D&D 5E [+]What does your "complex fighter" look like?

DND_Reborn

The High Aldwin
Which do you regard as a feature: the ability to do something new, or when you get to use an ability an additional time?
From here, it looks like the former. So when you pick a Fighting Style or a 1st level spell counts, but you don't count when you get an additional action surge or your 3rd 5th level spell slot for example?
Overall, I don't think I would count additional uses, just new uses.

This is why I said you could count Spell Mastery as possibly two (two different at-will spells) and Signature Spell as two, so the range was 15-17 because of this.

So, I am not counting additional uses of Action Surge or Indomitable, nor more spell slots since Spellcasting really is the feature.

I suppose technically you could also count proficiencies as features as well:

Fighter: +10 (three armors, shields, simple weapons, martial weapons, two saves, two skills) vs.
Wizard: +5 (some weapons, two saves, two skills).

Which, if you count access to each new spell level as a separate feature, would bring the totals to:

Fighter: 29
Wizard 28-30


Pretty darn even by that reckoning anyway...
 

log in or register to remove this ad

DND_Reborn

The High Aldwin
By tiers you are referring to levels 11-15 and 16-20?
Yes, but 11-16 and 17-20 are the actual tiers.

(That's when Trinity was running along the floor and then ran up the wall, almost like she changed gravity's vector.)
Yeah, something like this to me could easily be non-magical. I mean, just some of the stuff Jackie Chan does (among others!) is pretty darn close! :D

I see levels 1-10 as pretty much exclusively mundane, with 11-20 being "heroic" in the sense of the Matrix, Hercules/Xena, etc.

Yes, the Green Destiny was the sword everyone was after.
I don't recall, did it DO anything???
 

Overall, I don't think I would count additional uses, just new uses.

This is why I said you could count Spell Mastery as possibly two (two different at-will spells) and Signature Spell as two, so the range was 15-17 because of this.

So, I am not counting additional uses of Action Surge or Indomitable, nor more spell slots since Spellcasting really is the feature.

I suppose technically you could also count proficiencies as features as well:

Fighter: +10 (three armors, shields, simple weapons, martial weapons, two saves, two skills) vs.
Wizard: +5 (some weapons, two saves, two skills).

Which, if you count access to each new spell level as a separate feature, would bring the totals to:

Fighter: 29
Wizard 28-30


Pretty darn even by that reckoning anyway...

Ah. I think ECMO3 did a similar reckoning. He pointed out that Fighters' weapon and armour proficiencies actually break down into dozens of different choices. Therefore fighters did in fact have an equivalent number of choice of class feature as wizards do.
 

Yes, but 11-16 and 17-20 are the actual tiers.
I see.

Yeah, something like this to me could easily be non-magical. I mean, just some of the stuff Jackie Chan does (among others!) is pretty darn close! :D

I see levels 1-10 as pretty much exclusively mundane, with 11-20 being "heroic" in the sense of the Matrix, Hercules/Xena, etc.
Okay. I see it as 1-4 / 5-12 / 13+ for me. But, I'm heavily influenced by earlier editions.

I don't recall, did it DO anything???
Well, yes and no. I think it was a great example of a +3 sword in a campaign without many magic items. Some people would have some +1 items, but this was a +3 sword. So, it didn't grant any powers, and the wise mentor with a stick schooled the hot-headed youngster with Green Destiny. However, the hot-head was hacking through the weapons of both the local thugs and the experienced fighter, who was still junior to the mentor character. Seemingly, it tips the balance in your favor if you are superior or proximate to the skill of your opponent.
 


Haplo781

Legend
Threadcrapping (Emoji abuse)
Ah. I think ECMO3 did a similar reckoning. He pointed out that Fighters' weapon and armour proficiencies actually break down into dozens of different choices. Therefore fighters did in fact have an equivalent number of choice of class feature as wizards do.
Holy false equivalence, Batman!

Picking between a longsword and a rapier is not comparable to having multiple level 1 spells let alone higher levels.
 

