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

[Consona]

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

Which is really interesting since they've tried to do the exact opposite. But the final result is all over the place. For example Bard as a full-caster... What? It feels weird Bard has as many spells as Mage and can cast 7-9th level spells. Details like this add to the "too much magic" feeling.

On the other hand, there was a lot of magic going on with classes since early editions. Fighter and Thief were not spellcasters, but Mage, Cleric, Druid, Paladin, Ranger and Bard were.

And I like subclasses like Eldritch Knight or Arcane Trickster, so I don't know.

 

[Al2O3]

What I would like in fighter is a subclass that gave something like stances where you could maybe choose between bonuses to damage, AC or to hit (maybe increasing in values at level 11) to leverage the number of attacks. Then the rest of the features giving bonuses to skills or non-skill options related to exploration and interaction. The fighter without subclass is already strong enough to satisfy me in combat on its turn. The parts where I find it lacking compared to others in combat are opportunity attacks (no smite, colossus slayer etc) and overcoming resistance to nonmagic attacks.

 

[Jester David]

Obviously, it did not good, since the only 'complex' fighter in 5e cast spells. In fact, all 5e classes use spells in one way or another in one or more sub-classes. In that sense, 5e is prettymuch a total loss for anyone wanting a more engaging character that does not, in fact, cast spells. There's nothing like the 3.5 fighter or Warblade nor any of the 4e 'martial' classes in 5e.

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. 4e and the Tomb of Battle: Book of Nine Swords showed that the two are functionally interchangeable on a mechanical standpoint and it is really a difference in fluff.
Heck, the Bo9S even had maneuvers divided into 9 levels, and many did elemental damage. They were spells.

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. There's nothing game breaking in changing the damage type of many spells to slashing to piercing to match a weapon. Thunderwave becomes a powerful sword swing and fireball and explosive arrow.

Even the terminology - 'more complex' - is problematic. Complexity isn't a desirable quality for a class to have, yet all 5e classes have quite a lot of it - again, mostly from their use of spells - because there is a corresponding gain for which complexity is the price. A simple class can't have many options, be terribly customizable, or have many choices in play. Such classes, in essence, can't be balanced, because they're always inferior to more choice-rich classes that do pay the price in greater complexity. Even if you pump up their numbers until they're downright broken, simplistic classes still come out behind 'Tier 5' in 3.x parlance. They're just too lacking in choice.

Any worthwhile non-casting 'complex fighter' would eclipse the existing sub-classes. The Battlemaster, though 'complex' only in contrast to the simplistic Champion comes pretty close to eclipsing that archetype, while the EK doesn't only because it's concept as a spellcaster is so radically different (it's not really a fighter at all, it's a 'Gish').

I don't disagree. Option creep is very much power creep.
However, this is relative or situation imbalance. In the right situation when the right powers are being used the class can be more powerful. When played by a skilled optimizer the class can be more potent. But the former is not constant and the latter can be said about almost any class.

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. At most there's a Tier 1-3, and even then it varies between subclasses, and there is far less disparity between a Tier 1 and Tier 3 class. The presence or absence or spells or options was not what created Tier 5 classes, but the stacking of abilities and effects of those spells and options.
Having seen numerous charts ranking classes, there's often great disparity between what class is where. It's far more of a judgement call, often giving a better glimpse of what the player values than the class itself.

Talking about the balance and difference in power between 3e martials and spellcasters is as relevant as bringing in 1e fighters and Basic D&D magic users.

Really, though, that's no reason not to produce one - or several better-balanced 'martial' classes.

But, if you are right above, wouldn't this class also be outright better than the fighter? Or, conversely, underpowered as a baseline so that when optimized it's balanced?

 

[Imaro]

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?

Book of 9 swords for 5e!

Well not counting UA there's...

Rogue: Thief, Assasin, Mastermind, Swashbuckler (4)
Fighter: Battlemaster, Champion, Purple Dragon Knight (3)
Barbarian: Berserker, Battlerager (2)
Monk: Open Hand, Long Death (2)


EDIT: With UA we also have...

Fighter: Cavalier, Scout
Ranger: Spell-less alternate

 

[DEFCON 1]

I think the reason they added so much "magic" in the game is because the amount of stuff that a person can do "mundanely" is by definition less impressive or extravagant than what you can do with magic. So people who want fighters and other martial characters to have all of these special abilities that seem to be approaching (if not equaling) the power of magic... but don't WANT it to be "magic".

