D&D 5E So what's exactly wrong with the fighter?

[Celtavian]

[MENTION=5834]Celtavian[/MENTION] - never played Pathfinder for the same reason I stopped playing 3e. Not interested in spending hours doing the math or needing a spreadsheet program to play. There's a reason it's nicknamed Mathfinder.

A game provides you with options you're looking for and you don't want to try it because of the math? Ok. Simpler game, simpler options though.

Don't try to sell me on how 4E. I played enough to know pinballing enemies or the occasional effect doesn't make combat complex. They had very few interesting mechanics for fighting compared to Pathfinder or 3E.

You say you want a complex fighter, you get one in Pathfinder and you don't want to play it. It's like your asking for simple complexity? Or just number of options? You want a long list of options, but don't want them all to be mathematically simple? It seems like you're asking for your cake in hand and in stomach at the same time.

 

[Hussar]

We already have options for a complex fighter.

I just think at this point anything outside of 4th edition just doesn't meet your standards and while there is nothing wrong with that, there is also nothing wrong with the current fighter.

Sigh.

Look, I'm playing a Champion Fighter RIGHT NOW. And I like it. I love the fact that there is a simple fighter option. It's great.

Just because I want X does not mean that I don't like Y. I LIKE 5E. Please stop trying to kick me off the island just because I think that adding a particular option would make the island a bit better. Yes, the current fighter is fine. But, it is pretty limited. It doesn't have a whole lot of complexity. No, we don't have a complex fighter. Good grief, would you compare the complexity of a Battlemaster to a wizard? Really?

See if we can agree on this.

If a Champion Fighter is a 1 and the most complex 5e class (say, at a guess, a wizard? Maybe a druid?) is a 5, where do the other classes rest?

Me, I'd say a Battlemaster is a 2, the half caster combat characters like a paladin or ranger are 3's, and the full casters are either 4 (say a warlock) or a 5.

What I want is a non-magical character that's a 3. Maybe edging into a 4, but, a 3 would probably make me happy. No I don't want to go back to 4e. No I don't want to switch to Pathfinder where every character is a 9 on the complexity scale. Good grief, I already have GURPS or various other games if I want that level of complexity.

I want something that has a bit more breadth than a battle master. Something that's about as customisable and as complex as a ranger or a paladin.

------

Hemlock, if what you say about dissociative mechanics is true, then perhaps not waving a giant freaking edition war flag in a thread might help get your point across. The concept of dissociative mechanics is very contested and is certainly not taken as a "fact" and is generally seen as just another edition war shot. Perhaps rephrasing your issues with the mechanics might help to not get painted with the edition warrior brush.

 

[Hussar]

A game provides you with options you're looking for and you don't want to try it because of the math? Ok. Simpler game, simpler options though.

Don't try to sell me on how 4E. I played enough to know pinballing enemies or the occasional effect doesn't make combat complex. They had very few interesting mechanics for fighting compared to Pathfinder or 3E.

You say you want a complex fighter, you get one in Pathfinder and you don't want to play it. It's like your asking for simple complexity? Or just number of options? You want a long list of options, but don't want them all to be mathematically simple? It seems like you're asking for your cake in hand and in stomach at the same time.

Really? I can play a simple fighter in Pathfinder and it will be equivalent in power to the complex fighter? Pathfinder's balance handles simplicity and complexity? Sure, I know Pathfinder has loads of complexity. I was frankly unaware that it did simplicity as well.

Is it really so surprising that I want a class that's a bit more complex than a Battlemaster, without going full bore Pathfinder?

 

[Corpsetaker]

But you don't need a rest after it. You can keep fighting, running, jumping, skipping as long as you like. The only muscle affected by your limit-pushing exertion is your action surge muscle.

I don't see any reason why use of stances, manoeuvres etc couldn't have similarly specialised muscle groups!

I see you snip what you want in order to try and justify what you are saying here. I will repeat this part for emphasis.

Ever see the mother lift the car off of her child by pushing herself beyond her limits? I'm sure she needed a nice rest afterwards. This is D&D after all so a little "outside of believability" is okay but needing to rest in order to change fighting styles is just ridiculous. That would be like me saying I can't switch from using Karate to Kung-fu until I've had a rest.

This shuts down your above argument.

 

[Corpsetaker]

Really? I can play a simple fighter in Pathfinder and it will be equivalent in power to the complex fighter? Pathfinder's balance handles simplicity and complexity? Sure, I know Pathfinder has loads of complexity. I was frankly unaware that it did simplicity as well.

Is it really so surprising that I want a class that's a bit more complex than a Battlemaster, without going full bore Pathfinder?

