log in or register to remove this ad

 

Level Up (A5E) What is the vision of the high level fighter?

Maybe it is? In the old days, there were all kinds of restrictions on classes that invoked xp drain, tithes, economic vampirism, organizaion membership, duels, and item restrictions.

Maybe only fighters (and rogues I guess) can become kings and attract magic items by virtue of being free of all the background nonsense? Or at least be better kings and get better items?

These are questions we as a community must sit down and answer or the designers do it for us without our input.

Well, to stake a position. I don't like restricting people on social aspects via class. The idea that you are a famous fighter, and therefore people come to seek your knowledge and the king grants you land, but if you are a famous wizard people ignore you and you cannot hold land, is kind of silly to me.

If we are going to make land-ownership and followers part of the game, I feel like it should be fairly equally dolled out. With everyone gaining somewhat equal benefits from that sub-system



Additionally, differentiating the fighter via them being the one who brings ten extra people to the fight brings up issues of minionmancy and action economy that I really think the game is simply not built to handle well.


Since this is posted in the Level Up subforum, the vision of the high level fighter is that he can go toe to toe with the most powerful monsters in the Monster Manual.

That is, 99% of the discussion is wildly off topic for a game explicitly compatible with 5E.

This just isn't the game where you redefine what a Fighter is.

This is where you get to roughly the same power level as a level 20 Fighter, except you're given more interesting design choices along the way.


Then that seems like you are solely looking at expanding the battlemaster and adding a stance system. Maybe an intimidation aura.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Well, to stake a position. I don't like restricting people on social aspects via class. The idea that you are a famous fighter, and therefore people come to seek your knowledge and the king grants you land, but if you are a famous wizard people ignore you and you cannot hold land, is kind of silly to me.

If we are going to make land-ownership and followers part of the game, I feel like it should be fairly equally dolled out. With everyone gaining somewhat equal benefits from that sub-system



Additionally, differentiating the fighter via them being the one who brings ten extra people to the fight brings up issues of minionmancy and action economy that I really think the game is simply not built to handle well.





Then that seems like you are solely looking at expanding the battlemaster and adding a stance system. Maybe an intimidation aura.
I think land/followers were divided differently by class back in the day as part of the implied setting. People in power didn't trust wizards, so they didn't get huge tracts of land from the king to build a castle on and defend. Instead, they could build a tower out in the wild where they could continue their wacky experiments away from public view. The fighter got a bunch of followers because part of the image of the class was that they were a leader, a "master of men". Wizards tended to keep just a few servants around, or make them themselves. Get rid of the implied setting, and of course it makes sense that these things should be equal for all, especially since they're not necessarily based on personal skill or power. Of course, you've just removed one of the advantages fighters had over their magical counterparts, but I'm sure that'll get made up for somewhere else right? Right?
 

glass

(he, him)
Interestingly - I'd say each of those are about 5th level fighters. Give or take a few levels.
I'd have said seven or eight, but you did say "give or take a few levels". But either way, the points stands: There is nothing that really differentiates a high level Fighter from a low level Fighter in 5e, other than bigger numbers. And those numbers are invisible in a movie, since you do not know what the opposition's numbers are either.

So people saying that you could model John Wick as a 20th level Champion Fighter are not wrong per se...and that in my view is the "problem" with the Champion Fighter ("Problem" in scare quotes because I know some people like it that way...but those people have already have the Champion so give me a martial class I might actually wnt to play).

Then that seems like you are solely looking at expanding the battlemaster and adding a stance system. Maybe an intimidation aura.
This is why I keep saying there should not be a class called "Fighter" in the book (actually, I think all the classes shoudl have new names, but it goes quadruple for the Fighter). Because the Battleaster exists. Some people like that it exists. But for the people who want an actually-complex martial, it is unsalveagable. So leave it to those who want it, and build a martial class or two for those who want more.

_
glass.
 

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
Well, to stake a position. I don't like restricting people on social aspects via class. The idea that you are a famous fighter, and therefore people come to seek your knowledge and the king grants you land, but if you are a famous wizard people ignore you and you cannot hold land, is kind of silly to me.

If we are going to make land-ownership and followers part of the game, I feel like it should be fairly equally dolled out. With everyone gaining somewhat equal benefits from that sub-system



Additionally, differentiating the fighter via them being the one who brings ten extra people to the fight brings up issues of minionmancy and action economy that I really think the game is simply not built to handle well.

Well I'm not saying Social Class or Kingdom management should or shouldn't be part of the fighter.

I just want people to identify what they see as high level fighter then see if the base 5E fighter could be modified to match the types missing.

Step 1 is to identify the types of high level fighter
We have a decent list of Mythic, Deadly, Magic, Demigod, etc

Step 2 is to identify what types of fighters are high level 5e Fighters.
The Champion, Battlemaster, Samurai, PDK, and Cavalier are Deadly Fighters.
The Eldritch Knight, Echo Knight, and Arcane Archer are Magic Fighters.

