Level Up (A5E) The Advanced Fighter

[DND_Reborn]

ASIDE:

This reminds me of a poll I did a while ago:

D&D 5E - What Seven Classes Would You Keep? (and why!)

So, I've been thinking lately about classes and archetypes. Many of you probably see this in my threads about the Battle Master, "Which Class is Best", etc. For reasons to be disclosed later on, if you HAD to remove 5 classes from the core 12, keeping only 7, which ones would you want to see...

www.enworld.org

The reason I did this was because I wanted to see if I could break down classes by pillar, allowing single focus, double focus, and all.

Combat
Exploration
Social
Combat-Exploration
Combat-Social
Exploration-Social
Combat-Exploration-Social

The seven classes that scored 50% plus were Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard (no surprise), and also Bard, Druid, and Paladin. Could those 7 be reworked to fit into the 7 options? Turns out, not really... unless you did some heavy shoehorning.

Now, what if each class had a primary, secondary, and tertiary focus in the pillars? You would have six possible combinations.

Combat, Exploration, Social
Combat, Social, Exploration
Exploration, Combat, Social
Exploration, Social, Combat
Social, Combat, Exploration
Social, Exploration, Combat

If you made it so each combination was available to both a caster and a non-caster, you would have 12 classes, just like in 5E! (Sorry, Artificer, you are late to the party. )

Just a thought -- back to the fighter.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

How are other classes any better at exploration or social?

The only other class I see as restricted as the fighter in terms of pillars influence is the sorcerer. Again, in Basic 5e where the combat pillars represent a high % of the game rules, the sorcerer is quite capable. But if the game is to be extended to boost other pillars' representation, the limited spell list and know spells of the sorcerer will be problematic. At least now the sorcerer may have the elemental type changing metamagic, allowing the sorcerer to maybe take 2 or 3 damage spells and change their type depending on the adventure's needs, then take spells that have influence on other pillars (not that there is a lot on their list, but its a start).

The other class can cover other pillars

• The barbarian might need a little boost, but its explorations feature are there, specially on the Totem one.
• Ranger does need commenting, same for rogues.
• Wizards, cleric and bards can do a lot with their spells, and the Bard is extremely good a touching every pillars.
• Paladin are a little too combat oriented (no, being a CHA caster doest make one good a the social pilllar), but at least their theme is clear and it would be quite easy to find social features for them. Even detect evil is an Exploration feature and going full on inquisitor-style paladin can make them good at Exploration.
• Druid had its spells and the wildshape feature which, is at minimum, a powerful Exploration feature.

And, while doing all this stuff, they are no slouch at fighting either. Maybe the bard is not that good in combat, but that's only looking a personal DPS: Inspiring other allies or a well placed Hypnotic Pattern can win the fight.

I would prefer, if the pillars are to be balanced, that a class sacrifice its mastery of one pillar to be able to have influence on the other pillars. A ranger should never approach the combat ability of a fighter (I know, they dont for now, but its because the class is badly designed, not because they wanted it that way ). If you have 100% mastery over X pillar, then you have 0% mastery over the other two.

 

[DND_Reborn]

If you have 100% mastery over X pillar, then you have 0% mastery over the other two.

I prefer more a total of 150-200%.

So, you could be 100%/ 50%/ 0%, or 50%/ 50%/ 50% or whatever combination with a 150% total.

But, otherwise, yeah I am with you.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

I prefer more a total of 150-200%.

So, you could be 100%/ 50%/ 0%, or 50%/ 50%/ 50% or whatever combination with a 150% total.

But, otherwise, yeah I am with you.

I agree.

 

[CapnZapp]

But A5E will at least attempt to balance the pillars.

Not sure I think it will.

Adding an optional module for exploration, fine. But that doesn't necessitate Fighter changes. After all, if you wanted to take the lead there, you can play a Ranger or Druid.

Changing the core experience by making it a mandatory core gameplay mechanism would, on the other hand, mean you're right. But that's not what I think is in the cards.

 

[CapnZapp]

I agree, but here is a thought:

How are other classes any better at exploration or social?