If you are worried about power then 5th edition is the wrong one for you. This edition wasn't created with "power" in mind, it is more about the concept.

You obviously want a game that is focused around synergies, riders, powers, sliding, pushing, pulling, etc..... 4th edition is more your cup of tea.

The complexity of the fighter is up to you, not just the rules and that is the basis for 5th edition.

 

[Hussar]

If you are worried about power then 5th edition is the wrong one for you. This edition wasn't created with "power" in mind, it is more about the concept.

You obviously want a game that is focused around synergies, riders, powers, sliding, pushing, pulling, etc..... 4th edition is more your cup of tea.

The complexity of the fighter is up to you, not just the rules and that is the basis for 5th edition.

Wait, what? 5e is nicely balanced. None of the classes are head and shoulders above the others. Smarter people than me have done the math and the classes, by and large, come out pretty even. Not a big shock considering the degree of play testing that 5e went through.

See, I want to play a fighter that is a bit more complex than a Battlemaster or a Champion. Someone that adds a bit of tactical complexity to the game, without massively bogging things down. No, I'm not interested in 4e combat, thanks. Too complicated and far, far too slow.

Casters are far more complex than non-casters. Yet, the power levels between casters and non-casters in 5e is comparable. Not enough to bother me at the very least. Yet, despite the added complexity, casters don't play slower than non-casters. At least, not particularly. Most of the complexity is handled at level up and can fairly easily be done away from the table.

Look, you asked the question - what is wrong with the fighter. You got the answer - fighters need a bit more complexity for some people. Apparently you were far more interested in an echo chamber where everyone pats you on the back and agrees with you. Sorry, but no. I love the fact that there is a simple fighter, but, I would like to have a more complex option too. I'm sorry that seems to bother you so much. At least you're not threatening to quit the hobby if I get an option. But, sheesh, why is getting a somewhat more complex fighter grounds for telling me to change editions? Bit of an extreme reaction no?

 

[Sacrosanct]

To the best of my knowledge, in the real world (i) there is no magic, and yet (ii) a single sword blow can blind, or maim or even kill a person, even a person who is him-/herself a skilled hand-to-hand fighter.

We tend to base our PCs in the game as examples of the exceptional people, and not a typical random person. For real world comparisons, we have hundreds of "real world" examples of people living through wounds that would kill most everyone else. Besides, it's a fallacy to say that "a sword can kill a person in real life in a single strike, but not a PC in the game, therefore the PC should be able to completely bend reality in the game too by doing all of these superpower maneuvers."

I don't see what giving fighter PCs the ability to perform condition infliction, or similar sorts of manoeuvres, has to do with "abilities that are above and beyond what someone can do without the aid of magic".
.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I will speak for me and try to re-explain why I have a problem with all these power options. It's largely two-fold

1. The disassociation makes absolutely no sense. Look at the "crack the shell" from the earlier discussion. Hussar said he wanted to do an attack that also sundered armor. But since it didn't exist as a power in AD&D, "there was no way it would fly" and he "can't do it", but in 4e, it's "easy peasy" because there's a power for it. Yeah, a 5th level fighter daily. Meaning that if Hussar wanted to make an attack that sundered armor, he would only do it once per day, and only as a 5th or higher level fighter. That makes ZERO sense. That's like saying, "I want to perform a maneuver in basketball called a 'dunk'", but you can only do it once per game. In that earlier discussion, in AD&D, anyone could attempt to render armor any time they want. But it is a maneuver that is handled in the context of what's going on at the time. It's associated with the game context.

This is what I call the "if it's not written as a power then the class doesn't have options" fallacy that folks like yourself keep trying to make. How many times just in the past couple days in this thread alone has someone complained about the fighter not having options when they do, just not written down in the class as a power?

2. The "maneuvers" themselves go into superpower territory because you can use them, automatically, even when they make no sense. Like tripping a slime. Or pulling a "Get Over Here" to pretty much any type of monster when it can make no sense whatsoever.



Other issues people have with the laundry list of options is that they don't want every class to have a list of things to keep track of or to do resource management with. This may be a big shock, but a lot of people don't like Marvel Super Hero D&D. They want a class that is streamlined. If they wanted a class with a list of powers, they'd play a class that had a list of powers

 

[Corpsetaker]

Crack the shell is easy to do in 5th edition, just ask your DM if it is allowed.

I could see the fighter sundering someone's armour, but I would only allow the player to sunder that enemy's armour only once, but not once per day, that's ridiculous. Say there are five guys, I could sunder each one and they impose a -1 to AC if they are wearing armour.

 

[Celtavian]

Wait, what? 5e is nicely balanced. None of the classes are head and shoulders above the others. Smarter people than me have done the math and the classes, by and large, come out pretty even. Not a big shock considering the degree of play testing that 5e went through.

