D&D 5E The "more complex" fighter: What are you looking for?

[TwoSix]

I don't know if I'd go that far, but really, the difference between "gritty hardcore" and "wild wuxia action" is more a difference in description than mechanics.

I don't know if I agree with that, necessarily. If my 15th level fighter can fly and plane shift, I could say he's like Thor, but have trouble saying he's like Conan.

 

[Magil]

That is a really, really, really good point. So far I've thought I don't mind if a more complex fighter is built, but now you're scaring me.

So far, they've approached this with the idea of "superiority dice let you do damage while you also do the other thing" and that's worked well enough. For example, you can Shove someone to knock them prone, or you can use Trip Attack to damage them and knock them prone at the same time.

In regards to the OP's inquiry, I think when people ask for a "more complex fighter", what they really want is a fighter that has more turn-to-turn options than "I swing my weapon". While it is technically true that you can do other things in combat, they're generally also available to anyone else and thus not really worth a point of comparison when we're discussing a class in general.

I do think WotC has done a decent job with the fighter. Battle master is a good (if not perfect) compromise, and the fighter getting more ability score increases means they can select more feats (if feats are allowed) and thus get more benefit from them. I'm not sure I do like how dependent the battle master is on the short rest, however, as I find that the amount of short rests you get can vary wildly from campaign to campaign (and thus a power level is hard to pin down). I think I liked the older playtest version of superiority dice better, which recharged on a turn-by-turn basis. I don't think that would work with the current implementation of maneuvers and fighter attack progression, however.

In terms of specific things, I personally can't think of a particular thing as I am relatively happy with the fighter as presented. I do wish, however, that maneuvers could be used a bit more often (which might be as simple as giving the fighter a few more dice), or if the superiority die system underwent a little additional work. The idea of a ToB-style fighter with "cantrip"-style at-will maneuvers and several levels of resource-based maneuvers is at least an intriguing idea, and I'm not bothered that it's basically spellcasting with a different name. If it's executed in a way that doesn't feel like magic, then I don't care if it uses the same game construct as magic to accomplish its task. That's what 4E did anyway, and personally, I felt like it worked there too--even if both fighters and wizards used the AEDU structure, they filled different roles in the party and functioned in a very different manner.

 

[Salamandyr]

I don't know if I agree with that, necessarily. If my 15th level fighter can fly and plane shift, I could say he's like Thor, but have trouble saying he's like Conan.

But flying and plane shifting are a step above your typical fighter in wuxia and anime. But Conan's even done those things-Thor does it out of personal awesomeness. Conan because he has stumbled across the right Acheronian artifact at the right time (or priest of a Ishtar gets him access to a flying creature from the Beyond). So again, it comes down less to mechanical differences than in differences in description.

But what I was getting at was:

Consider a mechanical effect whereby a fighter makes knocks everyone one prone in a 10' radius around him.

Gritty: Leg sweep: fighter makes a series of low attacks knocking everyone prone.

Wahoo: Ground pound: fighter hammers the ground with his weapon causing an earthquake knocking everyone prone.

Exactly the same mechanical effect--two different descriptions. One is wahoo; one is reasonably gritty.

Same thing with, for instance, a mechanical effect neutralizing difficult terrain:

Gritty fighter barrels through it, or uses cool acrobatics to somersault over it.

Wuxia fighter superleaps over it.

Superhero fighter flies or teleports the intervening distance.

Same mechanical effect. The fighter moves his full movement distance without being hindered by difficult terrain. There are some mechanical implications to the differences if you choose (like teleportation or flight could allow the negation of movement penalties for swimming or climbing), but you can either disallow those, "just cuz", or give them to the gritty fighter too--he climbs fast.

 

[strider13x]

Complexity can lie in the description of HP loss, not every strike draws blood so use HP to describe more interesting effects. Not as mechanically interesting I know but that's the beauty of HP!

 

[strider13x]

Stances are another thing that could add to the Fighter. Offensive Stance, +1 hit, -1 AC. Give them 3-5 Stances they can select from round to round to make the player feel warm and fuzzy about the mechanics.

