Water, water everywhere, Nor any drop to drink

[ChrisCarlson]

How exactly are you "inspired" if you're not impressed?

This is a brilliant turn around. Think about it for a sec. It'll sink in.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

As soon as we look beyond the mechanics to the fiction, what are we supposed to imagine is actually taking place?

Another great revelation! Well said.

 

[mellored]

How exactly are you "inspired" if you're not impressed?

"I believe in you! No way an attack like that could hurt your magnificence! I know you have more fight in you!"
Inspiring, but not impressing.

"I am the strongest, smartest, sexiest, richest, person there ever was."
Impressing, but not inspiring.


How can you impress someone and inspire them?

 

[Tony Vargas]

A wizard, whether he has a nice attack spell or not, has many other useful, some even unique, spells he can cast with that same slot. A fighter's class features greatly enhance his attacks -- but have little or no effect on other actions he might take. ...
Which is the only thing the fighter's abilities make him significantly better at. Optimizing something you're bad at isn't optimizing. Intentionally sabotaging something you're good at when you gain nothing from the sacrifice, well, I don't think we have any pithy jargon for what a bad idea that is.

How exactly does Second Wind and Indomitable make you better at damage?
How do the Protection Fighting Style, defensive maneuvers, and any feat aside from Sharpshooter and Great Weapon Fighter increase your damage?

The point is that Second Wind, Indomitable &c don't make you better at any alternative Actions you might take (with Action Surge) other than attacking. Maneuvers give you something to layer on when attacking (including moar damage from the CS die), which is cool, and one or two might even replace one attack out of your multi-attacks for the round (which does mean that, at 3rd & 4th level /only/, you could use an Action Surge /just/ to use a Maneuver instead of an attack).

I can think of a fighter-appropriate feat or two that give him more to do with his Reactions, but nothing that would enhance some non-attack action leaps to mind. Any examples?

So, no, unless there are some startlingly useful non-attack-action-enhancing fighter class features or feats out there under some sort of witness protection deep cover, you can't (well, shouldn't) misrepresent Action Surge as a 'use neutral' feature, because the only fighter features it synergizes with are those that improve the fighters actions, and those improve the Attack Action. Further, the attack action's main, most broadly applicable, and most stackable function is to inflict damage. Action Surge is a DPR feature. After Extra Attack (far after it), probably the Fighter's second-most significant and powerful feature, at that, possibly vying with the more potent Style choices for that distant #2 spot (unless feats are in play, then GWF & Archery get a serious boost).

If I'm playing a PC and your halfling Battlemaster stabs me with a knife, your Battlemaster claims I have to be afraid for no reason except he's just that awesome.

What you have here is character concepts coming into conflict. You want your character to be brave, he wants his character to be intimidating. If two players both want their characters to be strong, how do you resolve which is the stronger? You look at the mechanics. Does one have a higher STR score than the other? Does one have a feature (yay! Remarkable Athlete finally does something!) that makes him just better at raw STR checks? Can you win a contested STR check? Best 2 out of 3?

So, if one character has features that say he's scary and intimidating - enough so to inflict disadvantage twice between short rests (for some reason) if he hits you - and another doesn't have any features to counter that, yes, the former can scare the latter for 12 seconds out of the hour, with a little luck.

If we want some characters to be totally fearless (and that would hardly be genre-inappropriate) maybe fighters should be getting something a little more impactful than Indomitable, or maybe a Fearless feat is needed? If we want characters who can never be inspired (to the detriment of the Bard and the whole Personality Characteristics system), maybe we need some kind of emotionless race (maybe an elven sub-race with pointy ears but a more serious, logical demeanor)?

The problem is, that concept comes with the literary (and to some extent, real-world) baggage of the expectation that the one who inspires and motivates is looked up to, respected, and more often than not, named as the leader of whatever group they happen to be in.

