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

[Sacrosanct]

That'd be fun to design. More's the pity the Battle Master isn't covered by the OGL.

True, but you could do it on DM's Guild and not go the OGL route. I suspect there are already probably a few there as I type this.

 

[Jester David]

No, action surge is not an option for each turn. It is even further from what I am looking for than the BM features. Rather, I want something that also affects the attacks etc made with action surge.

So you want something that mechanically works like Action Surge but is usable every turn? That is the definition of broken.

At best you could get something to work by reducing your damage (perhaps not adding your strength modifier) but that seems undesirable. Or taking a penalty to attack rolls, like the assorted feats. But adding too many at-will options to choose from on a round-by-round basis has the potential to slow down combat.

 

[Njall]

So you want something that mechanically works like Action Surge but is usable every turn? That is the definition of broken.

At best you could get something to work by reducing your damage (perhaps not adding your strength modifier) but that seems undesirable. Or taking a penalty to attack rolls, like the assorted feats. But adding too many at-will options to choose from on a round-by-round basis has the potential to slow down combat.

Weird that this problem doesn't seem to come up when the spellcasters get like a gajillion cantrips on top of their spells and can still use just about every "generic" combat option.

 

[Jester David]

Weird that this problem doesn't seem to come up when the spellcasters get like a gajillion cantrips on top of their spells and can still use just about every "generic" combat option.

By a "gajillion" you of course mean as few as two and as many as 8 (for improbable level 10 high elf sorcerer with a feat), with most characters having around 4.

But most of those have a very, very simple combat effect or are non-combat powers. And, most importantly, most spellcasters will only every end up taking two or three offensive cantrips at most. Which is benefitial for the exact same reason suggested above: too many options each round leads to paralysis.
Two cantrips is the equivalent of giving a fight a single additional option. Hardly "complex" and not what was being asked for.

 

[Njall]

By a "gajillion" you of course mean as few as two and as many as 8 (for improbable level 10 high elf sorcerer with a feat), with most characters having around 4.

But most of those have a very, very simple combat effect or are non-combat powers. And, most importantly, most spellcasters will only every end up taking two or three offensive cantrips at most. Which is benefitial for the exact same reason suggested above: too many options each round leads to paralysis.
Two cantrips is the equivalent of giving a fight a single additional option. Hardly "complex" and not what was being asked for.

Yet, more are being added ( SCAG, for example, offers 4 more ), and you can increase the number of cantrips you know through feats. Whether you might want to do so is irrelevant, the option is there for spellcasters but not martials ( whose selling point in most editions to date was, ironically, that they could do their stuff all day long ).

Cantrips provide damage + a rider,which sometimes are complex effects that you need to track, and that can have a definite impact on combat, when used juidiciously ( Blade Ward, Ray of Frost, Vicious Mockery just to name a few ), they're not just color dressing for your crossbow as you seem to be suggesting.
Also, to my recollection, the post you responded to was asking for

Things that modify the standard attack (or possibly just opportunity attacks) each round. E.g. choosing between more damage, more AC or giving advantage to allies

Which, for example, is pretty much what cantrips do ( they trade off damage for riders like taking half damage, slowing your opponent, imposing disadvantage on the opponent's next attack and so forth ).

It might not be *exactly* what was being asked for, but it comes close enough.

 

[Jester David]

Yet, more are being added ( SCAG, for example, offers 4 more ), and you can increase the number of cantrips you know through feats. Whether you might want to do so is irrelevant, the option is there for spellcasters but not martials.

There is also a fear that allows you to get Battle Master manuvers. And if a variant complex fighter is created, another feat could work.
It's not that the design isn't possible, just that there hasn't been a place fir if yet. Subclasses exist for story reasons as much as crunch. Give a good archetype that NEEDS manuvers or stances or tricks and see how quickly it gets made. Just because mechanics can be created is not reason enough to make them.

Cantrips provide damage + a rider,which sometimes are complex effects that you need to track, and that can have a definite impact on combat, when used juidiciously ( Blade Ward, Ray of Frost, Vicious Mockery just to name a few ), they're not just color dressing for your crossbow as you seem to be suggesting.

