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

[Hussar]

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.



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

Hang on. You're saying that learning magic is now easier than learning to use a sword? How does that jive with D&D where magic is meant to be difficult to learn and out of reach of the common person. Because the common person most certainly can learn to use a weapon and it was pretty darn common for many people to be trained in local militia. If learning to bend reality to your will was that easy that it only takes a couple of days, just like learning to use a gun, why doesn't everyone in the game world start with numerous spells instead of weapon proficiencies? Or spells in addition to weapon proficiencies.

Considering that every single first level character comes out of the chute knowing how to use several weapons, wouldn't it make sense that they learned a couple of spells if magic were really that easy?

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.

Yes, I want a real explanation. It's not venting. No one has actually explained why it's perfectly fine for a fighter to have access to spells and thus gain the choice, at 3rd level, of 2 at-will and 3 daily spells, without a spell book mind you, out of a selection of a dozen or so options, gaining a new spell every couple of levels, again, out of a fairly lengthy list, but, doing the same thing for a purely martial fighter is off the table.

Even Battlemasters are limited in the number of times they can use their manoeuvres. "Because he gets tired"? Really? So, exactly why can I learn to trip someone, but, I cannot learn to do anything else until 7th level? ((Yes, yes, I know the BM get's 3 manoeuvres, stick to the point ok?)) Why can't I switch any of that out, say, on a daily basis? A caster can do it with no problem and learning magic is supposed to be hard.

I'm not saying a BM should be able to choose a manoeuvre every single round. But, why not choose his suite of manoeuvres every day, just like a caster? He knows all of them, but, he chooses a particular "school of fighting" for the day and that "school of fighting" requires enough mental and physical preparation that it takes a long rest to "reset". Would this overpower the BM? Would this make a BM more powerful than a caster, or even a regular BM? I can't see how, since all the powers are already nicely balanced. Being able to switch them out shouldn't increase power particularly.

So, what's the problem here? The question is "What's exactly wrong with the fighter?" That's my answer - the fighter does't have enough dials and knobs. I want a martial character with as many options over the course of his career as a caster. That would make me very happy.

As far as the whole dissociated mechanics thing goes, that ship sailed as soon as you allowed Second Winds for fighters. A fighter can conceivably be bloodied numerous times per day, self heal and end the day with full HP and his Second Wind back. IOW, the fighter could take enough damage to flat out kill the character, over the course of several encounters, and go to bed looking as fresh as he did in the morning. So, the whole "dissociated mechanics" thing can take a flying leap out the window AFAIC, because you're already allowing all sorts of dissociated mechanics in the game without complaint.

Explain to me, in mundane terms, with no reference to the supernatural, how a Barbarian's damage reduction works. Explain to me how Second Wind works in the game fiction. On and on and on. If by "dissociated mechanics" you simply mean, "Keep your 4e peanut butter out of my 5e chocolate" then fair enough. Own up to it. Otherwise, it's a pretty weak sauce argument given the sheer number of dissociated mechanics already in the game that you don't complain about.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Hang on. You're saying that learning magic is now easier than learning to use a sword? How does that jive with D&D where magic is meant to be difficult to learn and out of reach of the common person.

No, learning to use magic in 5E is hard, like learning to generate electricity. Learning a spell is easy, like downloading an app. Or at least, it's easy for wizards, since they're the ones who can do it in a few hours. For Eldritch Knights and Arcane Tricksters it still takes a full level (which, admittedly, could still happen in only a day or so). Once you know the general technique (using magic of level X) the details (specific spell) are pretty easy. That is the 5E model anyway--in other systems like Ars Magica and Shadowrun learning a new spell could be considerably easier or harder.

Explain to me, in mundane terms, with no reference to the supernatural, how a Barbarian's damage reduction works. Explain to me how Second Wind works in the game fiction. On and on and on. If by "dissociated mechanics" you simply mean, "Keep your 4e peanut butter out of my 5e chocolate" then fair enough. Own up to it. Otherwise, it's a pretty weak sauce argument given the sheer number of dissociated mechanics already in the game that you don't complain about.

Check your assumptions.

