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

[Imaro]

Oh no. The hats been agreed upon long ago. The only classes that are allowed to be complex and have that degree of options are caster classes.

If a non casting fighter had as many options as an EK then this conversation would be over.

So then you don't want a magical/mystical fighter since magic in D&D (at least PC facing) is casting spells...

 

[Shasarak]

So the basic argument is:

Side 1: "It would be cool if the fighter had some more options"

Side 2: "No, you can't have any more options because reasons"

Why isn't "side 2", "Hm, I don't see it, but knock yourself out"? Why is it "NO"? Why does "side 2" care?? Someone asked this earlier, but it went unanswered. I think this would be interesting to see answered.

Why doesnt side 1 just "knock themselves out"?

Do they really need side 2 to give them permission?

 

[Minigiant]

And there are ways to justify daily resources for fighter.

My homebrew's "master swordsman" has a daily power each linked to a body organ. He can use a daily power but then the organ is too tired to do it again without a long rest. It's completely mythical without being supernatural as he's just exhausting specific organs.

The NPC in the campaign has.

Eyes: Focus strike- Melee sword attack has advantage and is a critical hit.
Arm: Hurricane Strike- 4 offhand weapon attacks as bonus action.
Hand: Steel Grip- Double proficiency bonus to resist disarm, climb walls, or maintain grapple.
Legs: Swift run- Speed increases by 40feet and next melee attack deals +5 damage.
Stomach: Iron Belly- Removes ingested poison
Brain: Calculated Weakness- Advantage on all attacks and Strength ability checks vs one target for a day.
Mouth: Brass Shout- Yell so everyone within a long range can hear clearly with a far travelling echo.

He doesn't have the soul power as that is a magical boon granted elsewhere outside of class.

 

[Imaro]

Did someone seriously just suggest using an eldritch knight as a mythical fighter? Does that person have no grasp of the argument here at all? Are they trolling? I can't believe anyone would be thick headed enough to suggest such a thing.

For starters, mythical martial heroes do not cast spells. That is what makes them martial heroes and not spellcasters. Beowulf, Lancelot, Gilgamesh, Cucuchlain, and Hercules never once stooped down to the level of "jazz hands and jibber jabber" to defeat their foes. They accomplished tasks using strength, cunning, and endurance. Sure they exhibited superhuman levels of these qualities, but they were never supernatural or magical.

They never had ammo/spell slots, arbitrary daily limits, memorization, or obviously magical effects. Their capabilities all fell within the realm of what one would expect a high level warrior to be capable of. No turning invisible, shooting balls of fire, and flying. Those are superpowers (or wizard spells) not martial exploits.

The EK is anything but the mythic fighter people are asking for. I can't honestly believe someone seriously suggested that as a solution...

Ok, first off... the personal attacks, not cool.

Second... D&D doesn't model a specific fiction... D&D is it's own thing. The problem seems to be you want to step outside the D&D paradigm for magical/mystical... since for PC's magical/mystical is defined (for the most part) with spells and casting them. Otherwise why don't you just play the monk? In the D&D paradigm he seems to be the "mystical" warrior you want. I mean what difference does the name make if he's doing what you want him to do? Isn't that what people said about the 4e ranger vs. fighter when it came to archery?

EDIT: Also... Lancelot is a mythical hero now... really?? Oh, and Hercules being half-god (with the superpower of super strength) isn't supernatural in the least bit... say what now

 

[Umbran]

A few notes:

Hussar, watch your language, please. You shouldn't be triggering the language filter.

Ashkelon, please chill out. A suggestion is just a suggestion, not a heresy. It is okay for you to not like it, just don't drift off into the passive-aggressive outrage, please.

Everyone, please stop equating and allying "mythical" and "mystical".

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Why does everything outside the set of "IRL mundane things" have to be specifically done through casting spells?

Why does being purely martial mean supernatural feats (actions, not the rules element) are verboten?

Edit:
To ape Umbran's terms, why can't there be heroes who are 100% Mythical while being 0% Mystical?

 

[Imaro]

Why does everything outside the set of "IRL mundane things" have to be specifically done through casting spells?

It doesn't "have" to be... nothing "has" to be. But it is the way D&D 5e, at least in so far as the 3 corebooks are concerned has, for the most part concerning PC's, handled it...

Why does being purely martial mean supernatural feats (actions, not the rules element) are verboten?

It doesn't... but again we have the monk for the archetype of the warrior who uses supernatural feats... Why does calling such a warrior "fighter" matter so much?

 

[Minigiant]

[MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION]

To be fair, the monk has a very limited weapon and armor proficiency.
I struggled as a DM to make a ki swordsman for a player and bailed. Let's hope for support from the mystic but it is psionic.

I don't know why they made exhaustion so harsh. But they could have thrown s bone and offered +10 to a check or 5d10 damage for a point of exhaustion. I wrote this in every playtest report , man.

 

[Ashkelon]

Why does everything outside the set of "IRL mundane things" have to be specifically done through casting spells?

Why does being purely martial mean supernatural feats (actions, not the rules element) are verboten?

It hasn't even always been that way either. There are plenty examples of characters performing extraordinary tasks without needing to resort to supernatural abilities. In 2e, a high level fighter had ~90% chance to make any given saving throw. The high level 5e fighter has around 20% - 50% chance to make a save (depending on proficiency).

In 3e, a high level fighter could wrestle a giant and win, knock such a creature back with powerful blows, control the battlefield with multiple opportunity attacks, jump 50 feet in the air, cut through solid steel walls with ease, and lift 20,000 lb boulders without breaking a sweat. In 5e, a fighter can't grapple or shove a creature larger than an ogre. The 5e fighter can lift only a small fraction of the weight, and can jump 8 feet up at most.

Hell, even the 3e warblade couldn't do anything supernatural, but he could stun enemies, daze them, dash around the battlefield, hinder their movement, and otherwise create a variety of interesting martial effects that the 5e fighter simply cannot replicate.

 

[Imaro]

[MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION]

To be fair, the monk has a very limited weapon and armor proficiency.
I struggled as a DM to make a ki swordsman for a player and bailed. Let's hope for support from the mystic but it is psionic.

I don't know why they made exhaustion so harsh. But they could have thrown s bone and offered +10 to a check or 5d10 damage for a point of exhaustion. I wrote this in every playtest report , man.

There has to be a trade off at a certain point, I mean this is like complaining the wizard's weapons or the cleric's weapons are limited... and his lack of armor proficiency is part of his mythical/mystical (not sure which is being argued for anymore) nature, he doesn't need armor...

Yes the monk's weapons are limited but it does include shortswords... and the class kind of gives explicit permission to reskin weapons... so why couldn't you create a ki swordsman? Again this seems to be a parallel to the ranger vs. fighter archer arguments around 4e... only for some reason now those who thought that was perfectly viable don't find the monk viable as a substitute...