Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hillsy7" data-source="post: 7230425" data-attributes="member: 6689191">Ooops - forgot about SM.....and whether or not EK is a "Poor" choice, it's still an option. You could argue that any use of Ki other than "Flurry of Blows" is a poor use of a bonus action (not that I agree), but the option is still there.OK - there looks like there's 3 different points we're discussing here, so lets split them out.1) Does a Fighter lack off the shelf Bonus Actions?Firstly we must take into account other classes. “Lack” is not an objective term when looking at a specified ruleset. I found a list here of all Bonus actions <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/2tr8a4/looking_for_master_list_of_bonus_actions/" target="_blank">here </a>(though it misses Shield Master)……So as you can immediately see, compared to many other classes the Fighter is comparable if not better in their BA options. The Ranger has zero until level 14 (dependant on sublass). The Cleric has None dependant on Domain, neither does a Land Druid. Wizards…..Ok you get my point. So clearly the Fighter is not unique, and therefore providing them with a constant use early Bonus Action ability would make them the exception.Ok, so let’s say now you consider spells/bardic inspiration/Ki and other limited use resources to count as bonus action options. So in the interest of equivalence that puts all full casters basically in one pot: Cleric, Bard, Wizard, Sorcerer, Druid. In the other we have half-casters, Monks, Rangers, Paladins, and Warlocks. So in the final Pot we have Rogues, Fighters and Barbarians.Now, not all fighters are created equal. An EK is a half-caster, and a Battle Master has a limited resource like a Monk/Bard, so both of those move into pot 2. That means the only non-spell, non-resource classes left are Rogue, Barbarian and the Champion Fighter. All 3 can use a bonus action to extra attack (TWF), but a frenzy Barbarian loses that limitation, albeit at a hefty cost. The Rogue has cunning action. Therefore that leaves us with a problem – if we give a Bonus action to one specific subclass of Fighter, what about the barbarian? Also the Champion fighter gets a lot of passive bonuses where other classes have to burn BAs to get their equivalents – Plus it’s almost by design there to be the easy to use, minimum crunch class. Move & Hit Things, nothing else.So there we go – I would argue that if you are lamenting the lack of bonus actions for the Champion Fighter alone, you must consider the Totem Barbarian too (and they have probably fewer options – no action surge). If you then include limited resource classes (spells, Ki, SD, Frenzy), then you are looking at more than half the classes, at which point having a full casting list of potential Bonus Action options puts you in the minority, not the reverse. And remember, you can easily pick a spell list with no bonus action spells, meaning you have less options than a Champion Fighter (cos Action Surge).Therefore, the conclusion I draw is that you either “Fix” the Champion Fighter and Totem Barbarian specifically (thus potentially screwing one of the key design features of one of them), otherwise on an equivalent level, a fighter has much the same bonus action options as half the other classes, which would all need "Fixing"2) Should a Fighting Style provide Bonus Action economy?Action Economy is directly baked into a couple of classes – mostly the bard, rogue and monk. Thankfully, none of those use fighting styles. Of the three classes that do, only the Champion Fighter would definitely see no action economy issue – All Rangers, Paladins and the EK would have to tailor their spell lists to avoid it, and the BM would have to choose appropriate manoeuvres. “Fine!” you may say, “Casters have had it far too good for too long! Boost Melee Power!” Ok, but that then leaves the issue of the other melee races, and the fact you aren’t giving them a boost. I have yet to see someone argue that the Monk, Rogue, Barbarian are well overpowered compared to their fighting style using brethren. Quite the opposite in fact.Again, if you bring Fighting Style into the equation, you are ignoring other melee characters, and once again the poor barbarian gets nothing. I can only conclude then that fighting styles really isn’t the best place to add to the action economy – especially as now only a single subclass is affected (Champ Fight)3) Is taking a feat for a bonus action unfair for a Fighter?In short – I don’t know. What I do know though, is that if you look at the design decisions made for the Fighter, it appears like that was WotC intention. The Fighter gets more feats, and some feats make their Fighting Styles better than the basic Ranger and Paladin (ergo, best at fighting that way) – the only conclusion I can draw is that was intentional. Especially when the feats that add Bonus Actions are all melee based and tie into how a Fighter “Fights”. Cruicially though, this only makes them ‘better’ than a basic Paladin or Ranger, and the BA add-ons still have to compete in the action economy of the EK and BM Fighters.Again, this feels intentional and part of the Fighter “Balance”, as much as any class is balanced compared to another in anyone’s opinion. While I personally think this is good design, people have differing opinions on how “design” should work, so I accept there’s a decent amount of argument room here.Now, having said all that, there’s a decent argument to be made for “Options” for a Bonus Action. However, most other classes will also have limited “Options” after their initial choices have been made – and none of these represent an increase in power that was not there already. A Monk has Ki, a Battlemaster has some manoeuvres, and a Cleric has whatever spells he has that use a bonus action. Once it’s all said and done, you’re likely only going to be using the same few things all the time. So “Options” should really be separated from “power” when developing them……</blockquote>

Verification