Step 3 is to figure out how to modify or add to the Fighter to resemble other types of high level fighers
How do we turn the base 5e fighter to the Mythic Fighter?
What about the Demigod Fighter?
Do we attempt the Anime Fighter?
Is the Action Hero fighter distinct enough to bother or is the base 5e fighter close enough?
Do we attempt the Fighter-Lord or Christmas Tree Fighter or are they outdated examples of high level fighter?
 
Last edited:

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
I'd have said seven or eight, but you did say "give or take a few levels". But either way, the points stands: There is nothing that really differentiates a high level Fighter from a low level Fighter in 5e, other than bigger numbers. And those numbers are invisible in a movie, since you do not know what the opposition's numbers are either.

So people saying that you could model John Wick as a 20th level Champion Fighter are not wrong per se...and that in my view is the "problem" with the Champion Fighter ("Problem" in scare quotes because I know some people like it that way...but those people have already have the Champion so give me a martial class I might actually wnt to play).

This is why I keep saying there should not be a class called "Fighter" in the book (actually, I think all the classes shoudl have new names, but it goes quadruple for the Fighter). Because the Battleaster exists. Some people like that it exists. But for the people who want an actually-complex martial, it is unsalveagable. So leave it to those who want it, and build a martial class or two for those who want more.

_
glass.

I somewhat disagree. You don’t have to know the numbers to gauge a situations dangerousness or an opponents threat level.

a fighter that could go toe to toe with Godzilla is a lot stronger than 1 that goes toe to toe with a human fighter where neither are shown to be able to stand to something gargantuan and monstrous toe to toe. We all understand the hierarchy of power levels even if we disagree on the finer points of where to draw the lines.
 

Do we attempt the Fighter-Lord or Christmas Tree Fighter or are they outdated examples of high level fighter?

I think they are either out-dated, setting specific, or inadequate.

Anyone can get magic items, and a Paladin or Cleric generally benefits from a lot of the same items a fighter does.

And the Fighter-Lord is too setting specific and makes assumptions that people like Wizards, Clerics and Druids aren't doing a lot of the same "leading the people" type of stuff. Which, we know there are a lot of magic-users in positions of pwer within FR, Darksun, Eberron ect, so that doesn't work.
 

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
I think they are either out-dated, setting specific, or inadequate.

Anyone can get magic items, and a Paladin or Cleric generally benefits from a lot of the same items a fighter does.

And the Fighter-Lord is too setting specific and makes assumptions that people like Wizards, Clerics and Druids aren't doing a lot of the same "leading the people" type of stuff. Which, we know there are a lot of magic-users in positions of pwer within FR, Darksun, Eberron ect, so that doesn't work.

At some point you've got to step back and say that just because X is mundane that doesn't mean the wizard will be as good at it.

We've done that with swords and armor. What's the justification that fighters get them and wizards don't? What's the justification for the higher hit die for the fighter? Why don't those same justifications work for followers as well?

If it would make things more pallatable we can make a feat for it. Fighters get extra feats afterall. Wizards can get access if they really want but it costs them more than it does the fighter.
 

Asisreo

Archdevil's Advocate
At some point you've got to step back and say that just because X is mundane that doesn't mean the wizard will be as good at it.

We've done that with swords and armor. What's the justification that fighters get them and wizards don't? What's the justification for the higher hit die for the fighter? Why don't those same justifications work for followers as well?

If it would make things more pallatable we can make a feat for it. Fighters get extra feats afterall. Wizards can get access if they really want but it costs them more than it does the fighter.
The difference is, as many people make it apparent, is that the wizard can still get any of what the fighter has that isn't a completely specific feature. Wizards can get sword proficiency by just being elves or taking the weapon master feat.

And that means they're no longer unique. Also, wizards already have ways to have a large number of followers via spells like Finger of Death and Conjure spells. Not to mention that a wizard can just buy the help they'd need.
 

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
The difference is, as many people make it apparent, is that the wizard can still get any of what the fighter has that isn't a completely specific feature. Wizards can get sword proficiency by just being elves or taking the weapon master feat.

I'd say the difference is that Wizards don't get swords and armor by default. Fighters get it for free. And even if a wizard takes swords and armor, they still aren't as good with either as the fighter. They don't get extra attacks or damage enhancements. They don't get much hp. They get no weapon styles.

And that means they're no longer unique. Also, wizards already have ways to have a large number of followers via spells like Finger of Death and Conjure spells. Not to mention that a wizard can just buy the help they'd need.

no. As long as they are better at it, whether that's by innate class bonuses, class features giving the ability for free, or just make it significantly less resource inventment to achieve.

