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

[fuindordm]

That does seem like a pretty elegant solution to adding a way to allow fighters to inflict status effects in combat. Cool idea.

But, there is a bit of a problem. All we're doing in more stuff in combat. Which is cool and all and does resolve a lot of the issues with a fighter constantly spamming the same two or three actions over and over again. How can this be translated to non-combat elements? How can I trade out attacks in order to inspire someone to do something? How do I trade out attacks in order to use skills?

Offhand, I'd say spending 2 attacks is worth a whole-party buff, if you don't attack yourself. I think "Crack the Shell" is a decent example: one attack's worth of damage and a rider that benefits only allies who are free to take advantage of it. One could also imagine a warlord-style "Coordinated Volley" option where the fighter doesn't attack themselves, but creates an opportunity for the rest of the party to strike at exactly the same moment with advantage, and inflict a condition that depends on the number of attacks which hit.

Actions for skill use is already kind of covered by Action Surge, which need not be an attack. One of my players used it to finish off an opponent then cut a bridge so that more enemies couldn't reach the party.

If the rules were expanded in this way, I'd be inclined to just give fighters a free pick from a list of these "signature moves" when they got their 2nd, 3rd, and 4th attack, and if other players were interested in the 2-attack moves I'd find a way for them to pay for it.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

it's a LOT less flexible and efficient than just being a battlemaster and using trip attack with alchemist's fire four times in a round.

Out of curiosity: what is Trip bringing to the table here that a regular attack or Precise attack wouldn't have? Alchemist's Fire is a ranged attack so Proning the target seems counterproductive. What am I missing?

 

[I'm A Banana]

Out of curiosity: what is Trip bringing to the table here that a regular attack or Precise attack wouldn't have? Alchemist's Fire is a ranged attack so Proning the target seems counterproductive. What am I missing?

Hit an upright target with AF and Trip Attack and suddenly they're prone (giving advantage to others who melee attack it) and on fire (taking ongoing damage unless they take an action to end it). Precise attack makes it more likely to hit, but it doesn't have the same "debuff their defenses" effect. The idea here would be that you could debuff the defenses and add ongoing damage to four targets in a round if you spent all your superiority on it (mimicking a daily spike), while 4e-style Crack the Shell is limited to one target, showing how it's not exactly potent in 5e's context.

Of course, you could also Precise Attack an AF and then also Trip Attack. Or a million other things. Battlemasters are able to respond to their context unlike any other class!

But, there is a bit of a problem. All we're doing in more stuff in combat. Which is cool and all and does resolve a lot of the issues with a fighter constantly spamming the same two or three actions over and over again.

IMXP, the thing that saves the fighter from basic-attack-spamming is fast combats. "Over and over again" doesn't apply very much when a fight lasts three rounds. That + terrain/cover/other tactical consideratoins + flexible improvisation...you might attack, attack, attack, for three rounds, but that doesn't mean you're not making interesting choices, including "Do I action surge?" or "Should I do an off-hand attack or burn my Seocnd Wind?" or "Do I huck an axe or close to melee?"

There should be interesting decisions every round, but more often than not, you are going to choose to attack and deal damage to your enemy - that's just how you win D&D fights. Mages are doing basically the same thing in a fight, only their bows deal fire damage, or their caltrops are acid or whatever.

How can this be translated to non-combat elements? How can I trade out attacks in order to inspire someone to do something? How do I trade out attacks in order to use skills?

You shouldn't need to - 4e didn't let you give up your level 5 daily attack to use a skill, either. These things are distinct pillars, and a character should baseline contribute to all of them without having to trade one for the other.

In 5e, if you have to make the choice between an attack and a skill, you might take the Dash action and make an Athletics check to leap over a cliff in a fight. Or if you want to inspire some NPC in a fight, you can make a Persuade check and say a few words (and a generous DM might even let you do that without having to spend an action, since "inspire" is pretty vague as to what the PC will then do). You won't always be doing these in combat, so you won't always be giving up attacks to do it.