Sure, some few have class features, but most are a handful of subclass features, really, if any at all. You might claim that magic is the key for casters, but IME a lot of casters don't have many spells really for social or exploration, because they also focus on combat (spells).

I see it more of an issue that other classes can be pretty much as good at fighting as fighters, not that fighters need to be as good at exploration and social as classes designed to be superior in those pillars.

It reminds me of the Noble class in d20 SW. They excelled at other things, and maxed out their BAB at +15, while the Soldier maxed out at +20, so was superior in combat.

In 5E, each class maxes out "attack" bonus at +11, and with scaling cantrips, sneak attacks, smites, etc. many classes can pretty closely match a fighter in DRP (or outright beat it) and be even more effective in combat.

Yes, but the Fighter offers simplicity.

It's a mistake to give it a niche.

The fact minmaxers might always complement a basic Fighter build with levels of other classes isn't a particularly good argument why the fighter must become that complex even for players that stay Fighter throughout their career...

 

[Micah Sweet]

Not sure I think it will.

Adding an optional module for exploration, fine. But that doesn't necessitate Fighter changes. After all, if you wanted to take the lead there, you can play a Ranger or Druid.

Changing the core experience by making it a mandatory core gameplay mechanism would, on the other hand, mean you're right. But that's not what I think is in the cards.

I hope they can rework the Ranger such that they are good at wilderness exploration without effortlessly busting through all of its obstacles. There are classes in Adventures in Middle-Earth that are good in the wilderness while still making wilderness travel fun. It can be done.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yes, but the Fighter offers simplicity.

It's a mistake to give it a niche.

The fact minmaxers might always complement a basic Fighter build with levels of other classes isn't a particularly good argument why the fighter must become that complex even for players that stay Fighter throughout their career...

What if a player likes the narrative concept of the fighter, but would also like to engage in the game in a more complex way than it allows?

 

[battlebaby]

What if a player likes the narrative concept of the fighter, but would also like to engage in the game in a more complex way than it allows?

My opinion is that any feature that goes beyond the scope of the fighter's identity should be dealt with in archetypes.

• explorer fighter (scout)
• social fighter (officer)
• etc

 

[DND_Reborn]

Yes, but the Fighter offers simplicity.

Yes. That should still be maintained. Although, I question whether subclasses like BM are "simple" compared to other subclasses.

It's a mistake to give it a niche.

Oh, I don't think that it is a mistake at all. Make fighters the best at fighting (i.e. the combat pillar). I'm not saying others shouldn't be great at fighting, but in order to do so they should rely more on class features to do so. In most games, the only core features many fighters realize is Second Wind, Action Surge, Extra Attack (1), a bonus ASI, and (maybe) Indomitable (1).

I've never bothered with maximal DPR calculations for the warrior classes, but really the only feature Fighters get which makes them unique is Action Surge. Second Wind is nice, but other classes get healing in different ways. Extra Attack (1) is common to nearly half the classes. A bonus ASI can get them a nice extra combat edge, but I doubt it will be so much to tip the scales because every class has access to the same feats. And Indomitable (1) is nice, but again other classes get bonus saves or the chance to reroll (depending on their subclasses maybe).

The fact minmaxers might always complement a basic Fighter build with levels of other classes isn't a particularly good argument why the fighter must become that complex even for players that stay Fighter throughout their career...

No clue where you are getting this from. I never said fighters need to become complex, they simply have to be better at combat. THAT should be their forte.

If minmaxers are complementing the basic Fighter build with other classes IS a good argument why the fighter must improve if they are doing it to make fighters better at fighting. If they are doing it to make their PC better at exploration or social, it makes perfect since because that is not where the fighter's strength lies. (Note, I am not saying a fighter build can't be good at those things, just the core class is not designed to make them a priority IMO.)

Some people want fighter to be able to excel in all three pillars. Why? That seems pretty greedy to me. I excepted (for warriors) Rangers and Rogues, even Barbarians to be better at exploration. Rogues and Paladins to be better at social.

There is no point in making every class great at every pillar. Once you do that, just get rid of classes and pillars because every PC will be awesome at everything. Personally, that makes for a pretty boring game...