See, I want to play a fighter that is a bit more complex than a Battlemaster or a Champion. Someone that adds a bit of tactical complexity to the game, without massively bogging things down. No, I'm not interested in 4e combat, thanks. Too complicated and far, far too slow.

Casters are far more complex than non-casters. Yet, the power levels between casters and non-casters in 5e is comparable. Not enough to bother me at the very least. Yet, despite the added complexity, casters don't play slower than non-casters. At least, not particularly. Most of the complexity is handled at level up and can fairly easily be done away from the table.

Look, you asked the question - what is wrong with the fighter. You got the answer - fighters need a bit more complexity for some people. Apparently you were far more interested in an echo chamber where everyone pats you on the back and agrees with you. Sorry, but no. I love the fact that there is a simple fighter, but, I would like to have a more complex option too. I'm sorry that seems to bother you so much. At least you're not threatening to quit the hobby if I get an option. But, sheesh, why is getting a somewhat more complex fighter grounds for telling me to change editions? Bit of an extreme reaction no?

Use the simple 5E rules. Writes some stuff up you want to be able to do. Run it by your DM. I don't see why your DM wouldn't work with you. I would if I was running a game you were in. I allow the DMG optional maneuver rules in my game to give Martials some more options in play. I'd probably add maneuvers if someone came up with cool ones.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Do you play 5E?

I run 5e.

Concentration is a high cost that makes a caster often choose between offense and defense leaving them very vulnerable to attack.

It's a meaningful enough restriction on the spells that require it, sure.

...the caster can't stack spells to kill himself.

Lol. I'm sure you didn't mean it that way, but it's still funny.

And the concentration mechanic. And Legendary Resistance. And Bounded Accuracy making it quite possible for a creature to save.

Have nothing to do with versatility.

5E has toned this down considerably from 3E. Far more than you give it credit for.

I give 5e full credit for being less broken than 3e as far as class balance goes. 3e was, however, the most broken ed of D&D, by far. Even the experimental early rulesets weren't as radically class-imbalanced as 3e. 5e is probably vying with 2e for second most-broken class balance in an edition of D&D. Even so, if 5e were simply following on the heals of 3.5, that could be seen as an improvement. But it follows Essentials, which followed 4e, so the class-balance trend is sadly to the negative. 5e's saving grace is that it's very up-front about leaving the tools out for the DM to fix those issues in play.

What characters are you talking about? And what do they do that can't be accomplished by the fighter?

Really, even the most basic things: surviving in the wilderness, providing leadership, negotiating, dealing with kings. Fighters have just been profoundly limited outside of combat in D&D. 5e Backgrounds help a bit in that they make everyone more well-rounded, but that doesn't excuse the fighter class for being so narrow.

There are other classes to mirror different types of martials. Fighters are fine in 5E. They are highly effective. They are not severely outclassed by casters.

Not /severely/? Maybe not. But all 5 of the arguably-martial sub-classes in 5e are functionally similar, in that they contribute little or nothing beyond DPR in combat. The fighter is unique in how little he contributes outside of combat. If you combined the fighter and rogue into a single class, with the DPR of the fighter, and skills and out of combat goodies of the rogue, you still wouldn't have a broken class.

They even have a few abilities that are nice in a non-combat sense like the Champions proficiency in all physical skills.[/quote] half-proficiency, anyone proficient is better than the Champion.

The Battle-master's ability to assess opponents.

5E fighter is one of the most balanced and capable I've seen in D&D.

It's one of the worst-balanced and least capable out of combat I've seen in D&D. Which isn't saying anything different than what you're saying, really, since the fighter hasn't varied wildly over the last 40 years, and the worst-balanced (the 0E, probably, maybe the 3e, though that's unfair as it's the casters who were the source of imbalance) and the best balanced (4e fighter, again, mainly because of the other classes), respectively are all we're excluding. The 5e fighter is fairly typical of the narrow strengths and broad failings of the D&D fighter: high damage, low contribution outside of that.

Not sure what more you want unless you're pushing for anime style capabilities. I would prefer that not be in the game myself.

Calling broader or more fantastic abilities 'anime' doesn't make them undesirable. The alternatives are really to bring the fighter up to the excess-of-genre level of D&D casters, or pull casters down to the shy-of-genre standard of the fighter, or strike a balance closer to genre. If you don't want "anime-style" fighters, then you should settle for sub-genre-powered casters, the kind that have only a trick or two, if any, that's combat-useful, and mostly provide exposition and the occasional plot-important ritual or item-based magical mcguffin, that would balance with that.