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

[Imaro]

Sounds, to me, like just another example of "you're the DM, you figure it out" as a way to dismiss any criticism levelled at 5e.

Well if a game takes a certain approach to something (Eldritch Knight and Monk as supernatural warriors)...and you don't like it...and (assuming said poll is at least in the correct ballpark) you are a pretty small minority of customers. I'd say yeah... you do need to figure it out... It's probably not going to be a priority for WotC.

It was perfectly viable. People still didn't like it. Ergo, it was incorrect to believe that people were okay with the way things were.

No one believes you and others who have voiced similar opinions about this are "okay with the way things are"... but the question is if 80+% of players are ok with it,should WotC waste the resources and efforts creating a new fighter for that other 20-% or should they probably be looking at something else that caters to the 80 or even 100% of 5e players?

I, personally, think the two issues have extremely important differences (e.g. the current issue is a normative one, that particular kinds of fiction simply don't and shouldn't exist in D&D, while the previous one was an issue of people having both the mechanical and fictional elements they wanted, exactly as requested, but those elements not having the correct title).

SMH... those people didn't have the mechanical and fictional elements they wanted... it was the inability of the other side to accept as opposed to dismiss that fact which caused all the arguments.

And, for the record? I don't actually think Monks make particularly good examples. Since, if you haven't noticed, a lot of their stuff is still explicitly mystical. There's even a subheading in their description: "The Magic of Ki." The description further elaborates on it being, explicitly, a form of magic.

Wait so now you want Mythical warriors with no magic whatsoever, not just spellcasting and slots but absolutely no mention of magic like say the blood of a god running through their veins like Hercules or being an actual demigod like Gilgamesh. What else is that besides a form of magic. How about this, instead of giving examples define what a "Mythical warrior" is...

 

[Imaro]

The fight to fight features of the monk relies on punching and being unarmored without a shield. Ki is supplementary.

I want to be able to fight with martial weapons and their advanced features as my common mode of attack while having a resource to tap into once maybe twice during noncakewalk fights to do amazing nonmagical feats or have an extremely powerful effect at a high cost.

The problem is the fighter has the "at will" but the monk has the "resource". And combining the two requires a very high level start.

The fighter could have came with a nonmagical resource or dailies. There was a choice not to. The question is why are we continuing it.

Are you kidding me right now... Seriously?? Congratulations... You've just described exactly what the Battlemaster is... did you somehow miss this class in the PHB?

 

[Imaro]

The issue was never HP. 4E started with a n archer. The issue was the name was Ranger not Fighter.

No the issue was that an archer fighter should have still had the hit points, armor proficiencies, weapon usage, utilities, etc. that a fighter got... but a Ranger didn't. but I guess you know better than those who were dissatisfied what their issues were...

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Wait so now you want Mythical warriors with no magic whatsoever, not just spellcasting and slots but absolutely no mention of magic like say the blood of a god running through their veins like Hercules or being an actual demigod like Gilgamesh. What else is that besides a form of magic.

Didn't I just say that? I swear I said, admittedly as an edit to a post, "100% Mythical...0% Mystical."

How about this, instead of giving examples define what a "Mythical warrior" is...

I did, though in another thread. Since you asked, though, here's what I wrote:
"I also see plenty of reason to accommodate mythic figures like Cú Chulainn (or Conchobar mac Nessa if you want a non-demigod), Beowulf, Gilgamesh, Agamemnon, Odysseus, Sigurd, Sinbad, Samson, Ali-baba, Harun al-Rashid, Bharata, Karna, Liu Bei, Sun Wukong, and many others (ideally a more gender-mixed group--I suppose I should have added Atalanta, Scheherezade, Ruth, Rahab, Deborah, Scathach, Boudica, Joan of Arc, Wu Zetian, Hua Mulan, and a few more badass ladies.)"

You'll note that I've intentionally chosen both real/historical figures and myth/legend figures (and some which, depending on your point of view, might be one or the other or even both). Also, although some of the people on the list are in some way "physically divine" (children of various European polytheistic deities, human avatars of Hindu deities), most of them are not.

I don't see Gilgamesh or Hercules as using "a form of magic," not in the well-defined way D&D uses the word "magic." They're not mundane in the least, but I adamantly do not think "magic" describes what they do. Certainly the "verbal/somatic/material" concept doesn't remotely apply to them. I believe that "magic" is not exhaustive of the entire scope of activities beyond the mundane.

 

[tyrlaan]

Edit: And with a roughly 80% approval rating for the fighter in the other thread (and yes I know this is not definite proof) I'd say they probably made the right choice in how they approached the archetype...

I can't stand the movie Gladiator, yet it was a massive hit and loved by the vast majority. This doesn't invalidate my criticisms of the flick; it just means the issues I have with it are either not seen by the majority or not a concern of the majority.

This is hardly a fair statement. You're asking for an outlier and complaining that it's not core. It would be like me complaining that there's no dedicated class or subclass that allows me to play the Grey Mouser as written, and someone saying, "sure there is, the game gives you freedom to modify or create a subclass to get what you want." And me responding with "You're just dismissing any criticism leveled at 5e."