I didn't suggest that. I said the opposite. But there is the recoloured crossbow cantrip, which is effectively the basic attack and a choice. So that's one. The other one or two cantrips may have the rider but do less damage. So there's an alternate power.

Which, for example, is pretty much what cantrips do ( they trade off damage for riders like taking half damage, slowing your opponent, imposing disadvantage on the opponent's next attack and so forth ).

It might not be *exactly* what was being asked for, but it comes close enough.

I still don't feel a single choice of at-will maneuver and second at 10th will satisfy.

There's a couple tricky elements to balance. First, those are usually an entire action, not something that replaces an attack. So they'd have to apply to every attack made with an action.
Second, as I've said repeatedly, people tend to favour damage. If given the choice between 8+ extra damage or disadvantage on a creature's next attack, most folk would opt for damage. This was the issue with martial damage dice in the play test.

 

[Njall]

There is also a fear that allows you to get Battle Master manuvers. And if a variant complex fighter is created, another feat could work.

It's not that the design isn't possible, just that there hasn't been a place fir if yet. Subclasses exist for story reasons as much as crunch. Give a good archetype that NEEDS manuvers or stances or tricks and see how quickly it gets made. Just because mechanics can be created is not reason enough to make them.

They'd not be created just because, they'd be created because, obviously, there are people that miss them and would like to see 5e support them.

I didn't suggest that. I said the opposite. But there is the recoloured crossbow cantrip, which is effectively the basic attack and a choice. So that's one. The other one or two cantrips may have the rider but do less damage. So there's an alternate power.


I still don't feel a single choice of at-will maneuver and second at 10th will satisfy.

A single one? Maybe not. But two, with the option of getting more later on would be an entirely different matter.

There's a couple tricky elements to balance. First, those are usually an entire action, not something that replaces an attack. So they'd have to apply to every attack made with an action.
Second, as I've said repeatedly, people tend to favour damage. If given the choice between 8+ extra damage or disadvantage on a creature's next attack, most folk would opt for damage. This was the issue with martial damage dice in the play test.

First, I was fine with the implementation of Superiority dices of the playtest (and, for the record, the problem you pose stemmed more from the fact that most monsters had low-ish HP at the time than anything else, IMHO; yes, if your action can be used to take out an opponent entirely, that's always better than just hampering him; luckily, the monsters' durability was adjusted later on ).
Second, the choice you propose depends on the situation at hand. That's the point of tactics, you try to adopt the best one depending on what's happenning.
Maybe most of the time dealing +8 damage is the best choice, but being able to discern the times when that's not the case is the entire point of this discussion; the fact that most people might not give a crap about tactics doesn't mean that the people who do give the aforementioned crap should be left in the dust: if you'd always choose the +8 damage, great, there's an option just for you: it's called "champion".
There's nothing for those that wouldn't, though.

 

[Al2O3]

Thanks to [MENTION=54719]Njall[/MENTION] I don't think there is anything left for me to add to this discussion at the moment. Maybe I'll try to come up with something story related for options similar to the 4e Essentials fighters.

 

[Minigiant]

I always had an ldea for a "focus-fighter"

Esentially, the fighter can use maneuver but instead of using dice, they drain focus at the even of your turn. As the fighter "loses focus", they become easier to hit, their accuracy wanes, and the will eventually be a sitting duck. At 100% focus, nothing happens. But at 75% focus, you have disadvantage to weapon attacks. At 50% focus, you cannot dodge and attacks have advantage against you. At 0% focus, you are effectively blind and deaf to the world. You regain focus on at the end of your turn if you lost no focus or if you use your action to "refocus".

As you level, you can gain additional focus actions, adjust focus actions, and reduce the focus drain of focus actions. Proper focus management would be key to playing the "focus-fighter".

 

[JohnLynch]

The problem with combat options in place of attacks, is having at-wills that do damage and a status effect doesn't come online until level 5. For a wizard it comes online at level 1.