D&D 5E The Warrior

[Quickleaf]

[MENTION=81242]Lost Soul[/MENTION] I disagree with several things you assume. But basically this boils down to expectations.

I have an expectation, after playing BD&D and AD&D, that fighters should be more accurate than others characters.

In AD&D this comes from the way the attack matrix was set up, where the Fighter/Paladin/Ranger/Bard table surpassed the others by 5% to 30% (the degree increasing with level).

In BD&D this comes from the attack matrix as well, where the margin of the fighter's lead was more consistently +5% to +10% above other classes, though the extra Weapon Mastery options fighters received could increase this difference with increasing level.

There are 3 reasons why a fighter should have improved accuracy over a spellcaster:

1) First, a fighter should have improved accuracy over a spellcaster because some spells have area effects – meaning that even if there's less chance of hitting one target, there is a greater chance of hitting some targets – whereas attacks are single-target. Extra Attack bridges this very slightly, but still can't match spells like fireball or cloudkill in the sheer number of targets that can be caught in the spell's effect.

2) Another reason a fighter should have improved accuracy over a spellcaster is that failing a saving throw can have *much* more dire consequences than any single attack from a fighter. Increasing the save DC vs. flesh to stone would be *much* more powerful that increasing the chance to hit for a fighter.

3) Third, a fighter should have improved accuracy over a spellcaster because many damaging spells that require a save still deal half damage even if the save is successful. No fighter attack can do that.

It does break bounded accuracy. Would you be adverse to a spellcaster being able to add +1 to save DC's in a manner similar to your warrior or being able to add to blast damage multiple times using your damage perks?

Yes, I'd be averse. For the reason mentioned above. Spells requiring saves often target multiple creatures, have dire consequences for failing the save, or deal half damage on a successful save.

I am assuming that the damage burst would be per die just as the warriors would be to each weapon die that hits.

Don't know where you're getting that assumption from. A +1 to damage means just that. +1 to damage. Not +2 for a greatsword dealing 2d6. Not +3 if somehow the fighter deals 3d8 with his longsword.

The problem with the +1 is that it stacks. The archery style is a great example. They simply should have made it so that you ignore cover. Mechanically that is what the +2 does. But then they create a feat that allows you to both ignore cover AND take -5 to hit for +10 damage. Suddenly the floating +2 for archery is overpowered because it messes with the bounded accuracy by making the penalty moot. -3 to hit with the weak monster AC is no big deal especially with spells like Bless in the game. D&D gives multiple ways to get small bonuses from magic weapons, stats, class, spells, etc.

If anything, that's an argument against the Sharpshooter and Great Weapon Fighter feats. That's a whole other ball of wax. Most gamers I know tweak those feats with a variety of online options or impose limits on their use (e.g. -5 can't be mitigated by bless/bardic inspiration).

Personally, I have no problem with the Archery fighting talent as is.

You stack too many of these together and it quickly breaks the bounded accuracy rule. Pathfinder fighters are a great example as were 4E classes of any type. When you get 3x+45 damage due to multiple stacking benefits the strength of the power is moot and only the rider effect of the 4E power is worth considering. High static bonuses ruin the fun of the game and need to be few and far between. Look at how classes are designed.

I do look, and I am confident I'm not doing what you're concerned about.

Few bonuses spread over many levels in tiers. Do not ruin it by giving out frivolous +1 bonuses to fighters. They do not need the help. Give them fun options instead of boring, overpowering mathematical choices.

There's nothing frivolous about my approach. Take a look at what I'm doing again, there's lots of fun options.

 

[Eubani]

Ok Quickleaf you have created a wonderful Fighter class now you have the last 2 steps of creating such a class:
1. Take all new/unique abilities and either remove them or share them with other classes.
2. Remove any flavour/colour from remaining mechanics.

Don't worry if these steps sound harsh as they will be defended by card carrying members of the Spell Casters Supremacy League and Grognards by saying that any issue can be fixed by taking or doing something that all other classes can do.

Ok I've had my jab now what I thought would make a good general talent be +5 to Passive Perception Vs ambush and a Camp talent to give a +5 to Passive perception to spotting threats (by setting up warning traps or giving advice).

 

[Tony Vargas]

+1 to hit does not break bounded accuracy. I'm speaking both from experience & from looking at the Archery fighting style.

Unanswered hit bonuses like the Archery fighting style or Expertise do 'break' Bounded Accuracy. They just do so advisedly, to create a balance-of-imbalances.

...or, in the case of Archery, because there's really not a lot to it beyond hit/miss. (Though, I guess Legolas, as CGI'd in the LotR movies, might have something to say about that.)

Fighters are certainly very effective in combat. And they unequivocally masters at it, beating out other characters most times? No. But IME they're pretty good.

Fighters are effective in the basic 'race to 0 hps aspect' of combat, which is both the least situational and most readily/quantitatively evaluated aspect.

Also the least interesting. ;P

The idea of 'best at fighting' is definitely not the same as 'best in combat.'

Well, you're the master of zingy one-liners, aren't you?

Talented amateur, at best.