It doesn't need to come with that, since it's not just one concept. The name Warlord certainly evokes the more heroic archetypes, but that not the only way to imagine support functions via inspiration (and a good 5e Warlord class would let the player choose among inspiration, lead-from-the-front heroics, tactical acumen, resourcefulness, planning, etc as the main thrust of his abilities to a greater degree than 4e, which at minimum, gave all warlords Inspiring Word). Once the 'Lazy' build was a little better supported, you could model a character concept like a plucky side-kick or habitual victim in need of rescue who would inspire heroics in their allies, without needing to formally 'lead' them or even command respect (quite the opposite). Prior to that, the 'need' to model such characters was an occasionally-sited rationalization for strictly inferior 'trap' options, with the Warlord and a little system mastery, you play a character concept like that and still be marginally useful. Probably un-looked-for by whichever designer brainstormed the class originally, but an amusing little build.

 

[Jester David]

The point is that Second Wind, Indomitable &c don't make you better at any alternative Actions you might take (with Action Surge) other than attacking.

Why do they have to? They're unrelated to Action Surge. They make you better at staying alive independant of your actions.
They're still class features of the fighter and have nothing to do with DPR.

So, no, unless there are some startlingly useful non-attack-action-enhancing fighter class features or feats out there under some sort of witness protection deep cover, you can't (well, shouldn't) misrepresent Action Surge as a 'use neutral' feature, because the only fighter features it synergizes with are those that improve the fighters actions, and those improve the Attack Action.

It synergizes with two of the four fighter subclass.
The fighter class itself doesn't have any features that improve its attacks, that make you better with your attacks, just Extra Attack which allows you to make more of them.
Unless you take a subclass, feat, or fighting style (aka an OPTION) that makes you better at attacking, then Action Surge by itself doesn't make you any better fighting. It just lets you be adequate more often. It keeps your minimum damage in line with what's expected.

The cantrips of an abjurer wizard increase every few levels, but that doesn't mean cantrip blasting and DPR is expected of abjurers, let alone all wizards.

So, no, unless there are some startlingly useful non-attack-action-enhancing fighter class features or feats out there under some sort of witness protection deep cover, you can't (well, shouldn't) misrepresent Action Surge as a 'use neutral' feature, because the only fighter features it synergizes with are those that improve the fighters actions, and those improve the Attack Action.

Well, the eldritch knight doesn't have to take any evocation spells and can stack abjuration buffs. Being able to cast two buffs and defensive spells in a round is pretty damn handy and has nothing to do with DPR. Eldritch Strike is just as useful with non-damaging spells that require a saving throw.
The purple dragon knight has no damage focused power, so it has zero incentive to use Action Surge to attack. All actions are equally beneficial.
So just half of all fighters are incentivized to use Action Surge to attack.

While there are no subclasses/maneuvers that currently make other actions better, there's certainly the design space to do so. All it takes is one.

Further, the attack action's main, most broadly applicable, and most stackable function is to inflict damage. Action Surge is a DPR feature. After Extra Attack (far after it), probably the Fighter's second-most significant and powerful feature, at that, possibly vying with the more potent Style choices for that distant #2 spot (unless feats are in play, then GWF & Archery get a serious boost).

If the ONLY purpose was to make extra attacks, Action Surge wouldn't give you an extra action but just increase the number of attacks you could make. Or it'd be limited, like the rogue's Cunning Action.
It'd be generally simple and less subject to abuse that way (such as an eldritch knight casting two spells in a round, or an assassin rogue making a couple level dip to really maximize surprise rounds).

By its very design, Action Surge is designed to be flexible and thus not limited to making attacks.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Why do they have to? They're unrelated to Action Surge.

Exactly the point. Extra Attack, weapon proficiencies, styles, &c all make the fighter better at attacking (supposedly, 'best at fighting'), making the attack action synergize Action Surge, while none of it's features make other actions much better.

Well, the eldritch knight...

Is a caster, not what we've been talking about.

The purple dragon knight has no damage focused power, so it has zero incentive to use Action Surge to attack.

It still has good weapons, Style, & Extra Attack like every other fighter - and, like every other fighter but the spellcasting EK, no other features that add much to other actions it might take besides attacking.