 

[Tony Vargas]

This makes the mistake of claiming there is some huge fundamental difference between a "power" and a "spell" and that just by labeling something a maneuver or exploit means it ceases to be a spell.

There is no mistake.

The idea that an 'exploit' was a spell because spells, prayers, exploits, and psioinics were all presented in the power format is about as reasonable as claiming that a computer is a scented candle because you can find both listed for sale on amazon.

It was just a lot of overblown edition war propaganda. Don't bother repeating it again.

If a player wants a complex fighter with combat options but doesn't like the flavour of casting spells but is okay with the mechanics of picking from various at-will attacks and once/per day powers, then reflavouring the eldritch knight is probably the best tactic.

That wouldn't be a terrible idea if 5e had separated fluff & crunch a deal more consistently, and if there were not rules that interacted with whether things were magical or not. As it stands, it's no where near a viable option. Even in 4e, when h4ters were pretending that class powers were essentially identical, what exploits did and what spells did were too different to re-skin the latter as the former (the reverse might have worked, since magic could be so wildly diverse in what it did), and keywords made the difference between a Martial exploit and Arcane spell mechanically significant.

In a game like Hero, where 'powers' were genuinely fluff-free and generic, you could, indeed pull things like that. In D&D, not so much, and most definitely not in 5e.

However, this section implies the Tier 5 class distinction is still in existence. 5e very much does not have the same range of power between classes.

It's really quite similar, though 5e's use of spells in every class skews things towards the upper tiers. The Tier system is often taken as an index of 'power,' when it's really very much about versatiltiy. 5e neo-Vancian castes are /more/ versatile than the 3.5 prepped casters who ruled Tier 1. Conversely, a sub-class like the Champion is as one-trick (DPR) as it gets.

But, if you are right above, wouldn't this class also be outright better than the fighter?

Inevitably 'better' (in, say, the Tier sense) than the non-casting fighter sub-classes, yes. But, that's not really an issue in 5e. Balance isn't that precise, and the DM is Empowered to impose balance (such as 'spotlight balance') where the system doesn't establish it well enough for his campaign.

The thing about 4E is that it did indeed make Martial and Spell-using classes equivalent... because they both could accomplish the same exact game mechanical results....
When you took a look at the Character Builder... I don't think there was a single mechanical expression of the gridded combat system that ONLY weapon-using characters could do or ONLY spellcasters could do.

'Weapon user' is actually pretty broad, since there were many non-martial weapon-keyword powers. 'Martial' though, was unable to do a number of things that other sources could. Typed damage for one obvious instance.

Now, it's true that the 4e system was able to model a range of 'sources' using a (relatively) fixed set of keywords, jargon and abstract mechanics, rather the way the English language can be used to describe an even wider range of things in a more ambiguous. Neither renders those things indistinguishable or equivalent.

You've said this before, but I'm looking for specifics. What specifically do they do that you can't do in 5E?

It's easier to go into what they /can/ do in 5e: DPR. Unless you have some sort of magical ability, your meaningful contribution to the party's success in 5e is grinding out damage each round. Anything and everything else is unexplored design space that 5e could open up to new martial classes (the existing archetypes are too locked-in to DPR to expand them all that much).

I realize I may sound challenging. As I said, that's not my intent. I'm just really trying to get a sense of what people want--specifically--that they can't already get.

I know you want 'details,' but I don't much see the point, nor am I going to start designing examples. I'm not a designer, that's why I play published games instead of creating my own. We already have two past editions that did offer more customizeable or choice-rich or even balanced martial alternatives. All the examples you might want are there, and 5e's design is more 'open' than either, so they'd just be a start.

I agree one of the mistakes of 5e is far too much magic spread through the classes.

Agreed.

edit: and cantrips (in hindsight, having played a lot of 5e) also create the "too much magic" feel for me

Not so much. Cantrips do establish "this character is magical" in a very consistent/pervasive way. The guy who can make holy light or arcane fire burn his enemies every round never seems like a pretender. At the same time, as at-will abilities they're not overwhelming the narrative or mucking with the foundations of the world. Such magic is 'real,' but it doesn't exactly kill people a lot deader than weapons, for instance.

