Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ashkelon" data-source="post: 6666291" data-attributes="member: 6774887">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. 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. Even in 4e, in which martial maneuvers were the most mechanically similar to spells due to a shared AEDU structure, martial maneuvers and spells were wildly more different than they are even in 5e. For example, the effect of pretty much every single battlemaster maneuver can be replicated by a spell in 5e. In 4e, the same is not true of fighter abilities. In 4e fighter maneuvers could allow you to spend a healing surge, mark your enemies, allow you to move across the battlefield, perform a whirlwind attack, and much more. In 4e spells could create areas or zones of elemental energy, immobilize groups of enemies at range, reshape the battlefield with AoE forced movement, and many other effects the 4e fighter could never hope to replicate. Spells and maneuvers felt truly different because their effects were wildly different. I have made that complain numerous times about the 4e fighter. While it is certainly somewhat better off than its 5e counterpart when it comes to noncombat capabilities, it is still nowhere near the level of most other classes. The way of 4 elements monk is often regarded as lackluster. That is due to a number of problems with ki points and scaling of abilities. It is hard to give a resource that is encounter based and also provide scaling abilities. I really dislike the design. It encourages spamming of the most optimal ability with the highest output per ki point ratio. This leads to boring and repetitive game play. I would rather have the resource be more dynamic and the maneuvers more interesting. 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. What is the fighter the best at. Well, at level 20, it is the best at dealing single target damage with a weapon. From levels 1-16, the paladin and barbarian are just as good at that (actually if you run the numbers they are better), but can also take more punishment than the fighter and provide more utility in combat. The wizard who permanently turns himself into a dragon with true polymorph actually is a better combatant than the level 20 fighter though, so even then the fighter can't claim the title of "best at combat".Of course limiting ourselves to talking about just damage done and received when talking about combat is silly. The spelllcasters can paralyze foes with hold person/monster. They can wipe out groups of enemies with AoE spells. They can reshape the battlefield with walls and zones. Those can all be far more important to the outcome of a battle than mere damage. The fighter cannot come close to achieving that level of battlefield control.  So "best at combat" is somewhat of a meaningless term. Of course, even if we said DPR and only DPR are what matters when determine if the fighter is in fact the best, you run into the problem where he is only doing about 10% more than the thief rogue, or the quicken eldritch blast sorcerer/warlock, and basically the same or less than the paladin and barbarian. Well it's not really second fiddle in the fighters case. He is dead last when it comes to non-combat utility. Even if you have the fighter proficiency in STR and CON checks and expertise in Athletics, the fighter still would be nowhere near the utility of the top non-combat utility classes. In fact, he would still be near the bottom, but at least then the fighter would actually have some non-combat features tied to class.</blockquote>

Verification