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

[Celebrim]

I agree.

While I won't count every single spell or spell slot, I do think counting access to each spell level and ritual casting works as 10 features (cantrips would make it 11, which I didn't count before).

IMO it is like counting Extra Attack (2) and Extra Attack (3) as separate from Extra Attack.

You'll laugh (maybe), but I think that it is actually fair to count Extra Attack (2) and Extra Attack (3) as separate from Extra Attack.

The way I always thought about it when designing my homebrew was "Feat Equivalents". The idea was to be able to translate every class into a number that represented very roughly the number of "bonus feats" that it would take to implement the class if every class was just a list of class specific bonus feats and a bunch of bonus feat slots.

So the idea was "Is this class ability roughly as good as getting a feat? Or is it worth maybe half a feat? Or is it worth like more than a feat?"

In the case of a class ability like Extra Attack, I'd tend to think of that as a feat equivalent ability (at minimum) and therefore Extra Attack (2) is worth roughly a second feat.

If Extra Attack were a feat, then it is actually really impressive for a feat. It might conceptually be worth even more than a typical 5e feat in terms of how good it is. Like I'm pretty sure that you'd probably take it over just about any other combat feat and happily stack it as many times as allowed. So not only do I think it is fair to count "Extra Attack (2)" and "Extra Attack (3)" as separate class abilities, I'd tend to count them as worth slightly more than a typical class ability. The three together might be worth 6 5e "Feat Equivalents", for example (purely as a rough estimate, as I don't know 5e as well as I know 3e).

Now do Spellcasting. For example, which is better, getting a bonus feat or a 9th level spell slot?

 

[Umbran]

Mod Note:
A bunch of you have apparently forgotten that this is supposed to be a (+) thread about fighter class designs (Not wizard powers. Not mulitclass character builds, etc), despite a bunch of reminders.

A bunch of people are about to be removed from the thread.

Those left should reconsider focusing on the actual subject at hand. Thanks.

 

[Eubani]

To sum up the previous conversation it is fair to say that the Fighter does not get as many abilities as casters so a good starting point to improve the Fighter would be to add more abilities. The number of which would be dependent upon the strength of said abilities. This opened up space would be good place to plant non-combat stuff.

 

[Celebrim]

To sum up the previous conversation it is fair to say that the Fighter does not get as many abilities as casters so a good starting point to improve the Fighter would be to add more abilities. The number of which would be dependent upon the strength of said abilities. This opened up space would be good place to plant non-combat stuff.

Agreed, but I would argue that fixed abilities just pigeonhole a fighter or fighter subclasses into narrower and narrower specialties, which would never be as useful as a spellcaster's array of spells selectable to solve wide varieties of problems.

So I really think that the ideal fighter looks something like the 3e fighter with its list of bonus feats, only both it needs more feats to compete with the number of spell slots a caster gets and those feats need to be more impactful. The 5e feat design has made a step toward making feats more impactful, so I really think there is a lot of value to be had in moving more in that direction.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Probably better to go the battlemaster or warblade route, where you have either a range of different abilities that you know and a separate pool of uses of which, or to have a range of different abilities and the ability to pick out a smaller range that you can perform.

Having a range of options and the ability to change them, even if it is only on level-up to adapt to different aspects of the campaign would seem to be important.

 

[Guest 7034872]

My favorite by far is still the Battlemaster, and that largely because Maneuvers enable cleverer and more effective combos than just, "Groo simultaneously attacks with his two swords." For me, at least, the Fighter doesn't need to become all wonderfully complex (I actually think it'd suck if they were--one of the joys of playing a Fighter is they're straightforward); I just need them to be able to accomplish things that other classes can't. If they could be redesigned in such a way that a party lacking one would feel that absence and need to work around it, that'd be enough for me.

Something like a Fighter's special skills applied not just to combat but also to social interactions seems promising to me. I mean, why on Earth should a Bard carrying a little flute get better Intimidation base stats than a Fighter?? That makes no sense to me either in terms of verisimilitude (lesser concern) or gameplay (greater concern). An old thread on here last fall or so discussed possible fixes, and IIRC DND_Reborn came up with some detailed designs. I don't know how far that project got, but I liked what I saw.

 

[Celebrim]

Probably better to go the battlemaster or warblade route

I'm pretty happy with the Battlemaster design overall, but I prefer a design where you start out each combat with a small amount of Superiority die (1 initially) and you gain a Superiority die each round of the combat that you don't use one provided certain other things don't apply (you aren't fatigued, for example). This among other things gets around short rest based resources making classes easier to balance with each other and it doesn't depend as much on pacing where the class plays very differently if you get in 1 fight per day or 6 fights per day.

For the most part to me the Battlemaster manages to get maneuvers that don't feel particularly spell like. They have a clear in fiction explanation that relies on mundane skill, and when that skill would be contested it is (opponent's for example get a saving throw to resist). To me that's pretty strong verisimilitude. The list is probably expandable. As an off the top of my head example, "Beatdown: If you have already struck an opponent with an attack this round, you may declare your next attack is a Beatdown maneuver by expending a superiority die. The the next attack you make in the same round hits, you may add your superiority die to the damage inflicted."

I'd prefer the ability to be cool started at 1st level rather than waiting until 3rd. I'd also as a personal preference prefer you couldn't unlearn a known maneuver, because it doesn't really fit the fiction if the guy was known for something an hour a go and suddenly he forgot how to do it. Instead, to provide versatility, I'd have a mechanic where you could spend 2 die to use any maneuver on the list you didn't know. You essentially know everything, it's just you are more practiced at some of it than others.

I'm not sure how I feel about the bigger superiority die. I see why it is necessary in the original design, but I'm tempted to want a design that instead as you reach certain levels allows you to spend multiple dice on the same maneuver.

That doesn't I think fix everything I'd go about fixing though. I think there are some inherent problems with the bounded accuracy and advantage mechanics when it comes to skill, and skills in 5e (and all editions to a lesser extent) really need some rethinking.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I could see a GWM-style cleave as a default class feature, with a maximum number of extra attacks increasing with level (PB, maybe.)

Although, really, that says “Barbarian” to me. (On the other hand, “Barbarian” says “Fighter subclass” to me also.)

 

[James Gasik]

I agree. Why Barbarian is a class at all at this point confuses me. If it's just a type of warrior, it's a Fighter. If he has some primal connection to nature or the wilds, it's a Ranger.

 

[Celebrim]

Although, really, that says “Barbarian” to me. (On the other hand, “Barbarian” says “Fighter subclass” to me also.)

As big as I am on unifying the martial classes, "Barbarian" is a concept distinct enough from "master of martial arts" that I choose not to kill it. What I did do however is broaden it into the class "Fanatic", of which a member of a secret warrior society in a primitive tribal culture would be just one example of many.

The distinction between "Hulk" style characters and "Steve Rogers" style characters to me feels real enough that they deserve separate classes. However to me "Barbarian" carries more baggage than it needs to, and sort of distracts from the class's core ideas of channelling your emotion into a mystical state where you acquire power in battle. The fighter is a cerebral/intellectual take on combat IMO, that very much stands in contrast to unleashing your rage and anger.