But what exactly is the point of having magic if the mundane abilities in the game can do practically the exact same thing?

One of the aspects of the Warlord that it seems some players want is to have them be able to heal just as well as clerics, druids, bards and the like so they can be a replacement for those classes... but don't want them using magic to do it. But if you did... what exactly would be the point of magic in the game?

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. They both could grant hit points. They both could grant Temp hit points. They both could increase their allies' attack bonus. They both could increase the party's damage bonus. They both could attack multiple creatures at once-- within 5' and at range. They both could increase saving throw bonuses. They both could knock enemies prone. They both could stun enemies. They both could Mark enemies. They both could pull enemies towards them or push them away.

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. Every single mechanic could be found on at least one weapon-using martial character *AND* at least one spellcasting character. And this was exactly why people said that 4E's combat was "lacking fluff". Because while each power had that little line in italics at the top which tried to describe what was happening "in-game"... when you actually played I think for a lot of people there was virtually no difference. Every martial power had an equal-resulting magical power. I know for me there didn't feel like there was any difference between the two.

A martial character would pull an enemy 2 squares towards him because he "taunted" the enemy. A magic-using character would pull an enemy 2 squares towards him because he "shot vines out of his hands and yanked" the enemy closer. But the effect on the gameboard (which is what everyone was focused on) was exactly the same. That mini is moved two squares over to this mini, and now this mini rolls to attack. Whether something was magical or mundane made absolutely no difference.

Which is exactly why I've never understood why the "mundane" crowd in 5E had such a problem with just using the 5E spell mechanic system and wiping the magic off of it. Use the same exact cantrip and slot mechanic system, select those "spells" which duplicated mechanically what you thought a mundane weapon-user could do, and just use THOSE as the "maneuver list" for your mundane non-spellcaster casters, ignoring any of the fluff that implies "Magic!". That "Bless" spell that magically grants three allies a +1d4 to attack? Now is a "Bolstering Shout" that mundanely grants three allies a +1d4 to attack. That "Healing Word" spell that grants 1d4+modifier hit points at range? Is now an "Inspiring Word" shout that grants 1d4+modfier in hit points at range.

After all, this is EXACTLY what the 4E system is. A singular set of game mechanics... sometimes narrated as "magic"... and sometimes narrated as "mundane". And thus the power-level of both sides are ALSO exactly the same as the characters level up, because they are using the same exact game mechanics and are just changing the fluff. You don't need two separate systems to accomplish it. You just need the one. As 4E PROVED to us in spades. So just use it.

 

[Azurewraith]

Well not counting UA there's...

Rogue: Thief, Assasin, Mastermind, Swashbuckler (4)
Fighter: Battlemaster, Champion, Purple Dragon Knight (3)
Barbarian: Berserker, Battlerager (2)
Monk: Open Hand, Long Death (2)

Totally forgot about scag(not owning it) and forgetting the barb was just bad form. But compared to the casting classes it seems short I mean wizard, 4element monk,shadow sorcerer,cleric,EK,AT,Druid,totem barb,warlocks,paladins,rangers and the bards it soon mounts up especially when you add the secret sauce(there respective sub classes).

I feel magic should be more restricted imo I mean anyone I mean anyone can learn to swing a sword at a decent level(I know I have done it) but magic well to me should take months of study just to master a cantrip and a life time to drop meteors. On the otherside why does a God lend his power to every Tom, dick n harry. I feel magic should be a rare gift. Alot of the 1/2 casters could of had a non magic sub-class with ease I know page count, can't please everyone etc applys.

 

[Njall]

In other threads, several people have expressed an interest in having a fighter archetype more complex than the battlemaster, perhaps on par with the spellcasters, but not using spells. Maneuvers, stances, martial powers, etc.

I asked this there, but it was threatening to derail the thread, so I figured I'd make a new thread for it.

For those of you who want this subclass, what sorts of abilities would this hypothetical complex-fighter have? What would it do that's

1) Not already covered by BM maneuvers, and

2) Not already covered by the additional combat options in the DMG, and

3) Not skill-monkey-related, and

4) Not more appropriately modeled via the magic/spell system?

What are some examples of what you're actually looking for? And I don't mean a vague answer like, "Powers like fighters had in other editions," I mean specific examples. What do you want to be able to do that cannot currently be matched, or at least approximated, by existing 5E rules options?

