D&D (2024) High tier Fighter − the mythic warrior

[Incenjucar]

It occurred to me that a great source of inspiration for this topic would be Venture Bros. While it has lots of magic and technology, it's also chock full of characters like Brock Sampson.

 

[Yaarel]

Sorry, your thread, and I shouldn't have assumed.

What does + mean these days though? I thought + was more stay on topic and don't challenge the assumptions in the OP vs. be positive / agree with everyone?

So if you want to focus on the narrative people would like to justify mythic martials a + would just tell people to try and stay on topic and not post things like "people don't want mythic martials" or "forget this, nerf casters" or whatever other tangent these threads usually devolve into.

Yeah pretty much that.

But in this case, the debate about what a high tier Fighter "means" is worthwhile. The Original Post takes it for granted that class balance mechanically requires a "mythic" Fighter at high tiers. But it is ok to express concerns about this view. Ultimately, the discussion from every viewpoint can help the designers thread the needle where possible, and supply alternatives where possible.

 

[Shardstone]

You can spare the hysterics for one, and for two, game design isn't that simple.

You're not accounting for the reality that designing a character class that is both able to support entirely disparate playstyles and support them to their fullest extent is a near impossible needle to thread.

Theres only so much design space you can give to a particular character class before you run into problems with having too much space (ala 3.5 heritage games, like PF2) that you'd then have to solve by upending what a character class even is (ala PF2).

And at that point, you're writing a new game. Nobody needs a Pathfinder clone.

Boo. Your defeatist logic is rooted in pessissm and an errant belief in the difficulty of the task. 5E classes already don't fully explore the full breadth of their design space. From variant class features to mini-subclasses like what the Cleric/Druid get to leveraging inspiration ala Adventures In Middle-Earth to even burning hit dice for things. There is a lot more room in 5E classes than is used, and I think with the right presentation, that space can be fully maximized should WotC decide to do so.

I think since there is so much content for spellcasters, exploring this space specifically for martials would only enrich the game and wouldn't take more than a year of dev time to accomplish. So, of course, it won't happen. I have no delusions. But it's not the impossible feat you make it out to be.

Crazy you call me out on hysterics while having this dramatic take, lmao.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

I like when the Core classes can have simple ability options that broaden the diversity of possible character builds. Examples include the recent Divine Orders, Primal Orders, and Pact Cantrips being separate from Subclasses. Those enable very different builds, which I think is great.

However, some design is too rich and deep to fit into an existing class structure. The Book of Nine Swords didn't fit into the Fighter class. They had to create 3 brand new classes to make that happen.

Others in this thread have aleady suggested too many Mythic themes that would be unable to fit into the remaining few places where Fighters get design space for abilities. While I wouldn't mind a couple at high levels as options, the fighter can't contain them all.

I would LOVE a non-Core Mythwarrior/Exemplar/Paragon class that had supernatural combat powers as part of the base class. It could also have very thematic subclasses (for example, the Rune Knight and Echo Knight could have fit in there wonderfully). I want a "Herculean" strength-based martial artist that can grapple monsters 2 size categories up, do ground stomps, and knock people 30 feet back with her backhand. As long as the damage and survivability was comparable to Barbarians and Fighters, the rest is just thematic gravy. But I want moar abilities to fit that theme as multiple options over multiple levels. Not just the several that can fit into the Fighter class.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Oh, sure. Me too, unless it's explicitly a superhero thing. But there are a lot of people here who very much want to change D&D into something it was never designed to be, for better or for worse, and I'm trying to be as accommodating as I can be.

What D&D was designed to be was a tiered game with (at least for 1e AD&D) a soft-cap at level 9 or 10 in which the fighter got a literal castle and army as a class feature at level 9.

The problem is that D&D has already been changed into something it was never designed to be. If you want to leave the game fundamentally unchanged at up to level 8, possibly even level 10, I think few of the people who want mythic fighters would have a problem with that. The question is what the fighter is supposed to do after level 8. In oD&D and 1e AD&D the fighter entered their endgame with land and an army. And that is an acceptable alternative to the mythic fighter. But the game has been fundamentally changed - the wizard goes deep into their archmage endgame while the fighter has had it stripped away.

So if you're complaining about "something that D&D was never designed to be" can we have the level 8 cap back as a compromise? Turning it back into what it was designed to be rather than the Weird Wizard (and other caster) Show it is now?

 

[Micah Sweet]

What D&D was designed to be was a tiered game with (at least for 1e AD&D) a soft-cap at level 9 or 10 in which the fighter got a literal castle and army as a class feature at level 9.

The problem is that D&D has already been changed into something it was never designed to be. If you want to leave the game fundamentally unchanged at up to level 8, possibly even level 10, I think few of the people who want mythic fighters would have a problem with that. The question is what the fighter is supposed to do after level 8. In oD&D and 1e AD&D the fighter entered their endgame with land and an army. And that is an acceptable alternative to the mythic fighter. But the game has been fundamentally changed - the wizard goes deep into their archmage endgame while the fighter has had it stripped away.

So if you're complaining about "something that D&D was never designed to be" can we have the level 8 cap back as a compromise? Turning it back into what it was designed to be rather than the Weird Wizard (and other caster) Show it is now?

I'd rather we had the land and army back for the fighter, along with the old caster restrictions personally.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I'd rather we had the land and army back for the fighter, along with the old caster restrictions personally.

I'm shocked, shocked to discover that from a self-described OSR enthusiast wants to go back to the old ways. I'd be happy with them - but they don't seem to be on the table.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm shocked, shocked to discover that from a self-described OSR enthusiast wants to go back to the old ways. I'd be happy with them - but they don't seem to be on the table.

Hey, it worked for me. I'm not responsible for what's popular.

 

[James Gasik]

I'd rather we had the land and army back for the fighter, along with the old caster restrictions personally.

Though to be fair, the Fighter really didn't have an "army". At most you're looking at 1 7th level Fighter, 20 0-level cavalry and 100 0-level infantry. According to what I've seen on the internet, a cavalry regiment alone during the medieval period was 600 to 900 men!

Edit: forgot the possibility of 30 1st-level infantry. Still, 151 guys isn't really the kind of force you can knock over a small nation with.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Though to be fair, the Fighter really didn't have an "army". At most you're looking at 1 7th level Fighter, 20 0-level cavalry and 100 0-level infantry. According to what I've seen on the internet, a cavalry regiment alone during the medieval period was 600 to 900 men!

Edit: forgot the possibility of 30 1st-level infantry. Still, 151 guys isn't really the kind of force you can knock over a small nation with.

True. Some OSR games have done a better job of handling the army and land aspects of old school game play, and I would (and have) turned to those when desired.