There's a design principle called elegant simplicity. If I can say the same thing with 1/3rd as many words, in the case of a gaming supplement, that shorter version is better.

Sure, but does it really have any place in 5e? The 3.0 fighter was an elegant design, for instance.

And it's obvious from what I'm doing, what you've read earlier in this thread, is *not* at all like the Champion.

That's the point, though, isn't it. The Champion is already there, the simple (strictly inferior, combat-pillar-only) fighter (mindless beatstick) is already there for those who 'want' it. So, for that matter, are all the other fighter builds, since they're hardly a step up on the ladder from the Champion.

But, OK, Elegant Simplicity - while still presenting a wealth of viable/meaningful choices & depth of play - if you can pull it off, awesome. And that's not snark, you do strike me as being capable of such a feat. Good luck.

 

[Quickleaf]

I appreciate the vote of confidence.

My goal is design a class that can be even simpler than the 5e fighter (e.g. no need to track *anything* in long-term besides hit point & gear, no action surge, second wind, or indomitable) and then ramp up to much greater complexity, according to a player's preferences.

The vehicle I'm doing that through are "Fighting Talents" which PHB's Fighting Styles are subsumed by. These talents follow an advancement rate similar to a warlock's Eldritch Evocations (albeit ramping up a little more slowly and topping out at 7 instead of 8). However, several subclasses provide a bonus talent as a feature, so in effect Fighting Talents are very comparable to Eldritch Evocations.

In my current re-design I've divided them into 3 groups: General Talents, Weapon Talents, and Specialization Talents.

General Talents have no prerequisites – accuracy (+1 attack), defense (PHB fighting style), fortitude (+1 hp/level), iron resolve (reaction to add your prof. bonus to a save), might (+1 damage), and unarmored defense (add INT to AC when wearing no armor, shields ok).

Weapon Talents require wielding the listed weapon or shield, including many "improved" versions that require 6th level & a corresponding weapon talent – dueling (PHB), great weapon fighting (PHB), Marksmanship ("archery" from PHB renamed), Protection (PHB), Two-Weapon Fighting (PHB), and then five "improved" versions of each.

Specialization Talents require wielding a specific weapon, and run the risk of stepping on the toes of the new feats that were playtested in Unearthed Arcana, including "mastery" versions which require 9th level & a corresponding specialization talent – axe specialization, bludgeoning specialization, bow specialization, polearm specialization, sword specialization... more I'm still brainstorming... and then "mastery" versions of each.

For the Specialization Talents, I'm looking at editions where weapons were highly differentiated from one another – specifically BD&D's weapon mastery rules, and 4e's "weapon master" fighter powers. For example:

Axe = (4e) critical hits
Sword = (4e) bonus AC vs. target; (BD&D) deflect
Greatsword = (BD&D) deflect & stun
Flail/Mace/Hammer = (4e) forced movement & daze, (BD&D) better AC
Spear/Polearm = (4e) target provokes AoO when shifting, (BD&D Halbred) hook & disarm, (BD&D Spear) set
Bow = (BD&D) delay
Crossbow = (BD&D) stun
Dagger = (BD&D) improved critical range

 

[Lost Soul]

@Lost Soul I disagree with several things you assume. But basically this boils down to expectations.

I have an expectation, after playing BD&D and AD&D, that fighters should be more accurate than others characters.

In AD&D this comes from the way the attack matrix was set up, where the Fighter/Paladin/Ranger/Bard table surpassed the others by 5% to 30% (the degree increasing with level).

In BD&D this comes from the attack matrix as well, where the margin of the fighter's lead was more consistently +5% to +10% above other classes, though the extra Weapon Mastery options fighters received could increase this difference with increasing level.

There are 3 reasons why a fighter should have improved accuracy over a spellcaster:

1) First, a fighter should have improved accuracy over a spellcaster because some spells have area effects – meaning that even if there's less chance of hitting one target, there is a greater chance of hitting some targets – whereas attacks are single-target. Extra Attack bridges this very slightly, but still can't match spells like fireball or cloudkill in the sheer number of targets that can be caught in the spell's effect.

2) Another reason a fighter should have improved accuracy over a spellcaster is that failing a saving throw can have *much* more dire consequences than any single attack from a fighter. Increasing the save DC vs. flesh to stone would be *much* more powerful that increasing the chance to hit for a fighter.

3) Third, a fighter should have improved accuracy over a spellcaster because many damaging spells that require a save still deal half damage even if the save is successful. No fighter attack can do that.



Yes, I'd be averse. For the reason mentioned above. Spells requiring saves often target multiple creatures, have dire consequences for failing the save, or deal half damage on a successful save.



Don't know where you're getting that assumption from. A +1 to damage means just that. +1 to damage. Not +2 for a greatsword dealing 2d6. Not +3 if somehow the fighter deals 3d8 with his longsword.



If anything, that's an argument against the Sharpshooter and Great Weapon Fighter feats. That's a whole other ball of wax. Most gamers I know tweak those feats with a variety of online options or impose limits on their use (e.g. -5 can't be mitigated by bless/bardic inspiration).

Personally, I have no problem with the Archery fighting talent as is.



I do look, and I am confident I'm not doing what you're concerned about.



