• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

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

The game as played by a good many tables, especially places like conventions and AL but also including many home tables, is decidedly NOT 2/3 not-combat. Certainly the rules aren't presented that way (and never have been).
Agreed. I know that I consider any session that's half combat except a Final Showdown too much - and some sessions have no combat. Combat may be the biggest of the pillars (I count shenanigans as a fourth - and another classic fighters are inept at) but if I wanted a wargame I'd play one.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

The single best iteration of the "complex martial" was the 3.5 Warblade from Book of Nine Swords. It doesn't have to be exactly equivalent, but having access to about one maneuver per level, picked from a pool of maneuvers about 6-7 times that size (around 120-140 maneuvers by level 20) is the level of complexity I'm looking for.
back in 3.5 we used the Bo9S as our martial characters almost exclusively once it came out. I would not mind seeing Swordsage and Warblade make a comeback but I just doubt it will
 


One thing I find very difficult about this topic is very quickly the conversation gets derailed from talking about why we want a complex fighter.
this isn't about why, its a what.
I think this is because everyone realizes that there is a problem with the fighter
I wish more people admited it then we wouldn't have to argue why.
And to be frank, some of those already presenting design ideas aren't in fact talking about why they want a complex fighter.
agian this is a + thread about what one would look like
 

Reynard

Legend
Supporter
One thing I find very difficult about this topic is very quickly the conversation gets derailed from talking about why we want a complex fighter.
I don't think discussing why is necessary, although it might help explain reasoning.

It sounds, broadly speaking, that most people just want to see more interesting options available to fights as a core feature of the class, not a subclass trait. Again I feel like LevelUp does this pretty well.

I agree with people saying weapons need more differentiation that fighters can take advantage of, too. One of the "forgotten" benefits of the AD&D fighter was they could learn any weapon and if you used the full AD&D rules that was a big deal: weapon speed, reach, vs armor, etc..
 

Marandahir

Crown-Forester (he/him)
What if Fighting Style was a feat chain, and Paladins, Rangers, etc got access to the first feat for free, but Fighter subclasses get access to higher level feats that align with their fighting style choices, rather than having fighting style as separate from subclass?

So you could still have a superiority dice fighter; their subclass choice would offer the Superior Technique Fighting Style as a base level feat, and then more martial exploits based on the superiority dice at higher levels. But Archer would then be a whole subclass of Fighter based around the Archery Style; Brawler based around Unarmed Fighting, Slayer around Great Weapon Fighting, Knight around Protection / Interception (of which I think the options should be merged since Interception is essentially a back door fix), Eldritch Knight would have an Arcane Warrior Fighting Style and you might even have access to a Semi-Paladin or Semi-Ranger by giving them access to Blessed Warrior or Druidic Warrior…
 

TheSword

Legend
One thing I find very difficult about this topic is very quickly the conversation gets derailed from talking about why we want a complex fighter.

I think this is because everyone realizes that there is a problem with the fighter and has already attempted some sort of solution to that. So instead of talking about why we want a complex fighter, we end up in an argument of how to accomplish that from a design perspective.

And to be frank, some of those already presenting design ideas aren't in fact talking about why they want a complex fighter. They are already saying they don't want a complex fighter or that a complex fighter is a bad idea or that the very idea of a fighter class is a bad idea. And that I feel strongly goes against the spirit of a '+' thread.
You’re kinda derailing the conversation yourself. There are lots of people (myself included) who don’t think there IS a fundamental problem with the fighter. I’m not sure why you brought it up.

However I can put that to one side, and assume that some people do, and so discuss what a complex version might look like based on experience and what is already out there in other companies.
 

Celebrim

Legend
It sounds, broadly speaking, that most people just want to see more interesting options available to fights as a core feature of the class, not a subclass trait.

Agreed. But the problem appears immediately.

Again I feel like LevelUp does this pretty well.

So you made this a '+' topic which limits my ability to disagree without feeling I'm stepping outside the bounds, but since you are the thread owner I'll risk it to say that I disagree completely. To me the 5e LevelUp fighter feels very much inspired by the 1e Pathfinder fighter that treated the problem as just "The Fighter didn't get enough toys" and in particular treated the problem as "The fighter didn't get enough distinctive class abilities". And a design that treats those things as the problem looks very different than a design that treats the fighter needs more interesting options that are NOT siloed as subclass traits.

In effect, the LevelUp fighter expects you to make multiple subclass decision both at CharGen and as you LevelUp. And this to me never will address the problem with versatility between the martial classes and the spellcasters who can essentially every day or every level choose to reinvent their build to meet new challenges simply by altering or increasing spell selection.

At both 1st and 2nd level (and again at 6th level) for example, you make one time choices in what your character is good at. While not everything is silo'd you are constrained by the either/or class feature silos. The elegance is not there. And to make matters worse, they split what I described into two classes creating a Marshall class as well, which additionally silos a lot of being a smart or charismatic fighter off into a whole other class.

I'm a bit skeptical of the 'Stamina as Mana Points' system as well. I am somewhat neutral about that in as much as a good implementation could exist, but a lot of the implementations I've seen are simply just giving up and making martials as spellcasting class.

I agree with people saying weapons need more differentiation that fighters can take advantage of, too. One of the "forgotten" benefits of the AD&D fighter was they could learn any weapon and if you used the full AD&D rules that was a big deal: weapon speed, reach, vs armor, etc..

There is an even bigger problem with how the D&D fighter has evolved over the years that this touches on. Not only do I miss having a reason to switch between a light weapon like a longsword and a heavy weapon like a morningstar or mace, but prior to the fighter becoming defined by a one time choice in weapon specialization (yes this problem does date back to the UA) a fighter adventuring could use any magical item he found. If he was using a +1 flametongue longsword and he found a +4 broadsword, then "upgrade". But if a fighter is defined as a guy who at 1st level commits to being good with specific gear or specific styles of fighting then the fighter is defined as the guy who is dependent entirely on finding a "christmas tree" that is decorated exactly how his build needs. Class features that increase specialization and increase gear dependency don't IMO actually address the problem. In fact, the real 'solution' would look like more the reverse - other classes that aren't fighters can only be good with a limited amount of gear - while fighters are just good with everything that has to do with fighting. If you look at the fighter pre the idea of specialization, that's not far from what we had. Most classes had to choose from a very limited selection of proficiencies. Fighters had a generous selection. Specialization actually starts creating the problem, not fixing it.

tl;dr As soon as you say, "Again I feel like LevelUp does this pretty well." I feel that you are saying you don't actually want a complex fighter.

PS: To end on a '+' note, one thing that I do think LevelUp gets right is that it is necessary to overhaul the system on a bigger scale than just rewriting the fighter. For instance, I do like that the maneuver system becomes the combat system and to a large extent every class is participating in it - it's just the fighter does it better.
 
Last edited:

So you made this a '+' topic which limits my ability to disagree without feeling I'm stepping outside the bounds, but since you are the thread owner I'll risk it to say that I disagree completely.
Well I appreciated this post because it means this thread could see solutions in ways we may have not necessarily have thought of before with the previous group think. Reinventing a martial character daily - what a great challenge!
 

Vaalingrade

Legend
One thing I find very difficult about this topic is very quickly the conversation gets derailed from talking about why we want a complex fighter.
I feel like part of why this is a + thread for exactly what people want is to prevent the perennial derail of people telling us we're wrong for not just why we want a better fighter, but for wanting one in the first place.
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top