Uniqueness in D&D is about being better at your stuff than the other guy and I think there's many ways to accomplish that with fighters and followers without outright preventing wizards from achieving a similar goal.
 

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
I think they are either out-dated, setting specific, or inadequate.

Anyone can get magic items, and a Paladin or Cleric generally benefits from a lot of the same items a fighter does.

And the Fighter-Lord is too setting specific and makes assumptions that people like Wizards, Clerics and Druids aren't doing a lot of the same "leading the people" type of stuff. Which, we know there are a lot of magic-users in positions of pwer within FR, Darksun, Eberron ect, so that doesn't work.

I think the premise with the Fighter-Lord, Christmas Tree, Magic Fighter, or the Mastermind is the idea that weapons martial arts plateaus and high level fighters have more time to pursue side projects like domain management or spell dabbling than full on spellcasters and priests.

But this is like you said very setting specific. Settings like Greyhawk, Dragonlance, or nonD&D ones like Westeros work well for this. But it is aa mismatch for FR, Darksun, or Eberron.

Sine Domain management was seen as adequate desirein the survey, perhaps the Fighter-Lord isn't worth doing. But i could see the Mastermind Fighter pushed as a more mental high level fighter.

At some point you've got to step back and say that just because X is mundane that doesn't mean the wizard will be as good at it.

We've done that with swords and armor. What's the justification that fighters get them and wizards don't? What's the justification for the higher hit die for the fighter? Why don't those same justifications work for followers as well?

I thought the basic assumption is that Arcane Magic is more time consuming that Weapons Combat.

To advance as a wizard, you must spend all your study and practice time with it to the point that you become weaker than peasants physically.

----

Not that I'm for the Fighter-Lord.
I am looking for the Demigod (your real Dad was Zeus all along) or the Mythic Fighter (I cut the fireball in half)
 
Last edited:

Amhain

Explorer
So this might be an awful idea, I ain't exactly a game designer or anything, but I'd say the Fighter class is stuck as a sacred cow.

In modern editions, everyone is fairly decent in combat, and so it's stuck having to only be good in combat, or step on the design toes of other classes. And even staying within combat, it has to contend with the danger of treading on the Barbarian's design space. And the addition of the Warlord is only going to make that even worse, as now the Fighter can't tread into "leader of men" territory without stepping on HIS toes.

So I'd say that Fighter should maybe just, cease to be a class. And so should Barbarian. Fighter is too vague in its theming, Barbarian too specific. Meet in the middle, mix-and-match their mechanical toys for different Archetypes, et voila.

Then split up the Fighter's traditional thematic role across:

This reworked, less thematically explicit Barbarian/Fighter hybrid. Purely focused on Combat and being physically strong. Maybe give it some of that "My saves are absurdly high, and so I reject your Spell's effect because I'm just that freaking tough." stuff that old school Fighters allegedly had way back in the days of editions I've not played and therefore can't speak to.

The Magicless Ranger. Combat and Exploration. Let Rangers actually be good in a fight again, as in 5e they're kinda gimped. The magicless ones can pick up some current Fighter toys mixed with their theming to help do it. I mean the class is named in reference to a guy whose most iconic weapon is a big honking sword.

The Warlord. Combat and Social. Leader of men theming, but with a focus on leading the party, rather than dragging the game to a crawl by giving him minions as core mechanics. Although absolutely let his features still work on minions, if the DM wants to let the party have them.

Like I said, maybe I'm just an idiot who knows nothing, but that's my two cents.
 
Last edited:

vincegetorix

Jewel of the North
So I'd say that Fighter should maybe just, cease to be a class. And so should Barbarian. Fighter is too vague in its theming, Barbarian too specific. Meet in the middle, mix-and-match their mechanical toys for different Archetypes, et voila.

Then split up the Fighter's traditional thematic role across:

That's not dumb. Fighter is probably only ''still a thing'' because of tradition.

If you have:
  • Barbarian, the reckless, war-loving brute (maybe with another name, I'm partial to Slayer but it could be anything)
  • Rogue, a nimble, city-based mobile fighter
  • Warlord, the intelligent and charismatic team fighter with a mind for strategy and synergy
  • Ranger, the ambush master, wilderness oriented guerrilla fighter
  • Paladin, divinely inspired noble fighter.

each of them fighting as good as the next while having defined theme and particular in-setting narrative, well then the fighter is a little redundant.

After all, what is a fighter when he's not strong and reckless, or mobile and nimble, or wise and charismatic, or crafty and stealthy?