Second Wind isn't dissociated (the fighter is making an in-character choice to draw upon that reserve energy; it therefore may not be realistic or sensible but it isn't dissociated; it fails my non-Vancian criteria but not the associated criterion) but Lucky is, and I'm on record as disliking it and being tempted to ban it specifically because it is dissociated. I may not complain incessantly about it on the Internet but that doesn't mean I don't have complaints.

 

[Psikerlord#]

Hang on. You're saying that learning magic is now easier than learning to use a sword? How does that jive with D&D where magic is meant to be difficult to learn and out of reach of the common person. Because the common person most certainly can learn to use a weapon and it was pretty darn common for many people to be trained in local militia. If learning to bend reality to your will was that easy that it only takes a couple of days, just like learning to use a gun, why doesn't everyone in the game world start with numerous spells instead of weapon proficiencies? Or spells in addition to weapon proficiencies.

Considering that every single first level character comes out of the chute knowing how to use several weapons, wouldn't it make sense that they learned a couple of spells if magic were really that easy?



Yes, I want a real explanation. It's not venting. No one has actually explained why it's perfectly fine for a fighter to have access to spells and thus gain the choice, at 3rd level, of 2 at-will and 3 daily spells, without a spell book mind you, out of a selection of a dozen or so options, gaining a new spell every couple of levels, again, out of a fairly lengthy list, but, doing the same thing for a purely martial fighter is off the table.

Even Battlemasters are limited in the number of times they can use their manoeuvres. "Because he gets tired"? Really? So, exactly why can I learn to trip someone, but, I cannot learn to do anything else until 7th level? ((Yes, yes, I know the BM get's 3 manoeuvres, stick to the point ok?)) Why can't I switch any of that out, say, on a daily basis? A caster can do it with no problem and learning magic is supposed to be hard.

I'm not saying a BM should be able to choose a manoeuvre every single round. But, why not choose his suite of manoeuvres every day, just like a caster? He knows all of them, but, he chooses a particular "school of fighting" for the day and that "school of fighting" requires enough mental and physical preparation that it takes a long rest to "reset". Would this overpower the BM? Would this make a BM more powerful than a caster, or even a regular BM? I can't see how, since all the powers are already nicely balanced. Being able to switch them out shouldn't increase power particularly.

So, what's the problem here? The question is "What's exactly wrong with the fighter?" That's my answer - the fighter does't have enough dials and knobs. I want a martial character with as many options over the course of his career as a caster. That would make me very happy.

As far as the whole dissociated mechanics thing goes, that ship sailed as soon as you allowed Second Winds for fighters. A fighter can conceivably be bloodied numerous times per day, self heal and end the day with full HP and his Second Wind back. IOW, the fighter could take enough damage to flat out kill the character, over the course of several encounters, and go to bed looking as fresh as he did in the morning. So, the whole "dissociated mechanics" thing can take a flying leap out the window AFAIC, because you're already allowing all sorts of dissociated mechanics in the game without complaint.

Explain to me, in mundane terms, with no reference to the supernatural, how a Barbarian's damage reduction works. Explain to me how Second Wind works in the game fiction. On and on and on. If by "dissociated mechanics" you simply mean, "Keep your 4e peanut butter out of my 5e chocolate" then fair enough. Own up to it. Otherwise, it's a pretty weak sauce argument given the sheer number of dissociated mechanics already in the game that you don't complain about.

I love the idea of the Battlemaster being able to change his maneuvers at each short (or long?) rest. Terrific idea! That should have been how they did it.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

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.

These all sound like they could be written up as battlemaster maneuvers pretty easily. The complaint I'm hearing is analogous to a wizard player asking "Why isn't there a spell that does [specific effect]?" Because the writers didn't think of it, they thought it would be imbalanced, and/or there's only so many pages in the PHB. Nothing more nefarious than that.

Also, I recognize you're getting annoyed by this accusation, but when you repeatedly emphasize that you want to get these effects "and still deal damage", it does kind of sound like you're asking for more power. Please try to recognize that. The fact is that some effects simply are more powerful than others, and sometimes best balanced by sacrificing up-front damage. So it's like our hypothetical wizard player is asking "Why isn't there a hold person spell that also deals damage?" If this is not what you mean to say, maybe reconsider how you're framing your position.

 

[Sacrosanct]

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?