While there are no subclasses/maneuvers that currently make other actions better, there's certainly the design space to do so.

Hypothetically, sure, you could imagine sub-classes with features that actual do enhance some other action than attacking. Nothing leaps to mind, but it's possible. Extra Attack is still sitting, there, though, the fighter's most significant feature, and Action Surge still doubles down on it, so you're never getting away from that DPR focus. You can try, but you're cutting off your own best feature to spite your class.

The fighter chassis is just too locked into the fighter tradtion/concept of 'best at fighting' to have room for much else. The EK certainly pushes that envelope, I'll admit, but 5e just seems to give casting a free pass, that way.

If the ONLY purpose was to make extra attacks, Action Surge wouldn't give you an extra action but just increase the number of attacks you could make.

That'd just be an unnecessary layer of complexity. The fighter's other potential actions don't much stand out, so there's little need for a limitation, unless you consider MCing. An additional action is fairly high-impact, but apparently, a 2-level dip in fighter to get one between rests is seen as paying a sufficiently high price for it.

 

[Jester David]

Hypothetically, sure, you could imagine sub-classes with features that actual do enhance some other action than attacking. Nothing leaps to mind, but it's possible.

Then is the failure in the class... or your imagination?

Extra Attack is still sitting, there, though, the fighter's most significant feature, and Action Surge still doubles down on it, so you're never getting away from that DPR focus. You can try, but you're cutting off your own best feature to spite your class.

Emphasis added.
It's the most significant feature in your opinion. There are two other features that just just as much attention. But you continue to focus just on Extra Attack because that's what you personally see as the most useful and valuable class feature.

The fighter chassis is just too locked into the fighter tradtion/concept of 'best at fighting' to have room for much else.

The 5e fight is meant to feel like fighters from past editions. Turning the fighter into something else would be doing the class a disservice.
That said, fighting does not equate with damage. Fighting is just being in a fight. "Best at fighting" applies just as easily to surviving a fight.

That'd just be an unnecessary layer of complexity.

Not any more complex than the rogue's Cunning Action. It's a lateral increase in complexity.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Then is the failure in the class...

As it stands, yes, though the issue is the options available & styles supported by the system as a whole, the fighter is just 2/5th of what's available in the PH if supernatural abilities are eschewed. It's always possible to imagine new class features, or new classes to address that "failure." That's rather the point of the whole sub-forum, here, a new version of a prior-ed-PH1 class that could address those "failures."

(Hmmm. 'failure' only in the sense of options not yet present, but in no way impossible to add, so maybe not the best word).

It's the most significant feature in your opinion.

In my informed opinion as someone who's played the game since 1980 and seen what multiple attacks do and how they synergize and watched such features play out in multiple editions, yes. But, don't just take my word for it: do the math. The impact of multiple attacks, and the impact of any damage bonus on the DPR they generate is quantitative enough for such analysis - heck, it's been done many times.

There are two other features that just just as much attention.

There's Action Surge which doubles the impact of Extra Attack 1/rest and Style which can synergize powerfully with Extra Attack. There's d10 HD (~1 more hp/level than most classes, one less than the Barbarian), and Second Wind +1d10+level hps once between rests, which, along with heavy armor or choosing to focus on finesse weapons & high DEX for a solid AC grants good durability (though not to the level of the Paladin or Barbarian).

The 5e fighter is meant to feel like fighters from past editions.

And it succeeds admirably at feeling like a high-DPR 2e fighter (or Essentials Slayer, a Striker), has some package-deal customizations suggestive of a few of the nigh-infinite possible 3.x fighter builds, and as a BM with enough feats and some optional modules in play is a clear but disappointing attempt at 4e 'Defender' (S&B) fighter or Essential Knight (which also had some nice DPR via Power Strike).

Turning the fighter into something else would be doing the class a disservice.

All the more reason to add new classes to the game to expand non-caster options, and support a wider range of play styles, rather than just squeezing a few token features into yet another fighter sub-class.