I see what you're saying and almost agree. "Outlier" however is where I disagree. For those looking for more combat options for the fighter, precedents were set in 4e. For those looking for more interesting and distinctive non-combat options for the fighter, the expectation was set based on hype statements made by WotC. In both cases, I don't think it's too far of a leap to presume expectations were set and then not met, which would not, to me, mean they qualify as "outlier" expectations.

At some point we need to realize that a criticism we may have is an "us" issue, and not a fair criticism of the game itself. There is no way the game can be designed to cater to everyone's desires. Criticizing the game for that just seems like sour grapes*

While it is clearly true that a game cannot cater to everyone, I don't feel that alone invalidates criticism. To me, criticism is only invalid if it the criticism speaks to very unrealistic expectations, like wanting to be able to play a pineapple alchemist in 5e but the stupid game won't let me.


I feel it relevant to point out that criticism of a game does not mean the criticizer is saying the game is bad. It doesn't even mean the thing being criticized is necessarily being considered bad, just that someone sees room for improvement.

I say this because a lot of the counters to people complaining about the fighter feel like responses intended to defend the game as if it's under some sort of attack. It's just criticism folks.

 

[Imaro]

Didn't I just say that? I swear I said, admittedly as an edit to a post, "100% Mythical...0% Mystical."

Sorry didn't see the edited post... but being a demi-god or half god is mystical...Lol!!

I did, though in another thread. Since you asked, though, here's what I wrote:
I also see plenty of reason to accommodate mythic figures like Cú Chulainn (or Conchobar mac Nessa if you want a non-demigod), Beowulf, Gilgamesh, Agamemnon, Odysseus, Sigurd, Sinbad, Samson, Ali-baba, Harun al-Rashid, Bharata, Karna, Liu Bei, Sun Wukong, and many others (ideally a more gender-mixed group--I suppose I should have added Atalanta, Scheherezade, Ruth, Rahab, Deborah, Scathach, Boudica, Joan of Arc, Wu Zetian, Hua Mulan, and a few more badass ladies.)

You're still not defining it... you're giving wildly varying examples of heroes with wildly varying capabilities... and claiming there should be a coherent class that covers all of them. In what world are Beowulf and Odysseus in the same league? I'll ask again in a different way... what are the defining characteristics of a mythical fighter?

You'll note that I've intentionally chosen both real/historical figures and myth/legend figures (and some which, depending on your point of view, might be one or the other or even both).

So you're purposefully lumping in mythical and non-mythical examples... for a mythical fighter? Why, and how does that not confuse things?

I don't see Gilgamesh or Hercules as using "a form of magic," not in the well-defined way D&D uses the word "magic." They're not mundane in the least, but I adamantly do not think "magic" describes what they do. Certainly the "verbal/somatic/material" concept doesn't remotely apply to them. I believe that "magic" is not exhaustive of the entire scope of activities beyond the mundane.

Really... Hercules & Gilgamesh's great strength are a result of their divine blood... which carries magic/mystical properties. Also you do realize the monk doesn't actually cast spells...

 

[Imaro]

I can't stand the movie Gladiator, yet it was a massive hit and loved by the vast majority. This doesn't invalidate my criticisms of the flick; it just means the issues I have with it are either not seen by the majority or not a concern of the majority.

It does mean if the studio's purpose was to please the majority of fans and make money, as opposed to personally please [MENTION=20998]tyrlaan[/MENTION], then as I said in the quoted post... they probably made the right choice where you're criticisms and their vision diverged.

 

[Tony Vargas]

This is hardly a fair statement. You're asking for an outlier and complaining that it's not core. It would be like me complaining that there's no dedicated class or subclass that allows me to play the Grey Mouser as written,

Except that the Arcane Trickster more than covers it. (If you want him using magic from level 1, variant human and the right feat and/or Background, too). Really, if your concept calls for magic, D&D has that part of it covered. The 5e Rogue might feel a little shy of the Mouser's swordsmanship, though, but then, that's a 'mundane' ability.

At some point we need to realize that a criticism we may have is an "us" issue, and not a fair criticism of the game itself. There is no way the game can be designed to cater to everyone's desires. Criticizing the game for that just seems like sour grapes

Except when the Next playtest started the goal /was/ to be as inclusive as possible - and there's nothing impossible about providing a fighter and other martial classes with more balanced options, since it's actually been done.

The real sticking point hasn't been what people want, but what people /don't want to let others have/. It's not about you getting what you want, it's about denying someone else. A fighter with more cool stuff or a warlord or martial controller wouldn't keep you from playing a caster or a Champion (or banning anything you didn't want in your campaign as a DM), it'd just be an option - at this late date an, obviously, an opt-in one not found in the Standard Game.

 

[Minigiant]

Are you kidding me right now... Seriously?? Congratulations... You've just described exactly what the Battlemaster is... did you somehow miss this class in the PHB?

Nah.

I want "You move 60 feet/deal 8d6 damage/jump 30 feet/lift double normal weight... take 1 point of exhaustion or some sort of penalty"

 

[tyrlaan]

It does mean if the studio's purpose was to please the majority of fans and make money, as opposed to personally please [MENTION=20998]tyrlaan[/MENTION], then as I said in the quoted post... they probably made the right choice where you're criticisms and their vision diverged.

I don't disagree with this. My point is that it doesn't make the criticism invalid.