More broadly, if you'd like to give up attack power to get more inspiring and more exploring, you're just a Fighter who invests in particular skills. Heck, your bog-standard Champion Soldier gets Athletics and Intimidation, and can take Insight and Survival, and if you go straight Strength/Con with your ability scores, with maybe Wis being 3rd, you are the go-to person in the party to climb that wall or jump that cliff, you take no BS, you can rough it for months without a problem, and you can inspire people the same way military commanders do: by making them afraid of the consequences of NOT doing what you want. And that's without giving up ANY real combat power (well, maybe your ranged attacks are no great shakes, but you suffer no penalties for making Int your dump stat!). If you want to pump Charisma and be a Noble or be a Criminal and make a ranged fighter, or whatever, that's on the plate, too.

 

[Enkhidu]

I think I'm getting a better picture, Ashkelon. Thanks for taking the time to clarify your POV.

I grouped those classes together because I found the variety of options and tactical decisions they provided to be far more enjoyable than the basic attack spam of the 5e fighter. Those classes were all radically different in both role and mechanics, but were all fun and interesting martial characters. This shows me that there are a number of ways to make interesting martial mechanics with a variety of depth and interaction.

This is much more clear to me. While I don't necessarily agree with it (specifically when looking at the battlemaster - for the purposes of this conversation I think that for most of us fighter = battlemaster - since so many of its maneuvers provide interesting choices to impose effects in addition to damage) I can see where you are coming from. Followup question: do you feel that the baseline mechanic of the battlemaster (spending a resource to gain an effect in addition to damage) could support the specific types of abilities you desire?

That brings me to another thing you seem to have a very incorrect idea of. I don't want martial maneuvers to be similar to spells. I want them to be distinct and unique.... ... Spells and maneuvers felt truly different because their effects were wildly different.

My statement about mechanical similarity to spell-sourced abilities was about game mechanics - not effects. I agree that they can feel different, but they (especially in 4e) rested on the same AEDU mechanic, giving fighters the same basic choice palette as other classes. Followup question: Would a wider in-combat choice palette meet your needs?

... Nothing currently in 5e is a good model for martial maneuvers in a way that is "fun" or "enjoyable" to me. We would need a completely new system.

So what would this new system look like? What previous D&D mechanics (if any) would you want to use as either a baseline or inspiration?


RE: the in-combat / non-combat gaps

Would you agree that a trade off between combat and non-combat contributions is generally acceptable, as long as the gaps were about equal? If so, what would you suggest giving the fighter in order to balance that particular scale?

 

[Enkhidu]

...How can I trade out attacks in order to inspire someone to do something? How do I trade out attacks in order to use skills?

I think the pat answers are (or at least should be), respectively, "play a bard," and "play a rogue," but I can see that being unsatisfying. I'm beginning to think that the problems with the fighter are actually that in-combat abilities for classes other than fighters have been improved over the years without regard to fighter niche protection.

 

[Corpsetaker]

I don't want dissociative and unnecessary resource mechanics in with the fighter unless it is a concept like the Eldritch Knight. I understand that the Battlemaster has Superiority dice but I can live with that because if I squint hard enough I can ignore it. What I also don't like was the taking control of the narrative away from the DM when it came to the powers. The fighter, for example, could basically take control of the creature because the power gave a specific narrative and sometimes that narrative just did not make sense because of the specific creature. Look at "Dizzying Blow" for example. It stats you crack the foe upside the head, well there are enemies who really have no head and yet you can still use this power on them. Then the table would get into a big argument as to how this made any sense which would in turn stop the game. Are DM used to actually make rules about specific powers didn't work because their narrative didn't make sense in certain situations and that used to break out even bigger arguments.

Also the problem comes from too many bells and whistles and minute things needing to be added that would cause the game to slow to a crawl and cause tons of book keeping. For instance our DM declared that Steel Serpent Strike didn't work on anything that had no legs, he also tried to change the no shift from "you get over it in less than 6 seconds" to " that creature can't shift again for the entire combat" which started to throw things off a bit.

