Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Quickleaf" data-source="post: 8536600" data-attributes="member: 20323">I applaud anyone stepping into the ring, so to speak, of fighter re-design in public forums because it's a very contentious topic.My experience with "design by committee" in regards to this specific aspect of the game is that if there isn't strong design direction – if you don't clearly articulate what issues you want to address / changes you want to make – then you end up with a big mess.To state it another way: Know which minority of players you're redesigning this for.My thoughts can be summarized thus:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Designing for the Minority... Any redesign efforts are not for "many" players – D&D Beyond data & the limited survey data we have from WotC suggest that ~75% of players are happy with the 5e Fighter. So any redesign is for a minority. Embracing that helps you get specific about what you want.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">...But Which Minority? In my experience, that minority is not at all in agreement about what they want a resdesigned Fighter (or Wizard, or magic system, etc) to look like. For instance, I've played with some gamers who embrace PCs lacking in combat ability, but I know they only represent a small minority, and that most D&D players enjoy contributing in combat.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Specific Fighter Class Issues: The Fighter class specifically has the following issues: (1) levels with fewer features compared to others, (2) mechanically-defined subclasses lacking narrative & Champion subclass being sub-par, (3) Indomitable is weak compared to monk, and (4) capstone breaks from "start of tier" Extra Attack and feels lackluster.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Void of Identity: These issues stem – at least in part – from a void in the Fighter's identity left by (a) removing the "feudal lord" component from BD&D and AD&D without replacing it with anything, and (b) slowly giving away special fighter features to other classes with modern editions of D&D. In my opinion, this left a void in identity. Whether that void is problematic varies by taste. For example, Mike Mearls finds it problematic, I find it problematic (as I see more multiclassed "dips" into fighter than other classes), but ~75% of D&D players do not.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Compare Like to Like: We should not overly rely on comparing apples-to-oranges (i.e. Fighters to Wizards), but rather we should focus our comparison on Fighters to their "next of kin" like Barbarians, Monks, Paladins, Rangers, and Rogues. For example, at 2nd level Fighter just gets Action Surge – is that balanced compared to Paladin getting Fighting Style, Spellcasting, and Divine Smite or Ranger getting Fighting Style and Spellcasting? That's a worthwhile inquiry.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Beware Features/Choices Bloat: This one is especially subjective, but it's very easy when redesigning the Fighter to present an excess of choice to players under the assumption that the minority want the Fighter experience to be like the spellcaster experience of choosing spells (options) from an extensive list. That's been done in 4e and for 5e in LevelUp. The gains in complex choice come at the loss of elegant simplicity - so it's designing for a specific minority of players. Which is fine. Just be aware of who you're designing for.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">D&D is High Magic: When you start getting into combing spell lists to nerf spells that, for instance, make an exploration style of game harder to run in the way a DM wants, then you're also needing to evaluate not just spells but entire subsystems of the game. Oh wait, you mean the Genie Warlock can inhabit an extradimensional space at Xth level while they're carried by an unseen servant or zombie? Uh... shoot! You can make D&D lower magic – plenty of hacks for it out there – but it's going to take a lot of work, and you're going to be moving further away from the "common language" of how 5e is typically played, and thus whittling down the size of the (already small) player pool you're designing for.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Beware Thinking in Terms of Spells: While there are clearly spells that have been powered up in 5e compared to older editions (e.g. Leomund's Tiny Hut is a prime offender if you look back at its versions in 4e, 3e, and AD&D) & long-time spells that can make the logistics aspects of travel moot (e.g. goodberry, create food and water), it's very easy to fall into the trap of "well, fly kicks in at 5th level so if we're trying to give equal access to the exploration pillar then the Fighter needs some kind of flight option around that level." Not at all. What if instead the Fighter got a "grounding shot" option to knock a flying creature prone? Or what if the Fighter could use their reaction to "leap onto a flying creature"? Or what if the Fighter can take a "Hard Route" option allowing the player to declare the existence of a more challenging alternative route underground or over a foreboding bridge that the DM hadn't previously narrated? While understanding when which spells become available at which level is helpful, limiting ourselves to "spell-think" can really box in  creativity.</li> </ul></blockquote>

Verification