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

[FormerlyHemlock]

Why is it as soon as something has access to spells, it gains a boat load of options, and everyone's groovy with that, but, adding options to purely martial classes is such a big deal?

If you propose some non-dissociated, non-Vancian martial options we can discuss them.

 

[Uchawi]

Sure, but you would have to get rid of the dissociative magic ability as well.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Sure, but you would have to get rid of the dissociative magic ability as well.

Like what? I can't think of any dissociated spells in the PHB. The only one in 5E at all that I can think of is Iron Core, because it mimics the Lucky feat, which is pretty dissociated.

 

[Hussar]

You have that in 5th edition so I'm not sure exactly what more you want?

Have you actually played a Fighter for several levels?

You've held to the mistaken impression for this entire thread that if someone has any complaints, they must hate that thing. I've been playing a fighter in a Dragonlance campaign for the better part of the last year. I like the fighter. It's a ton of fun. I would like a fighter with more options more

Because magic is supposed to be magical as in able to do things mundane skills cannot. Why is that so hard to accept?

Missing the point. Why is it so much easier to learn magic than it is to learn to do mundane things? I mean, I can learn magic so easily that I can learn everything a fighter can do, PLUS I get to learn a new spell every level, plus quasi-meta magic that applies to my spells used through my weapon. In addition, magic is so easy to learn, that I can learn any spell from any caster class, regardless of divine or arcane, so long as they belong to abjuration or evocation.

But, despite that, I cannot learn to do more than two specialities for the entire lifespan of my character. Apparently learning to fireball something is easier than learning how to use a bow well, or pick up some defensive techniques which give me a +1 to AC.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Me, I just want a martial fighter, as in no spell casting, that has as many options as an Eldritch Knight.

Why is it as soon as something has access to spells, it gains a boat load of options, and everyone's groovy with that, but, adding options to purely martial classes is such a big deal?

Because a lot of people don't want mundane classes that have superpowers that replicate the reality-bending ability that magic has. Otherwise that spellcaster isn't so special anymore. And the tradeoffs for being able to learn those abilities (fragility) then become an extra punishment if the fighter can do the same stuff.

Is it also 'supposed' to be able to do things that mundane skill can, but better?

If it has a ton of other mitigating factors (like concentration, having the spell prepp'd, or even having it learned in the first place, being limited in the number of times you can use it, etc, etc)? Then sure. It is supposed to do things that mundane skills can, but better. That's the whole point; to have choice as a player of what kind of character you want to play. Do you want to be pretty good and be able to do something reliably and every time? Or do you want to play someone who is guaranteed success, but is very limited in the frequency, maintainability, and reliability of it's usage?

For the life of me, I will never understand why people always seem to forget the buttload of mitigating factors around magic whenever they start slinging out the "magic is superior" argument.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Missing the point. Why is it so much easier to learn magic than it is to learn to do mundane things?

Why is it so much easier to learn to use technology than to do manual tasks? I mean, I can learn to make smoothies in a blender in ten minutes, but it would take me weeks of concentrated effort (which I would never do) to learn to smash mangoes that thoroughly by hand. I can learn to drive a car in only a few months, but training my body to run at speeds of up to 70 mph would take me... well, okay, I could never do it. I can learn to kill someone with rifle in two days of training, but learning to kill someone with my bare hands could take years of training.

Magic is a crutch. Is and always has been, in (A)D&D, which is why anti-magic/deadmagic zones are such a beast: they take away your crutch. There are no "anti-skill zones" though.

In addition, magic is so easy to learn, that I can learn any spell from any caster class, regardless of divine or arcane, so long as they belong to abjuration or evocation.

To what are you referring? Eldritch Knights are restricted to wizard spells only, not "any caster class."

 

[Hussar]

Explain what the genre heroes do. I've read Conan, he hits things. I've read Launcelot, he hits things. Arthur hits things. Grey Mouser is a rogue and does rogue stuff with a little magic. Fafhrd hits things. Gwydion Son of Don hits things and has some magic user levels. What characters are you talking about? And what do they do that can't be accomplished by the fighter? Give me some book examples of mundane fighting men that weren't Gods that do something with mundane skills the fighter can't.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...y-wrong-with-the-fighter/page32#ixzz3filCButl

I gave an example earlier with "Crack the Shell" - an attack that deals damage an imposes an AC penalty. Can you honestly not think of a literary example of this?