Considering I never made the argument about power level/disparity, not sure why you think you need to clarify it to begin with. Maybe if you stopped and actually read the entirety of what I wrote rather than see one word and go off on a rant about an argument I never made, you wouldn't feel so upset.

When I said "superpowers", that doesn't mean something as powerful as a magic user's spells. It means abilities that are above and beyond what someone can do without the aid of magic or some other similar aid. Having abilities/skills/powers that are not mundane and are reality bending =/= "as powerful as a wizard's spells". My entire point was that a lot of people don't want every class to have a laundry list of reality-bending powers.

" Is that clear enough? How can I clarify this further?"

Indeed. That's how I'm feeling about now myself.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Second Wind isn't dissociated (the fighter is making an in-character choice to draw upon that reserve energy; it therefore may not be realistic or sensible but it isn't dissociated; it fails my non-Vancian criteria but not the associated criterion) but Lucky is, and I'm on record as disliking it and being tempted to ban it specifically because it is dissociated. I may not complain incessantly about it on the Internet but that doesn't mean I don't have complaints.[/COLOR]

Not only that, but HP is more than just physical damage. It's a lot of things. This has been true since day 1 of D&D. So a barbarian with damage reduction can easily be explained as having a higher pain threshold, or using his or her barbaric reflexes to turn what would be a severe blow to a normal person into a glancing blow. And second wind can easily be described as being able to tap into your...wait for it...second wind. I mean, the term is already there in our real life day to day reality. Do we really need to explain how that can be used without relying on a supernatural explanation?

 

[Celtavian]

I love the idea of the Battlemaster being able to change his maneuvers at each short (or long?) rest. Terrific idea! That should have been how they did it.

I think they should eliminate superiority dice myself. Focus the Battle-master's maneuvers around fighting techniques. Allow him to only use one maneuver per round to show he is focusing on fighting in that manner for that round.

 

[Hussar]

These all sound like they could be written up as battlemaster maneuvers pretty easily. The complaint I'm hearing is analogous to a wizard player asking "Why isn't there a spell that does [specific effect]?" Because the writers didn't think of it, they thought it would be imbalanced, and/or there's only so many pages in the PHB. Nothing more nefarious than that.

Also, I recognize you're getting annoyed by this accusation, but when you repeatedly emphasize that you want to get these effects "and still deal damage", it does kind of sound like you're asking for more power. Please try to recognize that. The fact is that some effects simply are more powerful than others, and sometimes best balanced by sacrificing up-front damage. So it's like our hypothetical wizard player is asking "Why isn't there a hold person spell that also deals damage?" If this is not what you mean to say, maybe reconsider how you're framing your position.

All Battlemaster manoeuvres deal damage and have an effect. Or, at least most of them do. That or you're helping someone else do damage or you're healing.

Shouldn't that be the baseline?

But at least [MENTION=93321]Psikerlord#[/MENTION] gets my point. Nice to see someone does.

But watching Sacrosanct and Hemlock go through the mental contortions to ignore the dissociated nature of 5e just to avoid having to have any "taint" of 4e in 5e is hilarious. Good grief, how does one "draw upon reserve energy" to completely heal potentially lethal wounds? After all, a fighter could be bloodied by an attack - thus have actual physical appearance of damage, the player drops his second wind and poof, no more cuts and he mag... err... oops, not magically, regenerates. But, this is, of course, all associated, because, apparently, fighter training gives me a special button I can push in my belly button that fills up my Hit Points.

Just like apparently, getting really angry makes my skin twice as tough so it take a bear twice as long to eat me. Note, the whole "dodging and shaking off pain" is something that's been added. There's nothing in the books that says this. How is this different than any other post hoc justification that 4e players were accused of doing?

In any case though, what difference would it make if they did go full bore dissociated in an optional character? Why would that bother you in the slightest? It's not like you're going to use it and it makes me happy. Why do you care?

 

[Hussar]

Alright, here's an idea. 4e had the idea of Stances, and I believe 3e had it as well. The fighter enters a stance, can only have 1 (possibly more at higher level, i can't remember) stance going at a time. The stance would give different options depending on the stance - bonuses to hit possibly, status effects, damage mitigation, whatever. AIR, the stances were combat only. Why not expand on that?