These are the types of things I want to avoid and in this edition they have done just that.

 

[Ashkelon]

I think I'm getting a better picture, Ashkelon. Thanks for taking the time to clarify your POV.


This is much more clear to me. While I don't necessarily agree with it (specifically when looking at the battlemaster - for the purposes of this conversation I think that for most of us fighter = battlemaster - since so many of its maneuvers provide interesting choices to impose effects in addition to damage) I can see where you are coming from. Followup question: do you feel that the baseline mechanic of the battlemaster (spending a resource to gain an effect in addition to damage) could support the specific types of abilities you desire?

Of the battlemaster, no. In general, probably. The battlemaster suffers from his resource pool being too small and not refreshing often enough. This leads to gameplay where 80% of the time, you are merely making basic attacks. If superiority dice refreshed every battle, then you might see slightly more interesting combats. However, that doesn't work given the fighter's basic chassis as that would cause maneuvers to deal too much damage. Also, it runs into the same issue all such mechanics have; it encourages spamming of the most optimal abilities.

My statement about mechanical similarity to spell-sourced abilities was about game mechanics - not effects. I agree that they can feel different, but they (especially in 4e) rested on the same AEDU mechanic, giving fighters the same basic choice palette as other classes. Followup question: Would a wider in-combat choice palette meet your needs?

The in combat choice palet is varied enough with shove, grapple, and improvisation. The issue is, those options generally tend to be less potent than a single attack. As such, the optimal choice is to simply make a basic attack. That being said, I would prefer limited use abilities (tied to some type of resource mechanic), that give the warrior capabilities that cannot be replicated through the current combat actions (shove, grapple, improvise).

So what would this new system look like? What previous D&D mechanics (if any) would you want to use as either a baseline or inspiration?

Any number of methods. Here are a few I'm partial to.

Stamina Points that recover after a 5 minute rest.
Momentum that recovers at when you roll initiative, when you crit, or when you kill an enemy.
Combo points that require weaker basic attacks to build up so you can use more exceptional maneuvers.
Focus that you gain when you hit an enemy, but lose when you are hit.

On top of those, you could also have special stances and you must be in a particular stance in order to use certain maneuvers. This could allow for different combat styles to truly feel different from one another.

RE: the in-combat / non-combat gaps

Would you agree that a trade off between combat and non-combat contributions is generally acceptable, as long as the gaps were about equal? If so, what would you suggest giving the fighter in order to balance that particular scale?

Well there are a few problems with this premise. First off, being good at combat is about more than just dealing and taking damage. The wizard may not deal as much single target damage as the fighter, but it would be hard to argue that they have less of an impact on the outcome of any particular combat. The same is true for the cleric. Even the rogue has substantial combat contribution.

So that would imply that everyone can contribute to combat in roughly equal (though different) ways. Of course, you can't really measure the value of the rogue's mobility, the cleric's support, or the wizard's battlefield control. What you can measure is DPR, which is why it is what is most often brought up when discussing a classes combat capabilities.

So does the fighter's marginal DPR advantage over the rogue (the rogue actually fluctuates between dealing more and dealing less damage than the fighter over the course of 20 levels), justify having no non combat abilities. The rogue gets 2 more trained skills, 4 areas of expertise, reliable talent, blindsense, and other abilities that are all very useful outside of combat. How do you even come up with a method to compare the two classes outside of combat. Even if you have the fighter 2 more trained skills and 2 areas of expertise, they are still way behind the rogue when it comes to noncombat situations. And then there are spelllcasters. How can you measure the utility of flight, teleportation, divination, or spells that can outright bypass non-combat encounters?

 

[Enkhidu]

Thanks for answering questions, Ashkelon.

...Well there are a few problems with this premise. First off, being good at combat is about more than just dealing and taking damage. The wizard may not deal as much single target damage as the fighter, but it would be hard to argue that they have less of an impact on the outcome of any particular combat. The same is true for the cleric. Even the rogue has substantial combat contribution.

