes without spells becuase most class features are focused on combat. It will depend on the skills they choose and how often they can use them..
 

I've been playing around with revised fighter ideas for a while. Actually, looks like my latest ground-up reworking – The Warrior – was lost in the database crash (I have it saved).

I have over 30 pages (maybe ~20 pages translated to the smaller/tighter PHB layout) of fascinating and fun material, that works from the premise that Mike Mearls shared that the fighter could use more flavor. But I realized that to do the idea justice was taking up more space count than any other single class gets. Even the 8 spellcasting classes (bard, cleric, druid, paladin, ranger, sorcerer, warlock, wizard) share ~80 pages of spells. So I won't feel comfortable until I get it trimmed down...or I guess I could create a feat like Martial Adept to allow other PCs to pick up a few Warrior talents.

Btw, anyone contemplating class revision/reimagining in 5e needs to read this: https://lootthebody.wordpress.com/2...lass-design-milestones-thematics-and-details/

[SBLOCK=The Warrior (Details)]
zNdajZT.png

  • The Warrior is as Simple or Complex as the Player Likes. Players can recreate fighters from any previous edition that feel very similar to OD&D, AD&D, Basic, 3e, or 4e fighters based on their choices during character creation between passive talents, active talents, stances and archetypes. You can create a warrior whose abilities you micro-manage at the table or a warrior who just swings his axe all day, and not be penalized for your choice. For example, I did lots of maths to come up with alternatives to Action Surge like Against the Horde (modeling OD&D / AD&D's many attacks versus much weaker foes) and Stalwart Defender (modeling 4e's infinite opportunity attacks or a 3e fighter with combat reflexes), so at 2nd level the warrior gets a choice of one of these.
  • The Warrior Feels Visceral, Believable, Dynamic, and Powerful in Battle. The warrior offers differentiation of various fighting styles according to weapon type, using Western Martial Arts for inspiration. In particular, active fighting talents echo “weapon mastery” originally found in Basic D&D and merge it with a version of 4e powers free from the artificial At-Will/Encounter/Daily structure.
  • The Warrior Keeps His/Her Guard Up. I removed innate healing (Second Wind), instead relying on Parry (and for some archetypes temporary hit points) as a practiced “guard” to keep the warrior from falling.
  • The Warrior Does More than Just Fight. The warrior gets camp talents (siloed apart from fighting talents) which give exploration benefits to the party. While the ranger seeks the horizon, the warrior protects the hearth.
  • The Warrior’s Life is Full of Glory. The Prestige feature and various warrior archetype features offer ways to emphasize the trope of the warrior gaining fame, fortune, and respect above other characters.
  • The Warrior of Many Tales. The 8 martial archetypes presented herein — Borderlands Guard, Cavalier, Destined Hero, Monster Slayer, Swashbuckler, Veteran, Warlord, and Weapons Master — have more evocative stories than the PHB martial archetypes, helping to determine the warrior’s place within the campaign. Part of the idea of making so many archetypes is that the "core 4" classes (cleric, fighter, rogue, wizard) should have the largest number of archetypes to choose from because they are selected by the most players on average & conceptually carry the greatest number of concepts under their umbrellas; this means I think there should be ~8 rogue sub-classes as well.
[/SBLOCK]

TL;DR It's my opinion that Fighter should be renamed Warrior, because the most interesting and heroic fighting characters in both history and fantasy literature do more than fight (and "Warrior" has more connotations than "Fighter"). And there are ways to bake that into the class without diminishing other classes, or becoming "same-y."
 
Last edited:

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top