This is 5es greatest problem surprised I didn't think of it in the what 5e got wrong thread. To much magic way to much magic! I mean martials really have been made the minority here there's what 2fighter subclasses with no spells 2rogues 1monk did I miss any?

Monks' 'Ki' is explicitly magical in 5e, so on, not even the 'Open Hand' monk is entirely 'martial.' The Berserker's rage is arguably not magical, so he's the best candidate for the fifth 'martial' sub-class in the PH.

In contrast, in the Basic pdf, half the options are 'martial.'

 

[TwoSix]

There is no mistake.

The idea that an 'exploit' was a spell because spells, prayers, exploits, and psioinics were all presented in the power format is about as reasonable as claiming that a computer is a scented candle because you can find both listed for sale on amazon.

It was just a lot of overblown edition war propaganda. Don't bother repeating it again.

I wouldn't go that far. It's fairly obvious that "spell" means different things at the narrative layer than it means in the mechanics layer. Thor and Doctor Strange might both hit someone with a lightning bolt, and could use the same spell description to do so, but only one is "casting a spell" as the narrative of the character's action. (Interestingly, didn't using spell descriptions for effects generated by non-casters start with spell-like abilities in 3.0?)

Colloquially, "spells" is used throughout gaming for any effect with a quick activation and usually some resource cost, although normally in games with a fantasy milieu.

 

[Lord Twig]

I think one of the best things Pathfinder introduced was the Dirty Trip maneuver. It gives an open-ended maneuver that allows for several effects that can be fluffed however you want. You want to blind someone? Throw dirt in their eyes? Make then nauseous? Punch them in the stomach. Reduce their movement? Hit them in the knee.

We already have shove and disarm to allow some options, but more options would be better. And Fighters should get something that makes them better at these than anyone else. More attacks already help there, but a feat or ability to enhance them or add them to an attack (like superiority dice) would be good.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

We already have shove and disarm to allow some options, but more options would be better. And Fighters should get something that makes them better at these than anyone else. More attacks already help there, but a feat or ability to enhance them or add them to an attack (like superiority dice) would be good.

Just let the "complex" fighter perform these options as a bonus action the way the rogue can use the movement options as a bonus action.

To some extent this functionality is already baked into the battlemaster through different mechanics, since he can trip and shove and so on with his superiority dice. But I kind of like the bonus action approach better. It says, "These are 'mundane' things, anyone can do them, but you're better at them." (It may be apparent that I'm not a fan of the wuxia-style fighter. That's what monks are for.)

 

[Tony Vargas]

I wouldn't go that far. It's fairly obvious that "spell" means different things at the narrative layer than it means in the mechanics layer.

The arcane and martial keywords also have different meanings at the 'mechanics layer.' So, yes, they are conclusively, indisputably different.

For instance, check out Dispel Magic, it dispels zones & conjurations. Try to find a martial power in any 4e book that has one of those keywords: there are none. There are some Ranger powers in Essentials, but they are Primal, not martial, and some area ones in a Dragon mag.

Exploits were definitively not spells, and definitively non-magical. ('Exploit' was a /terrible/ name, though, maneuver is so much better.)

In 5e the division is even more pronounced, because spells use different mechanics from other magical abilities, like ki points, and non-magical abilities, like Second Wind or maneuvers, in turn use different sets of mechanics. There's just orders of magnitude more support and development of spell mechanics than maneuvers.

Thor and Doctor Strange might both hit someone with a lightning bolt, and could use the same spell description to do so, but only one is "casting a spell" as the narrative of the character's action.

And, both are, of course, using magic. Thor, for obvious reasons, divine magic (though, really, Marvel Asgardians are just as reasonably aliens using 'sufficiently advanced technology'). Dr Strange, in spite of often invoking godlike beings, presumably arcane.

(Interestingly, didn't using spell descriptions for effects generated by non-casters start with spell-like abilities in 3.0?)

I suspect it went back further than that. 1e was very off-hand about re-using mechanics, especially in monster descriptions, for instance. I can't think of a specific case, atm, where a clearly non-magical ability 'counted as' a specific spell. But I wouldn't be shocked if there were some in a MM or buried in some old module.