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

[James Gasik]

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.

I wish the last Psionics thread I was involved with was a + thread.

 

[Celebrim]

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.

Well, I'm definitely not telling you that. By all means we need a better fighter. So please don't tell me we need a Warmain or 4e Fighter. By all means pick out aspects of what those attempts did that you think moved the fighter in the right direction. But as soon as you endorse existing design as the fix, when I can pick out a half dozen reasons why the existing attempt failed per the standard of how I defined a "complex fighter" namely, as the OP just said, "most people just want to see more interesting options available to fighters as a core feature of the class, not a subclass trait.", well then I feel the thread is not endorsing a "complex fighter" and has moved to shutting down open discussion and toward the same arguments we always get into about which existing solution was best. To me as soon as I see the fighter has subclasses that do something no other fighter subclass can do, it fails this test. As soon as I make a choice that locks me into something and out of something else, it fails that test.

Let me try to explain the problem by giving an example. In my D&D campaign I had a player come to me with his character concept, "I want to play a character who is a natural TP/TK who is hiding his magic ability and pretending to be a warrior." And I was like, "Cool concept. Here are some options that will enable you to do that." Essentially he wanted to play a Jedi Knight in D&D, inspired in part by the fact that I told him Sorcerers are often hunted down as dangerous inhuman monsters in my campaign world. So imagine for a moment that the option I gave him was a sorcerer subclass "Psychic Warrior" that locked him into a fixed spell list and a set of character abilities all the way out to 20th level. (I didn't, but imagine I did because that's what so many solutions to the fighter are actually like.) Now the guy keeps playing his character to 7th level and at 7th level he decides, "Hmm... you know what, this fun but I need some sort of area of effect attack." And at that level he picked up "Shrapnel Blast". Now this was starting to get outside of his original conception, and probably wouldn't have fit into a subclass for a TP/TK. The player decided he was no longer hiding his abilities from the rest of the party, and was getting comfortable making more visible magic. If spellcasters were made like martial classes, to a large extent this sort of flexibility isn't possible.

What I want is not to pick 'archer' or 'gladiator' or 'warlord' or whatever at 1st level and then that's what I do, it just has some extra toys compared to fighter implementation X hard coded into the build. I want a class design where a player can say, "I'm going to be an archer", and then at 6th level says, "AND, I'm also going to be a swashbuckler" and then at 9th level says, "AND, I'm also going to be a warlord!".

 

[Vaalingrade]

By all means we need a better fighter. So please don't tell me we need a Warmain or 4e Fighter.

That is... literally what some people want the complex fighter to look like.

Per the topic of the thread.

 

[Celebrim]

That is... literally what some people want the complex fighter to look like.

Per the topic of the thread.

Well, I know that. That's my point.

If that's all the thread is, I'm just going to drop out. Because to me that means that the thread is literally just going to be arguing over which version of the simple fighter is the best implementation.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Well, I know that. That's my point.

If that's all the thread is, I'm just going to drop out. Because to me that means that the thread is literally just going to be arguing over which version of the simple fighter is the best implementation.

Which it clearly isn't.

I myself delineated the components I want. Others have too.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

in 4e we had cool encounter and daily powers... it was the same resource game (or close when essentials and PHB3 changed a bit) everyone was playing. Now this is different then other D&Ds, but you could take the 4e style (start with 1 daily 1 encounter and 2 at will turned into 1 long rest 1 short rest and 2at wills) and have it advance... my example back on page 1 of using the Warlock chasie to bring it back was a middle ground

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Well, I know that. That's my point.

If that's all the thread is, I'm just going to drop out. Because to me that means that the thread is literally just going to be arguing over which version of the simple fighter is the best implementation.

I don't know if you saw my warlock chaise idea... but here is one based on Artificer... but it's more a rogue

You get tool profs and some extra skills, but you also get a small list of maneuvers... and you know all of them as you level, but some of them ARE quisi magical then instead of infusions you get a small subset of 'skill actions' that you can learn and use. You still only get the 3rd level subclass unlike my warlock idea.

now my preference would be a warlord/swordsage style built as the warlock example and a magus/duskblade made using the artificer chaise... then you can keep the champion fighter as it's own thing without eldritch knight or battle master because they have been broken off into there own class

As you can see my artificer idea is not quite as worked out as my warlock one.

 

[DeviousQuail]

I think the Fighter chassis should be a bit more complex with a purely combat focus. The subclasses should do less combat stuff and instead be the focus of the Fighter's exploration and social side.

Fighters should have options when they take the Attack Action. I've seen some excellent lists of what that would look like but the core ideas are: attacks that can target saves, attacks with an aoe, at will, and attacks that require weapons with a certain damage type. Subclasses could also add unique options to that list like an elemental attack for EKs, all of the Arcane Archer's shots, Psionic Strike, etc. Allow Fighters to pick one or two early on and add more as they level up. Other martial classes could snag some as well but not nearly as many and wouldn't be able to access the unique ones without taking 3 levels in Fighter first.

Subclasses are where the flavor exists for Fighters. Let them add a couple unique options to their list of attacks to choose from and then lean into the exploration and social stuff for the rest of their levels. As an example, Cavaliers could add their Unwavering Mark and Warding Maneuver to their list of attacks. Then the rest of the way is focused on riding mounts, courtly knowledge, and being a shining example to others. Some of those features could be used in battle but the design should focus on the other two pillars first.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

4e feats also have some cool ideas.... like damage on a miss

Hammer Rhythm
Prerequisites: Level 11+ Str 15, Con 17
Benefit: If you miss with a melee attack with a
hammer or a mace and you wouldn’t otherwise still
deal damage on the miss, you deal damage to your
original target equal to your Constitution modifier.
This damage receives no modifiers or other benefits
you normally gain to weapon damage.

Scimitar Dance
Prerequisites: Level 11+ Str 15, Dex 17
Benefit: If you miss with a melee attack with a
scimitar and you wouldn’t otherwise still deal damage
on the miss, you deal damage to your original target
equal to your Dexterity modifier. This damage receives
no modifiers or other benefits you normally gain on
weapon damage.

 

[NotAYakk]

The only bad thing about something like this is it detracts from the experience for people who want to play the Zero to Hero journey.


And along those lines, IMO a Hero is elevated by what the have done, not by a "power source" that already makes them special.

I think it is fine for people who want this, but I know I wouldn't. Just to be clear, I am simply stating the opposing view, not challenging the validity of your idea.

Sure; and a Hero without a Power Source has a HD and can use a sword and other weapons. They are unable to gain levels.

It emulates being a Zero reasonably well.

In game, they may succeed at some deed that gives them a power source - a potential to gain levels - but until then they are no more powerful than J random NPC guard.