A Fighter subclass that uses stances gains X number of stances at 3rd level, and then adds a stance every level from a list. The list could be divided out by level, similar to spells, with higher level stances being more powerful than lower level ones. Stances are mentally and physically taxing, so, you can only use a limited number of stances per day, similar to how spells work. You have your stances known, perhaps you could elevate a stance by using it at a higher level, I dunno, just spitballing. Add in stances for social interaction - Leadership stance, rally the troops stance, I'm just freaking awesome and you should do what I say stance - and exploration - Drawing upon my awesomeness to climb this mountain stance - and you have a fighter which has just as many levers and dials as a caster without worrying about power creep.

Create stances that are non-magical and don't have obvious magical effects, so, no, you don't get a "I shoot laser beams from my eyes stance" and we're done.

Heck, it even satisfies the idea of dissociation.

Why would this be problematic?

 

[Celtavian]

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.

They used to model the difficulty of learning magic with different xp tables. It was much more difficult to become a high level wizard. That made sense to me. It created problems with advancement during adventure design I guess, so they got rid of it. I would not have minded the inclusion of a mechanic making it more difficult to learn magic. At the moment such things are left up to the DM.

In 3E the specialties were much more powerful and satisfying as well. A martial learned and received a ton of stuff in 3E. They didn't want that level of complexity with feat chains in 5E. You seem to like 4E's watered down abilities that did not in any way compare to the power of 5E martials. Which doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, but to each his own. All these folks wanting powerful martials completely ignore how powerful martials were in 3E/[/I]Pathfinder[/I]. They seem more focused on 4E making casters less powerful rather than the fact they made martials less powerful as well.

A high level 3E/Pathfinder martial could cut down groups of demons, not these 1 hit point minions in 4E. But full hit point and capability demons of relatively high CR. A level 20 barbarian I ran in Pathfinder killed two balors in a single round he was so sickeningly powerful. The two-hander fighter could do a single hit for 300 plus damage. He had Lung and Stunning Attack. He took a moderate penalty on his hit roll and he could stun everything within 10 feet of him. When he used his pauldrons to enlarge himself, he could stun everything within 15 feet. The high level Crane Style Monk was nearly unhittable by anything visible. He often took a magic item that allowed him to see invisibility making him unhittable by just about anything in sight range. The archer could get up to seven attacks in a round often with energy damage attached to each arrow annihilating creatures within a round. Get all three types of martials in the same group, nightmare for the DM. Literally damage that can't be handled by any creature in a monster book. Yet all these martial lovers don't want to play Pathfinder because the casters are too powerful, even though they were crazy powerful as well.

Hard to listen to a group that basically got what they asked for in terms of power in 3E/Pathfinder, but were more concerned about equality with casters than enjoying the immensely powerful options they had. Even skills reached an obscene level in 3E/Pathfinder that allowed them to do some crazy stuff like leap an immense height or kip up or talk their way past the gates of hell.

That's why I say the advantage of 4E was the nerf to casters, not the empowerment of martials. Martials were more powerful and capable in 3E/Pathfinder. But because casters had such powerful effect spells, some people accepted weaker 4E martials to have casters and martials balanced in terms of capabilities. That was the more important feature of 4E preferred by that crowd.

Crack the Shell makes me laugh. A 3E/Pathfinder martial could emulate that scene in The Sword and Sorcerer where he shatters the swords of several enemies coming after him and cuts them down at the same time. Greater Sunder allowed you to Sunder armor and do damage at the same time. The only reason it didn't get used much is greed. You could cut someone's shield, armor, or weapons off and the excess damage would hit the target. Power Attack with Two-handed weapons was ridiculous. All of it was multiplied on a critical hit. Stat levels in Pathfinder/3E were insane as well. I remember constructing a martial character that could enlarge to giant size with something like a 40 strength and lift 5 tons or something.

Yet 4E is the game for powerful martials with a wide range of capabilities? Did people saying this just not play much 3E/Pathfinder past the low levels? I imagine that is why it is boggling my mind that 4E martials are held up as some kind of example of powerful, wide ranging martials, yet nothing I saw in 4E for martials held a candle to what 3E/Pathfinder martials could do at high level. You want to be Hercules or Cu Chulain, you play 3E/Pathfinder to high level. You will be either one of those guys on steroids.