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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="tiornys" data-source="post: 8546494" data-attributes="member: 17633">Agreed.  Initially I was going to object that many of the issues holding martials back are structural, but that just means that the added subsystems need to break those structures.  For example, as Mort noted the current Fighter can't really exert much control on the battlefield--even if they've invested in being able to do so--because they are limited to a single reaction per turn.  Similarly, even if the Fighter could present enough incentive to be focus fired by team monster, he'd almost certainly need to be using defensive resources to avoid being overwhelmed because he's not really that much more durable than a well built caster; defensive resources in 5e typically use your reaction.  As long as you stick with 5e's fundamental action economy design, it's very hard to give the Fighter extra abilities to cover these gaps and actually have them be useful in practice.  Therefore the action economy restrictions on the reaction need to be broken.There are several ways to approach this, but possibly the simplest is to use what already exists in the game and give the Fighter the Reactive ability found on some monsters (one reaction per turn instead of per round).  Now, if you immediately thought about Wizards spamming signature spell Silvery Barbs every turn, I hear you, and there's an easy fix--you restrict what the Fighter can do with the Reactive ability, e.g. they can only use it for opportunity attacks and Fighter/Fighter subclass features.  This plus Sentinel plus Protection plus Parry and we have a legit contender for someone who can actually take blow after blow while holding back enemies and contributing steady damage.</blockquote>

Verification