DND_Reborn

The High Aldwin
Ah. I think ECMO3 did a similar reckoning. He pointed out that Fighters' weapon and armour proficiencies actually break down into dozens of different choices.
IMO if you are counting access to higher spell levels, you should count access to better armors and weapons as well.

Should it be a 1-1 ratio, though? Who knows...

Therefore fighters did in fact have an equivalent number of choice of class feature as wizards do.
Well, I wouldn't go THAT far. Wizards have hundreds of spells, while fighters have only dozens of armors & weapons, not to mention the power of a spell can be more or less than a weapon or armor, but in general I would think more.

Okay. I see it as 1-4 / 5-12 / 13+ for me. But, I'm heavily influenced by earlier editions.
Sure, I can see that. I find the tier distribution a bit odd with 4-6-6-4 levels instead of 5-5-5-5.

Well, yes and no. I think it was a great example of a +3 sword in a campaign without many magic items. Some people would have some +1 items, but this was a +3 sword. So, it didn't grant any powers, and the wise mentor with a stick schooled the hot-headed youngster with Green Destiny. However, the hot-head was hacking through the weapons of both the local thugs and the experienced fighter, who was still junior to the mentor character. Seemingly, it tips the balance in your favor if you are superior or proximate to the skill of your opponent.
It cut through conventional steel weapons like butter, and was flexible and could be used to make "unnatural" strikes.
Hmm. I could see such a weapon giving advantage on "sunder" attempts (if they were still in 5E). So, it makes you better, but the better you are the more it helps (being +5 with advantage vs. being +10 with advantage).
 

Art Waring

halozix.com
Hmm. I could see such a weapon giving advantage on "sunder" attempts (if they were still in 5E). So, it makes you better, but the better you are the more it helps (being +5 with advantage vs. being +10 with advantage).
That sounds good, If I could I would add the ability to treat the weapon as a monks weapon, monks could probably benefit from using such a weapon.
 

Holy false equivalence, Batman!

Picking between a longsword and a rapier is not comparable to having multiple level 1 spells let alone higher levels.
I'm not saying that I agreed with them. But I would make an equivalence between picking a fighting style and choosing a cantrip or spell as a discrete choice of a new class feature.
 

Haplo781

Legend
IMO if you are counting access to higher spell levels, you should count access to better armors and weapons as well.

Should it be a 1-1 ratio, though? Who knows...


Well, I wouldn't go THAT far. Wizards have hundreds of spells, while fighters have only dozens of armors & weapons, not to mention the power of a spell can be more or less than a weapon or armor, but in general I would think more.


Sure, I can see that. I find the tier distribution a bit odd with 4-6-6-4 levels instead of 5-5-5-5.



Hmm. I could see such a weapon giving advantage on "sunder" attempts (if they were still in 5E). So, it makes you better, but the better you are the more it helps (being +5 with advantage vs. being +10 with advantage).
Sunder and disarm are bad. Either they completely negate the target's attacks or they do nothing.

I'm glad they're gone.
 



"the fighter gets fighting style, second wind, action surge extra attack, indomitable, and 2 subclass features and a bonus ASI/feat for a total of 8"

Where are the 5 options allowed from Maneuvers?
that would be a single subclass choice... not all fighters.
Fighters get multiple chances to hit, unlike wizards who miss completely with their cantrips.
unless the cantrip is eldritch blast (what you don't like calling out 1 specific thing... I bet you don't)
rolling multi to hit is NOT a pure bonus. if I make 1 attack for x3 damage and you make 3 attacks for x1 damage it will as often be a boon to me (I hit and you didn't hit with all) as it will for you (I miss and you hit with all)
Wizards do not in fact get every attack a fighter gets. One very specific subclass does, but then falls behind.
I'm sorry, what wizard can't make a weapon attack? I have yet to play one that doesn't carry some wapon (even if I only use it as a back up back up)
 

I believe what you term uncanny to me would be something plausible in mundane views, but insanely incredible.

what I want is to take the 3e Ex Su and make them Canny (in theory anyone could learn to do this) Uncanny (you have to be a heroic character and even then this looks amazing... but possible) and Supernatural
 