And, of course, trying to engineer the fighter to under-utilize it's most significant features does it a similar disservice.

That said, fighting does not equate with damage. Fighting is just being in a fight. "Best at fighting" applies just as easily to surviving a fight.

You really need both offense and defense. Many, maybe even most/all, other classes can manage one or the other, and some classes both. Where the fighter arguably pulls ahead of the other classes that can be solid in both offense and defense is in offense, even if it isn't necessarily at every level or with every build.

 

[Jester David]

All the more reason to add new classes to the game to expand non-caster options, and support a wider range of play styles, rather than just squeezing a few token features into yet another fighter sub-class.

We really, really, really do not need new classes catering to niche playstyles. That's not do much a slippery slope as a sudden chasm. New classes should be very carefully added.
New classes are the surest and most reliable method to needlessly bloat up the game.

There's *always* another potential class, a concept that is not 100% perfect, a trope that isn't supported, etc. There's always a way to justify adding a new class...

And, of course, trying to engineer the fighter to under-utilize it's most significant features does it a similar disservice.

if you're going to keep using the "most significant feature" argument / talking point again and again you really need to back it up. Telling me to do the math is not proof. Especially since you'd dismiss any numbers I produce that contradict your belief.

 

[Tony Vargas]

We really, really, really do not need new classes catering to niche playstyles.

It's a range of playstyles and character concepts that was well-supported in one past edition, and which other prior editions had attempted to support, if with less success. That's not 'niche,' it's a legitimate part of 5e's goals of supporting more playstyles, and being for fans of all editions - of re-uniting the fanbase.

New classes should be very carefully added.

They should, indeed. There's hardly a clear need for more neo-Vancian caster classes, for instance. How the class addresses the edition's goals, and what message it sends the fanbase are also important considerations, as 5e /is/ the edition conceived in response to the fanbase becoming so fragmented, even the appearance of excluding a faction is undesirable. (Undesirable for 5e and fans who are Ok with the fanbase re-uniting, obviously, not everyone is singing kumbaya...)

There's *always* another potential class, a concept that is not 100% perfect, a trope that isn't supported, etc. There's always a way to justify adding a new class...

There's always room to expand the game, sure, even into vast new territories never explored. The Warlord, though, has already been a balanced, playable part of the game. There's little mechanical/balance/'bloat' risk to reprising it for 5e, if done well - if not done so well, the greatest risk is that it will be non-viable 'chaff' or a trap option.

if you're going to keep using the "most significant feature" argument / talking point again and again you really need to back it up. Telling me to do the math is not proof.

/You/ don't literally have to do the math, it's just a figure of speech, others have already done it for you, there have been a number of threads analyzing the DPR potential of the classes, for instance. It's not like the high DPR potential of multi-attacking is controversial, either.

The point remains that there's only 5 non-caster(non-supernatural to be more precise) sub-classes in the 5e PH, and that they cover very little ground. You have 3 tanky DPR and 2 DPR with a side of skill monkey. You seem to be trying to make a case for there being an low-DPR Tanky build, too, but it's not like that'd exactly blow things wide open, even if it were demonstrably viable. We've also left out that the Archery style is there with good Ranged DPR, especially with feats available. Whether we sum up what viable PC choices can contribute to their party without recourse to magical powers as "just DPR," or break it out into tanky DPR, opportunistic DPR w/skills, and ranged DPR, we're not really saying anything different.

I didn't care much for playing Strikers in 4e, and the few 'martial' choices in 5e so far haven't done a good job of exiting that particular box, even if it is officially an informal box, now. So, I want a greater variety of viable/meaningful choices for martial concepts. I'd like that to come in a way that brings back archetypes, character concepts, play styles, and campaign styles supported in previous editions (admittedly, mostly the more recent editions - 3.x & 4e, Essentials is covered, and the classic game has evoked very effectively, indeed), and doing just that is very much in alignment(npi) with 5e's stated goals going back to the announcement of Next.
The Warlord is the obvious candidate for accomplishing some of that.