D&D 5E The Fighter Problem

[Cap'n Kobold]

Mhmm. There's a school of thought being promulgated in the discussion by [MENTION=6802951]Cap'n Kobold[/MENTION] and *I think* [MENTION=1560]Corwin[/MENTION], probably others as well, that a subclass is really entirely (or vastly predominantly) a mechanistic thing. They use subclass as a build tool, nothing more, and furthermore want the game designed to support that kind of approach. I would describe the Fighter subclasses as being born from that school of thought.

I'd describe all subclasses as that approach. At the end of the day, a subclass is a list of mechanical abilities that a character gets. A player may or may not choose that their character narrative aligns with the name of the subclass, or the flavour text, but they do use those rules.

Sometimes the best way to understand the narrative concept of a subclass is to actually look at those rules, rather than the name of the subclass, or the flavour text associated with it.

My thinking is more similar to yours, that a subclass (or any game element) should be a balanced combo of narrative and mechanics, but that the origin point, the conception of that subclass (or game element) needs to be narrative first – speaking of D&D here (not, for example, GURPS) – and then the mechanics are born out of that narrative second. Btw [MENTION=1560]Corwin[/MENTION] that's what I mean when I say "story first."

Either or both are good as far as I'm concerned. However I would regard the actual origin point of a subclass as the point at which you decide the current mechanics do not support the narrative enough.

If the narrative is best supported by the current mechanics, it doesn't/shouldn't get made into a subclass.

 

[Satyrn]

That's the worst part of 5e for me, I liked how the NPCs and monsters were made in the 3e using the same framework.

I liked that, too, when 3e came out. Quite a lot. Skill Points, too

By 2005 I'd abandoned it as a hassle. Skill Points, too.

 

[Satyrn]

I could spend the same time creating a monster with the 3e as I do now, but at least I saw more value in the books when they dedicated the time to more things than a pair of combat values.

Did it, though? I like how the 5e monster manual describes monsters, giving 2 or 3 bullet point descriptions expanded into a couple paragraphs of explanation. I don't remember 3e providing anything more than that outside of the statblocks.


And in a nice bit of symmetry, 5e describes the PC races and classes the same way as its monsters.

 

[LapBandit]

There should be instructions/guidance in the DMG for rewarding resources to Short Rest classes in a game largely without them.

 

[TwoTankards]

My house rule

My players rarely choose to play a fighter. The class doesn’t appeal to them as it is disappointing to have their character roll poorly and watch as another player’s mage or rogue is scoring another hit on the enemy. My resolution is a home rule; the fighter (think about it) is a professional warrior, as a pro, gets one automatic success on a melee or ranged attack per turn. They still get to roll, and if a critical hit results can use the roll. Suddenly, the fighter is a true asset to the party and is a desirable choice for the player.

 

[guachi]

Fighters have the same chance to hit as any other class. You can say of any class that it is "disappointing to have their character roll poorly and watch as another player's mage or rogue is scoring another hit on the enemy".

And if "not hitting" is what's disappointing then the Fighter is a better choice than a Mage or Rogue as the Fighter gets multiple attacks and will miss in any given round far less often than a Mage or Rogue. Hit chances are so high in 5e that any PC with two attacks will be missing with both attacks only about 10% of the time.

 

[Zardnaar]

My players rarely choose to play a fighter. The class doesn’t appeal to them as it is disappointing to have their character roll poorly and watch as another player’s mage or rogue is scoring another hit on the enemy. My resolution is a home rule; the fighter (think about it) is a professional warrior, as a pro, gets one automatic success on a melee or ranged attack per turn. They still get to roll, and if a critical hit results can use the roll. Suddenly, the fighter is a true asset to the party and is a desirable choice for the player.

Seems more of a dice rolling problem. Missing as a Rogue is more disappointing and why I think smart Rogues should dual wield.

 

[Eubani]

I believe that the "simple" fighter and the "advanced" fighter should of been two separate classes. Shoehorning them in together led to many detrimental design compromises.

 

[Zardnaar]

Any other classes I can cover if people think they have a problem. I kind of did the Ranger a long time ago.

 

[Guest 6801328]

My players rarely choose to play a fighter. The class doesn’t appeal to them as it is disappointing to have their character roll poorly and watch as another player’s mage or rogue is scoring another hit on the enemy. My resolution is a home rule; the fighter (think about it) is a professional warrior, as a pro, gets one automatic success on a melee or ranged attack per turn. They still get to roll, and if a critical hit results can use the roll. Suddenly, the fighter is a true asset to the party and is a desirable choice for the player.

In my group the casters all get disappointed when an enemy makes a saving throw while the fighters are scoring multiple hits. So my house rule is that the Wizard (think about it) is a professional mage and, as a pro, gets one automatic success per round, no saving throw.


...



No, I'm kidding, I don't do that.

This has got to be one of the top ten (bottom ten?) worst thread necros ever.