D&D 5E I think Wizards balances classes using damage on a single target nova over 3 rounds.

[EzekielRaiden]

No one on my table is ever, ever forced to play a fighter. No one.

And if someone likes the idea of Fighter, but hates the idea of being trapped in Little League...?

Because that's exactly what I'm telling you is the problem. For me, and for plenty of other people.

I'm not saying the class has to be mega-ultra-powerful. And I certainly don't want it to start practicing magic. You seem to think that "Fighter" is this unalterable chunk--that absolutely every single thing about it is unchangable and fixed, that being shackled to Little League, being martial, being widely-loved, and being confined to something even less than an Olympic Athlete, are all one singular block that could never be altered without destroying the whole thing, and that's simply wrong. So why should I have to settle for being shackled to Little League if I want to play a Fighter, when (I argue, though Pedantic disagrees) it is entirely possible to create a Fighter that is NOT shackled to Little League, that is NOT mandatorily inferior to even IRL athletes, yet still both martial and widely loved?

You can have what you want without it costing me what I want. Unless and until you prove otherwise, why should I have to put up with you getting what you want and me being denied what I want if they aren't exclusive?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yes. I don't see those things as remotely contradictory. People base their choices of play heavily on theme, regardless of mechanical function. Mechanical function is not irrelevant--if it is truly horrendous, it can drive people away--but it has to be pretty bad. That does not, at all, mean that it isn't punitive. "All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."


No, it absolutely is a reason. Because it would be popular no matter what form it takes, unless it were so horribly, egregiously bad that no one could justify playing it. It being popular is in fact an extremely GOOD reason to fix it, so that it actually meets the things the people who play it expect of it.

For God's sake, the 3e Fighter was in the top 3 favorite classes of that edition. And it's incredibly bad! Basically everyone agrees about that--and when I say "basically everyone," I include the designers of 3e, 4e, 5e, and Pathfinder. They all agree that there were serious flaws that needed to be fixed, and which could not be fixed with simply papering over the issues. Do you really think that, simply because the 3e Fighter was popular, it should have been preserved exactly as-is?


But it's not working. It's just that people are willing to overlook the problems. That's literally what I said.

You don't have something "working" that gets so much frustration, sustained, over a long period of time. That's literally the definition of it not working. People are just willing to put up with the issues--or paper over them.

And if people are willing to put up with it, then WotC has no compelling reason to expend resources trying to change it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

This isn't new ground. No amount of fighting skill lets you fly and go to other planes and sooner or later you need to fly and go to other planes. Plus, martial utility even when we do provide it is nearly always reactive, instead of proactive. You get to roll skills to mitigate problems or handle them as you approach, and you get to use spells to change the situations you face in the first place, and the latter is the much more interesting game.

That circular conversation aside can continue to disagree about precisely what utility is necessary for high level play and what archetypes get you there, but I think we both agree we currently live in the worst of all possible worlds. Frankly I just don't think it's worth the fight to try and salvage the Fighter, given the baggage already on display. You're never going to break the people who define it by what it can't do, so it's better to start fresh with some new martial archetypes that no one is invested in complaining about when you let them do things.

Honestly, if we just had the other martial classes (give or take the Rogue, which is a whole other problem), and everyone was some variant of Barbarian, Ranger or Paladin, it would be so much easier to give them level appropriate tools, without constant comparison to the Fighter dragging them down. You can justify giving any of those characters wings, or wind stepping or super jumps at say, level 9 or 13 or whatever when they need them.

I Think the Level Up fighter does a great job of threading the needle, but otherwise, yeah, a mythic martial/superhero class would be pretty great. 3pp and homebrew for the win on that one.

 

[Micah Sweet]

And if someone likes the idea of Fighter, but hates the idea of being trapped in Little League...?

Because that's exactly what I'm telling you is the problem. For me, and for plenty of other people.