There's nothing frivolous about my approach. Take a look at what I'm doing again, there's lots of fun options.

Sorry for my late reply Quickleaf but I was on vacation.

A) The +1 to hit is overpowered. It makes fighters hit more often and that is NOT needed. It is especially troubling with feats such as great weapon master & sharpshooter. You cannot separate even optional aspects of D&D with your chart. I could make up optional overpowered feats for casters and claim that my rules that interact with them is optional and not part of consideration. That is called poor game design. I played through BECMI to present system. People don't really seem to want a fighter to hit on a roll of 1. They want meaningful choices and more agency in their decisions. +1 to hit and damage do not accomplish this. If it did people would not be constantly bemoaning the fighter since BECMI.

B) Adding a +1 is only a +1 to damage until multiple attacks come into play. That same +1 becomes +10 after an action surge by a two weapon fighter at 20th level. Even more if you allow multiples. A wizard getting +8to damage by adding +1 per die seems quite tame by comparison.

C) Most spells have saving throws that negate or mitigate effects of spells and there are also additional spells or magic items that reduce or negate spell effects. When you are hit by a weapon you take the damage. So spells should have no issue with DC's impacting the bounded accuracy system since according to you it has no effect on martial bounded accuracy.

D) I have big issues with the archery talent. It basically trivializes an game penalty. Would you be adverse to a wizard or cleric feature that trivialized concentration checks?

E) I actually like the other features you listed for the warrior. Minus the banal and bounded accuracy breaking + to hit and damage effects, the other abilities do seem to give the fighter meaningful choice options that help detail him and make each fighter stand out from the others. In that area I give you a solid. Meaningful choices to help flesh out a fighter are what people on the boards are crying for. Not MOAR DAMAGE!

 

[Tony Vargas]

I appreciate the vote of confidence.

My goal is design a class that can be even simpler than the 5e fighter (e.g. no need to track *anything* in long-term besides hit point & gear, no action surge, second wind, or indomitable)

Tracking single-use abilities that do very simple things isn't much complexity, but OK. Combat Styles are probably more confusing, for instance.

and then ramp up to much greater complexity, according to a player's preferences.

Nod...

The vehicle I'm doing that through are "Fighting Talents" which PHB's Fighting Styles are subsumed by. These talents follow an advancement rate similar to a warlock's Eldritch Evocations (albeit ramping up a little more slowly and topping out at 7 instead of 8). However, several subclasses provide a bonus talent as a feature, so in effect Fighting Talents are very comparable to Eldritch Evocations.

OK. Not simpler than just Extra Attack, but OK.

In my current re-design I've divided them into 3 groups: General Talents, Weapon Talents, and Specialization Talents.

So some build complexity is tolerated, then?

I played through BECMI to present system. People don't really seem to want a fighter to hit on a roll of 1. They want meaningful choices and more agency in their decisions.

Sure, they want that, just not for the fighter - at least, that must be what WotCs extensive surveys told them, because look what we have.

 

[Quickleaf]

Been without my laptop, so apologies for not getting to your comments yet!

I'm thinking that the 8th subclass can be "Bravo" instead of Swashbuckler (which is a rogue archetype in Sword Coast Adventurers Guide). It's a term that appears in old Greek laws, seems to be used in older texts in French, is adopted by G.R.R. Martin, and appears in a similar context in Spanish and Portuguese.

It means a whole cluster of things: mercenary/hired killer, a swaggering/showy swordsman, a petulant duelist, bold/brace and clever/capable.

The kinda of characters it would be modeled after are Cyrano de Bergerac, The Three Musketeers, Wesley from Princess Bride, Zorro & Robin Hood (as portrayed by Douglas Fairbanks).

 

[BookBarbarian]

Been without my laptop, so apologies for not getting to your comments yet!

I'm thinking that the 8th subclass can be "Bravo" instead of Swashbuckler (which is a rogue archetype in Sword Coast Adventurers Guide). It's a term that appears in old Greek laws, seems to be used in older texts in French, is adopted by G.R.R. Martin, and appears in a similar context in Spanish and Portuguese.

It means a whole cluster of things: mercenary/hired killer, a swaggering/showy swordsman, a petulant duelist, bold/brace and clever/capable.

The kinda of characters it would be modeled after are Cyrano de Bergerac, The Three Musketeers, Wesley from Princess Bride, Zorro & Robin Hood (as portrayed by Douglas Fairbanks).

I like it. It definitely puts an image in my mind of an swaggering swordsman.

 

[Mezatino]

Personally I really enjoy the idea. And once finished, would love to throw it at my table and see what they think about it.

 

[Lost Soul]

Tracking single-use abilities that do very simple things isn't much complexity, but OK. Combat Styles are probably more confusing, for instance.

Nod...

OK. Not simpler than just Extra Attack, but OK.

So some build complexity is tolerated, then?

Sure, they want that, just not for the fighter - at least, that must be what WotCs extensive surveys told them, because look what we have.

I really don't understand you quoting my comment on the fighter. What are you trying to say? That WOTC is trying to undermine the fighter? I think they have bent over backwards trying to make the fighter as good as possible.