Or, if you want a real world example - Half Swording where you grip the blade of the sword and thrust it like a spear - extra damage attack, and probably turns the sword of any type into piercing damage. How would I model that?

Are you honestly saying you can't imagine a stunning attack with a maul or a mace? How about a simple knockdown attack? Where I actually deal damage AND knock something on its ass instead of giving up dealing damage. Heck, you mention Conan - how do I reliably throw my sword? That's certainly something that's done in genre fiction. How about a Stop Thrust - where you "counter thrust attack into the opponent’s forward movement or oncoming attack" to stop someone's movement toward you. A fairly simple manoeuvre that reduces a target's movement to zero for one round and still deals damage.

These are all things you can't actually do with a fighter.

------

Now, as far as Hemlock's Dissociated mechanics bit, I really, really don't care. Why should our hypothetical class be limited by people who don't want the class in the first place? It's an optional class. If you don't like it, don't use it. It's really that simple. Just because I get something I want doesn't mean that I should be bound by people who can't wrap their heads around the idea. It's like the Warlord discussions where people refuse to accept the idea of martial healing. It's an optional class. If you don't like it, don't use it. But stop piddling in the cornflakes of those of us who aren't opposed to the idea.

 

[Corpsetaker]

You've held to the mistaken impression for this entire thread that if someone has any complaints, they must hate that thing. I've been playing a fighter in a Dragonlance campaign for the better part of the last year. I like the fighter. It's a ton of fun. I would like a fighter with more options more

So what is it you want? That's something you haven't spelled out.

 

[Hussar]

Because a lot of people don't want mundane classes that have superpowers that replicate the reality-bending ability that magic has. Otherwise that spellcaster isn't so special anymore. And the tradeoffs for being able to learn those abilities (fragility) then become an extra punishment if the fighter can do the same stuff.



If it has a ton of other mitigating factors (like concentration, having the spell prepp'd, or even having it learned in the first place, being limited in the number of times you can use it, etc, etc)? Then sure. It is supposed to do things that mundane skills can, but better. That's the whole point; to have choice as a player of what kind of character you want to play. Do you want to be pretty good and be able to do something reliably and every time? Or do you want to play someone who is guaranteed success, but is very limited in the frequency, maintainability, and reliability of it's usage?

For the life of me, I will never understand why people always seem to forget the buttload of mitigating factors around magic whenever they start slinging out the "magic is superior" argument.

Sigh. For the ten thousandth time THIS IS NOT ABOUT POWER. This is not about giving fighters abilities which are as powerful or more powerful than what you can do with magic. It really, really, really, really isn't. Is that clear enough? How can I clarify this further?

This is about getting a fighter class that has as many OPTIONS as a caster class.

And, I'd point out that there are fighters that already have reality bending abilities - the Eldritch Knight. So, obviously, it's not too hard to have a spell casting fighter that's balanced with the rest of the game. We already have a mundane fighter with some degree of options in the Battlemaster. Why can't that be taken a few steps further and give me a mundane fighter that has as many options as an Eldritch Knight? Someone that is choosing a new ability every level (EK's get a new spell known just about every level) instead of choosing 3 at 3rd level and not again for several levels after that.

And, again, note, I'm not talking about replacing. Simply adding a new subclass that has as many dials and knobs as an Eldritch Knight but doesn't cast spells.

To what are you referring? Eldritch Knights are restricted to wizard spells only, not "any caster class."

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...y-wrong-with-the-fighter/page33#ixzz3fitAUIyD

Whoops, sorry, my bad. Grr, need more coffee in the morning.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Now, as far as Hemlock's Dissociated mechanics bit, I really, really don't care. Why should our hypothetical class be limited by people who don't want the class in the first place? It's an optional class. If you don't like it, don't use it. It's really that simple. Just because I get something I want doesn't mean that I should be bound by people who can't wrap their heads around the idea. It's like the Warlord discussions where people refuse to accept the idea of martial healing. It's an optional class. If you don't like it, don't use it. But stop piddling in the cornflakes of those of us who aren't opposed to the idea.

So when you say stuff like, "Why is it as soon as something has access to spells, it gains a boat load of options, and everyone's groovy with that, but, adding options to purely martial classes is such a big deal?" that isn't a real question? You don't want a real explanation, you're just venting publicly? Got it. Will ignore any such questions from you in the future.