So that would imply that everyone can contribute to combat in roughly equal (though different) ways. Of course, you can't really measure the value of the rogue's mobility, the cleric's support, or the wizard's battlefield control. What you can measure is DPR, which is why it is what is most often brought up when discussing a classes combat capabilities.

So does the fighter's marginal DPR advantage over the rogue (the rogue actually fluctuates between dealing more and dealing less damage than the fighter over the course of 20 levels), justify having no non combat abilities. The rogue gets 2 more trained skills, 4 areas of expertise, reliable talent, blindsense, and other abilities that are all very useful outside of combat. How do you even come up with a method to compare the two classes outside of combat. Even if you have the fighter 2 more trained skills and 2 areas of expertise, they are still way behind the rogue when it comes to noncombat situations. And then there are spelllcasters. How can you measure the utility of flight, teleportation, divination, or spells that can outright bypass non-combat encounters?

There's a disconnect here, because I don't think that answers my question. Let me try again.

-- My question is about a balance combat vs non-combat contributions, not specifically damage (though I can understand wanting a strict measurement, though I think most damage comparisons do a poor job of taking "wasted" damage into account given 5e's ruleset). So what I'm looking for is a general acceptance or rejection of the notion that it's OK for a class to contribute more in one than in the other, as long as the two balance out.
-- My question as framed assumes that there is actually a gap - that even if the fighter really is the "best" in combat its by a smaller margin than the reverse.
-- So what extra non-combat abilities would you need to give a fighter to reduce/eliminate the gap assumed above?

 

[Ashkelon]

Thanks for answering questions, Ashkelon.



There's a disconnect here, because I don't think that answers my question. Let me try again.

-- My question is about a balance combat vs non-combat contributions, not specifically damage (though I can understand wanting a strict measurement, though I think most damage comparisons do a poor job of taking "wasted" damage into account given 5e's ruleset). So what I'm looking for is a general acceptance or rejection of the notion that it's OK for a class to contribute more in one than in the other, as long as the two balance out.
-- My question as framed assumes that there is actually a gap - that even if the fighter really is the "best" in combat its by a smaller margin than the reverse.
-- So what extra non-combat abilities would you need to give a fighter to reduce/eliminate the gap assumed above?

Yeah, I realized I didn't really answer the question because it is basically impossible to answer in any satisfactory way. Sure, in an ideal world a class that is 10 Combat, 7 Social, 7 exploration would be balanced against a class that is 8/8/8. The issue is, there is no good way to measure classes to that level of detail. We can't really say the fighter is 10% better at combat so should be 10% worse outside of combat. Then you have issues where something like combat typically takes up around 50% of the playtime at any given table while social and interaction combined make up the other 50%. Of course, there are also tables where combat only ever rarely happens and interaction and exploration take up the majority of the time.

The best I can do is say that I want all classes to have some class based capabilities that allow them to contribute above the baseline in specific noncombat situations. Much like combat, there would be a spectrum of balance and capabilities. There isn't every going to be the type of partity you are asking about. There isn't really a way you can make a Strength based warrior even 75% equal in utility to the likes of a spellcaster or rogue. You can however give them unique non combat abilities that fit in with the theme of a mythic warrior.

For a strength based martial warrior, these abilities might be advantage on STR checks, proficiency with STR and CON checks, expertise with Athletics checks, the ability to jump 2x as far as normal, the ability to make high jumps the same distance as your long jumps, the ability to lift 2-10x as much as normal, the ability to climb or swim without needed to make a check (climb and swim speeds), the ability to break stone with your bare hands, etc. Even with all of that, I wouldn't say the non-combat contribution of the martial warrior would come close to matching what a rogue or spellcaster are capable of, but they are flavorful and thematic abilities that could be useful every now and again.

 

[Corpsetaker]

The problem is looking for each and everything to be balanced in 5th edition. That is not the way the game was designed. It was designed to be played different ways across different tables as well as more story involvement than anything static.