To be fair, all of your responses indicate a strongly held narrative, 4th ed-centric point of view.
yup 4e is my favorite D&D... 2e WOULD be my 2nd fav but too many fiddly bits (a good 2e retroclone without thac0 would be) so right now 5e holds second best by a nose.
Now I understand that you're a fan, and that's fine, but you're espousing a specific gaming philosophy as fact that many gamers don't necessarily share.
the same can be said for the OTHER side fo teh argument.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
that would be a single subclass choice... not all fighters.
And yet you use only the Champion, which is the only subclass not to have more options from it's subclass abilities.
unless the cantrip is eldritch blast (what you don't like calling out 1 specific thing... I bet you don't)
Wizards don't get that.
rolling multi to hit is NOT a pure bonus. if I make 1 attack for x3 damage and you make 3 attacks for x1 damage it will as often be a boon to me (I hit and you didn't hit with all) as it will for you (I miss and you hit with all)
It will far more often be a boon to me, assuming the same chance to hit. You will waste entire rounds far more often than I will, and that matters more in a fight than hitting harder every so often. Reliable damage tends to put things down faster.
I'm sorry, what wizard can't make a weapon attack? I have yet to play one that doesn't carry some wapon (even if I only use it as a back up back up)
Yeah, making a crappy to hit attack with a dagger or staff is not the same as a fighter with his weapon. Like not even close.
 

DND_Reborn

The High Aldwin
unless the cantrip is eldritch blast (what you don't like calling out 1 specific thing... I bet you don't)
Wizard's don't get eldritch blast unless you want to use a feat to get it...

rolling multi to hit is NOT a pure bonus. if I make 1 attack for x3 damage and you make 3 attacks for x1 damage it will as often be a boon to me (I hit and you didn't hit with all) as it will for you (I miss and you hit with all)
Actually, it is, especially since you get to add your ability modifier to damage with each hit. Wizards (IIRC) never get to add INT mod to damage with their cantrip damage, unlike some clerics.

For example, if a Fighter makes three attacks (65% hit) for 1d8+5 vs. a Wizard's one attack (65%) for 3d8, the difference is 9.75 DPR (18.525 - 8.775).

Even if Wizard's did add INT mod to damage, it still isn't even close.

I'm sorry, what wizard can't make a weapon attack? I have yet to play one that doesn't carry some wapon (even if I only use it as a back up back up)
FWIW, I've seen clerics, druids, and wizard solely rely on cantrips for attacks (or forcing saves). In RotFM, I had a player with a cleric who actually threw his mace into the icy waters because he had no reason to carry it, toll the dead was better. 🤷‍♂️

what I want is to take the 3e Ex Su and make them Canny (in theory anyone could learn to do this) Uncanny (you have to be a heroic character and even then this looks amazing... but possible) and Supernatural
I have no idea what this is since I didn't play 3E much and it was over 15 years ago.
 

Micah Sweet

Legend
yup 4e is my favorite D&D... 2e WOULD be my 2nd fav but too many fiddly bits (a good 2e retroclone without thac0 would be) so right now 5e holds second best by a nose.

the same can be said for the OTHER side fo teh argument.
Very true, but that does mean that neither side is objectively correct.
 

And yet you use only the Champion, which is the only subclass not to have more options from it's subclass abilities.
do you want to go through every subclass for both classes?
It will far more often be a boon to me, assuming the same chance to hit. You will waste entire rounds far more often than I will, and that matters more in a fight than hitting harder every so often. Reliable damage tends to put things down faster.
nope 1 good crit turning a 3x attck into a 6x attack has more then once ended an enemy in our games
Yeah, making a crappy to hit attack with a dagger or staff is not the same as a fighter with his weapon. Like not even close.
what makes it crappy?
 

WIW, I've seen clerics, druids, and wizard solely rely on cantrips for attacks (or forcing saves). In RotFM, I had a player with a cleric who actually threw his mace into the icy waters because he had no reason to carry it, toll the dead was better. 🤷‍♂️
I have seen people primary focus on cantrips but I have never seen a party were all the casters didn't carry any weapons.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top