D&D 5E I made a Revised Fighter to fix the martial/caster gap - Feedback?

DavyGreenwind

Just some guy
so you basically smooshed champion and battlemaster together I guess?

I do like having the battle dice (superiority dice) listed on the table and I like the idea of spending HD to replenish them.
Yes! I thought those two should be in the base class, and the subclasses opened up for more flavorful archetypes. Some of the champion's features were recycled into Gladiator, and some of the Battle Master into Tactician.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

dave2008

Legend
Yes! I thought those two should be in the base class, and the subclasses opened up for more flavorful archetypes. Some of the champion's features were recycled into Gladiator, and some of the Battle Master into Tactician.
I get that, and I am OK with that. However, I want a subclass the is just a fighter, as I mentioned in my other post. Maybe a "warrior" or "weapon master" or something else.
 

DavyGreenwind

Just some guy
I am not a fan of the subclasses. I need just a plain fighter type subclass> I don't want to be a brawler, eldritch knight, gladiator, or tactician. I personally would need a replacement for the battlemaster or champion. Maybe just call it the "Warrior," IDK
That's valid. To me, the Tactician is the vanilla one. Maybe it could have a different name, like "Warrior"
 

DavyGreenwind

Just some guy
Nobody is casting wish at level 2, and fighters scale better at DPR than any other class - they are the hardest hitting class in the game at level 20 (and pretty great at level 2, for that matter). Lack of damage dealing is not a fighter problem, and if you buff it, then what do you do with rogues, barbarians, monks, etc.? The general complaint about fighters is that they are great at taking and dealing damage but too one dimensional, especially in other aspects of play than combat.

When people talk about "power" and high level magic like wish, they aren't really talking about damage dealing, they are talking about the ability to alter the parameters of a situation. Increasing the fighter's DPR won't end those complaints, because it isn't the issue.
Barbs and Monks would need a face-lift for sure, compared to this Fighter. This was made more in mind to balance against casters.

You're the second person to say it, so maybe letting the fighter add battle dice to ability checks is not enough. I shall think how to increase their utility without stepping on the toes of the Experts.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
I am not a fan of the subclasses. I need just a plain fighter type subclass> I don't want to be a brawler, eldritch knight, gladiator, or tactician. I personally would need a replacement for the battlemaster or champion. Maybe just call it the "Warrior," IDK
Yeah same.

I am gonna have to write up my revised fighter I guess too, this has inspired me to stop letting it be hypothetical.
 

DavyGreenwind

Just some guy
Yeah same.

I am gonna have to write up my revised fighter I guess too, this has inspired me to stop letting it be hypothetical.
For me, gladiator is the CHA fighter, Brawler raw Strength, and Tactician the INT fighter (with EK being magic).

In your opinion and the opinion of others here, which of these should be replaced with "Warrior"?
 

jgsugden

Legend
Let's put a Battlemaster Great Weapon Fighter with a 20 Strength and a +1 Greatsword at level 11 into combat. They attack at +5 for 2d6(reroll 1or2) +16 damage with a d10- bump they can toss in if they hit on each attack. They have easy access to bumps like Bless or Advantage. They can action surge for 3 more attacks. If they fell a target or get a crit, they get to make a similar attack as a bonus action. All in all, They're often dealing between 50 and 200 damage per round. If it is closer to 50, they're using up no resources to do it. If it is closer to 200, they likely used up some resources - that recharge on a short rest.

An 11th level wizard gets a one shot chance with their only 6th level slot to deal ~75 damage - if their opponent fails a con save, which is probably going to be the most easily made save by high hp enemies.

Fighters need no damage bumps.

If you want to give them something else, give that strategy and tactical bonuses based upon wisdom and intelligence. Give them the ability to guide their allies, to outmaneuver enemies, to take advantage of the battlefield. Make cover out of terrain to protect your allies. Give your allies extra movement. Allow the fighter to lure enemies out of position. Fighters should be the ones that use their brain in battle to win the day. Barbarians are the beat down. Paladins get the divine bonus. Rangers call upon their affinity for nature and use those skills in battle. Fighters are the ones that are supposed to be our generals and tacticians.

Out of combat, they should be masters of military lore, should be able to use their brains to figure out problems, and should be able to create the best defenses. I'd give them abilities to set up defenses when camping, advantage on some form of fighting related history checks, and investigation by default.
 

dave2008

Legend
For me, gladiator is the CHA fighter, Brawler raw Strength, and Tactician the INT fighter (with EK being magic).

In your opinion and the opinion of others here, which of these should be replaced with "Warrior"?
I would like a "weapon master" or similar. I prefer Str based, but could be Dex based I guess.. The 4e Essentials line had the "Slayer." That would be a good one too.
 

DavyGreenwind

Just some guy
If you want to give them something else, give that strategy and tactical bonuses based upon wisdom and intelligence. Give them the ability to guide their allies, to outmaneuver enemies, to take advantage of the battlefield. Make cover out of terrain to protect your allies. Give your allies extra movement. Allow the fighter to lure enemies out of position. Fighters should be the ones that use their brain in battle to win the day. Barbarians are the beat down. Paladins get the divine bonus. Rangers call upon their affinity for nature and use those skills in battle. Fighters are the ones that are supposed to be our generals and tacticians
I do feel maneuvers fill this niche. Using the cover rules is a neat idea.
 

DavyGreenwind

Just some guy
Okay, what do you guys think of this:

Marching Song: Your martial discipline and rousing marching songs allow you and your comrades in arms to walk great distances with ease.
You and your party gain the benefits of a short rest even when you are walking or marching for the duration.

Carousing: Your time spent in the field or traveling the world has made you adept at making friends and gathering information. When you spend at least an hour carousing with creatures that are not hostile to you, you can make a history, insight, or investigation check with advantage regarding the creature or creatures, the place in which you are carousing, or a piece of information the creature or creatures would know. You may also make one Persuasion check against your fellow carousers with advantage.

Battle Study: When you roll initiative, you may make one study action, insight check, or perception check as a free action.

Negotiator: You may make an influence action once per turn as a free action. When a creature has less than half of its hit points remaining, you have advantage on ability checks to convince the creature to surrender, and you may use your wisdom or intelligence rather than your charisma to do so.

P.S. Thank you folks for engaging with me.
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top