(This isn't meant to sound snide. I'm honestly curious.)

For me? Tactical, effective at-will options.
Basically, cantrips for fighters.

As for why, tactical games generally revolve around making the best choice in a given situation and getting rewarded for it: right now, I don't feel that a class that's supposed to be all about combat gets enough good, effective options in combat.

As an example, being able to choose if you want to adopt an offensive approach or a defensive one strikes me as a very basic choice you should be able to make during each and every combat round.
As far as fighters go, on this front, they're vastly inferior to a bunch of other classes, mechanically: pretty much the only active, at-will defensive option for the supposedly "best-at-combat" class is, short of swiching to a one hander and a shield, dodging, which forces you to give up your attack action entirely.
Since combat in D&D is a matter of HP attrition, dodging is rarely a good idea, and generally one you only use as a last-ditch attempt to stay alive for a couple more rounds, as you're reducing your damage output to 0 while still taking damage yourself.
Every other "defensive option" the class gets is limited-use, and either situational ( like imposing disadvantage on attack rolls to an opponent who's not immune to fear ) or has terrible scaling ( "parry", for example, which is pretty worthless by the time you're high level ), and, generally, a bunch of other classes get better defensive options (uncanny dodge quickly outpaces parry, for example, and can be used all day long. Barbarians eventually halve all damage taken, even if I'd not really consider "rage" an "active" ability, all day long. High level wizards can spam shield, and so forth ).

And that's just an example.

Currently, (high level) fighters are all about damage: great if you're trying to build a glass cannon, less so if what you want is a flexible character that's good at reading the flow of combat and adapting; even the battlemaster's Superiority Dice mechanic is more strategic in nature than it is tactical, since it depends on the amounts of short rests your DM decides to hand out: try playing a battlemaster in a fast paced adventure where you can't really afford frequent short rests and you might quickly realize that you're pretty much stuck playing a weak Champion.



Basically, as far as I'm concerned, the Battlemaster doesn't live up to Mearls's promise that it would fulfill the "tactical warrior" role, and that would be able to choose "a different option every combat round" ( in Mearls's own words...unfortunately, I can't seem to reach the relevant L&L article on the website anymore. IIRC, it was the one about fighter maneuvers, dated January 2014 ): depending on the pacing of the campaign, it might end up being more of a "strategic warrior", which is another thing entirely.

I'm not sure this answers your question, but, especially in light of the fact that casters do get a bunch of varied, interesting at-will options, that's the main reason I dislike the way the 5e fighter is designed, at the moment.

TL;DR: to me, at the moment, the (high level) fighter is only really effective as a one-trick pony who doesn't have enough good options, aside from its spectacular burst damage, to justify giving up almost entirely the other two pillars around which the game is supposed to be built.

 

[Salamandyr]

I'm just gonna throw this out there. Fighter complexity should not lie in the class, but in the combat, and maybe the equipment chapter.

The decision tree for the fighter shouldn't be "what class ability do I use?" but "what weapon should I deploy?" and "what combat maneuver would be best in this situation? Knockdown? Disarm? or go for the kill?"

Those combat maneuvers ought not to be limited to one class, but something that anyone can do, and the fighter, by dint of having the most combat training (expressed probably as the highest attack bonus) is the best at accomplishing.

 

[Azurewraith]

I think the reason they added so much "magic" in the game is because the amount of stuff that a person can do "mundanely" is by definition less impressive or extravagant than what you can do with magic. So people who want fighters and other martial characters to have all of these special abilities that seem to be approaching (if not equaling) the power of magic... but don't WANT it to be "magic".

But what exactly is the point of having magic if the mundane abilities in the game can do practically the exact same thing?
t.

I agree with you I think that is one pit fall people trip into. The mundane shouldn't be as strong as the magic option a bandage to stop bleeding out should not be ad powerful as the spell that knits flesh together. But the point is magic should run out but with so much of it tends not to be the case.

Also my bias I dislike magic I accept that will limit me but I feel suffocated with the lack of options atm. But then that's just me

 

[jayoungr]

The catch with many powers or complexity options is that they actually remove options. If there's a fighter with a power that lets them throw a grappled enemy then that means you shouldn't be able to do so without the power. That's removed from the potential toolbox.

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.