Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Magil" data-source="post: 6806328" data-attributes="member: 6672353">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.</blockquote>

Verification