I'm not saying the class has to be mega-ultra-powerful. And I certainly don't want it to start practicing magic. You seem to think that "Fighter" is this unalterable chunk--that absolutely every single thing about it is unchangable and fixed, that being shackled to Little League, being martial, being widely-loved, and being confined to something even less than an Olympic Athlete, are all one singular block that could never be altered without destroying the whole thing, and that's simply wrong. So why should I have to settle for being shackled to Little League if I want to play a Fighter, when (I argue, though Pedantic disagrees) it is entirely possible to create a Fighter that is NOT shackled to Little League, that is NOT mandatorily inferior to even IRL athletes, yet still both martial and widely loved?

You can have what you want without it costing me what I want. Unless and until you prove otherwise, why should I have to put up with you getting what you want and me being denied what I want if they aren't exclusive?

You can have what you want. You just have to go outside WotC to get it.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

You can have what you want. You just have to go outside WotC to get it.

Hahahahaha. Haha. Ha.

As if I could ever find a group that wasn't playing bog-standard, "what do you mean it is possible to start after level 1?" 5e.

If I could find that, I probably wouldn't be playing 5e in the first place.

 

[Incenjucar]

WotC is unlikely to change in a major way unless they get a major competitor, the game tanks, there's some large cultural pressure (like a bunch of movies about non-powered warriors come out), or someone in power happens to get a specific pet idea they want to push. Embrace 3P until someone manages to finally start catching up to D&D's market share with a 1P offering. No reason to stop pushing in the mean time, of course - squeaky wheel gets the grease.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Hahahahaha. Haha. Ha.

As if I could ever find a group that wasn't playing bog-standard, "what do you mean it is possible to start after level 1?" 5e.

If I could find that, I probably wouldn't be playing 5e in the first place.

I'm sorry to hear that. My players and I have been playing with 3pp for many years now. Since I see no scenario in which WotC will make the changes you want, I unfortunately don't know what to tell you.

 

[Micah Sweet]

WotC is unlikely to change in a major way unless they get a major competitor, the game tanks, there's some large cultural pressure (like a bunch of movies about non-powered warriors come out), or someone in power happens to get a specific pet idea they want to push. Embrace 3P until someone manages to finally start catching up to D&D's market share with a 1P offering. No reason to stop pushing in the mean time, of course - squeaky wheel gets the grease.

Continuing to beat your head against the wall with WotC seems like a waste of effort to me, but I agree about the embrace 3pp part.

 

[Incenjucar]

Continuing to beat your head against the wall with WotC seems like a waste of effort to me, but I agree about the embrace 3pp part.

Nothing changes if everyone just stays silent. A major reason so many people are desperate to get people to stop complaining about things they like.

 

[ECMO3]

And if someone likes the idea of Fighter, but hates the idea of being trapped in Little League...?

As you mentioned earlier for the people who like playing fighter implementation is of "little value" so moving them to the big leagues would not significantly change their enjoyment, because they don't care about that, it is not what those players value. The majoirty of players who actually play fighters would not get anything out of this change.

At the same time a minority of fighters players who care about keeping fighters where they are as a support class would be upset by this move. Additionally a whole lot of players who play other classes that want fighters to remain "little league" would be upset.

The only people who would actually benefit are the very small minority of people who

1. Play fighters
2. Do care about implementation (minority)
3. Want the implementation changed so the class more powerful (minority of a minority)

That is a very, very small number of players.

Because that's exactly what I'm telling you is the problem. For me, and for plenty of other people.

No not for plenty. As you said implementaition is of "little value" for most who play fighters.

I'm not saying the class has to be mega-ultra-powerful.

I am saying they should not be more powerful than they currently are.

Why can't you leave fighters alone and make a new "olympic athlete" class to fill the role that you think is missing? Why does it have to be the fighter that is improved when many of us do not want it improved?

Unless and until you prove otherwise, why should I have to put up with you getting what you want and me being denied what I want if they aren't exclusive?

This works both ways. You certainly can't prove anything either and as I mentioned earlier in this thread the request for proof always seems to be one sided and any evidence, anecdotal or implicit, is dismissed by those asking for proof because it proves nothing.

You have clearly stated that you believe most who play fighters do not care about improving them, that is not proof, but it shows you accept this as the current state and therefore it is not logical to believe a stronger fighter would make a meaningful difference for most who play fighters and are satisfied on theme alone.

Finally, the one advocating change should actually be the one offering proof to back up their claims, instead of asking for it from others.