I'd say it could be as simple as:
  • removing the fighter
  • Add a possible STR-build rogue with medium armor and shield (brute, thug, knave whatever)
  • Refluff the barbarian to be a little less primal-oriented (or not, if you prefer you Ranger with spells and thus, not mundane).
  • Create a warlord class.

and you have probably covered 90% of the fighter theme.
 

glass

(he, him)
I somewhat disagree. You don’t have to know the numbers to gauge a situations dangerousness or an opponents threat level.

a fighter that could go toe to toe with Godzilla is a lot stronger than 1 that goes toe to toe with a human fighter where neither are shown to be able to stand to something gargantuan and monstrous toe to toe. We all understand the hierarchy of power levels even if we disagree on the finer points of where to draw the lines.
We never see John Wick fight Godzilla, so we do not know how he would fare. We see him fight a lot of humans, and they could be (and are implied to be) quite high level themselves.

_
glass.
 

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
If I had to pick a fighter that wasn’t a lord i would go with the one nearly impervious to damage and magic with some ability to insta kill enemies sufficiently weaker than him. He would essentially be the “hero archetype”.

give him abilities to defend allies. Give him a healthy slew of out of ckmbat enhancing bailies that don’t compete with in combat abilities.

that’s my idea of afun high level fighter that doesn’t need to directly compete with wizards world changing power. He’s the enduring hero.
 

At some point you've got to step back and say that just because X is mundane that doesn't mean the wizard will be as good at it.

We've done that with swords and armor. What's the justification that fighters get them and wizards don't? What's the justification for the higher hit die for the fighter? Why don't those same justifications work for followers as well?

If it would make things more pallatable we can make a feat for it. Fighters get extra feats afterall. Wizards can get access if they really want but it costs them more than it does the fighter.

Sure, but "I am a landed noble" isn't something that you can bake into a class like the fighter without raising some serious eyebrows.

Heck, it isn't even something I'd want to see as a feat, I want that as a completely different sub-system that is opt in. Like Colville did. Because while I love running a realm and dealing with my own mini-campaign of companions, baking into the class is forcing that game style on people who don't want it.

And, it causes issues. Why doesn't my cleric have church followers? What if my Warlock starts a cult? Wiard wants to found a magic academy? Rogue wants to make a Thieves Guild? Druid is interested in creating an organic foods farm?

Every class has unique stories that can be told through that medium, and restricting it to fighters doesn't make any sense.


That's not dumb. Fighter is probably only ''still a thing'' because of tradition.

If you have:
  • Barbarian, the reckless, war-loving brute (maybe with another name, I'm partial to Slayer but it could be anything)
  • Rogue, a nimble, city-based mobile fighter
  • Warlord, the intelligent and charismatic team fighter with a mind for strategy and synergy
  • Ranger, the ambush master, wilderness oriented guerrilla fighter
  • Paladin, divinely inspired noble fighter.

each of them fighting as good as the next while having defined theme and particular in-setting narrative, well then the fighter is a little redundant.

After all, what is a fighter when he's not strong and reckless, or mobile and nimble, or wise and charismatic, or crafty and stealthy?

I'd say it could be as simple as:
  • removing the fighter
  • Add a possible STR-build rogue with medium armor and shield (brute, thug, knave whatever)
  • Refluff the barbarian to be a little less primal-oriented (or not, if you prefer you Ranger with spells and thus, not mundane).
  • Create a warlord class.

and you have probably covered 90% of the fighter theme.

I'm not sure I agree. The Heavily armored soldier is still a space for the fighter, the master of the battlefield. It may be a thin place, but it is there and should be preserved.
 

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
We never see John Wick fight Godzilla, so we do not know how he would fare. We see him fight a lot of humans, and they could be (and are implied to be) quite high level themselves.

_
glass.

for good reason. They were all human. Not one of them could have stood against Godzilla. John wick is good but not Godzilla slaying good.
 

Asisreo

Archdevil's Advocate
I'd say the difference is that Wizards don't get swords and armor by default. Fighters get it for free. And even if a wizard takes swords and armor, they still aren't as good with either as the fighter. They don't get extra attacks or damage enhancements. They don't get much hp. They get no weapon styles.
But those are only about having weapon attacks or AC, outside of that armor and weapons have no real usage to them. But a wizard can be equally as good with weapon attacks (or damage in general) as well as AC, as been pointed out before in this thread.

The fighter doesn't have a monopoly on martial weapons and heavy armor, either, as a class. The paladin gets all those things with the exception of Strength and Constitution saves. So where does that leave the fighter?
 

Amhain

Explorer
I'm not sure I agree. The Heavily armored soldier is still a space for the fighter, the master of the battlefield. It may be a thin place, but it is there and should be preserved.
Thus why my suggestion was some sort of hybrid of what is now Barbarian and Fighter. Some archetypes would move you away from armor, and into the true Barbarian thematic realm. Others would move towards armor and what we presently consider the Fighter. But by having them as variations on a single Class, we could give BOTH of those themes some of the stuff that is currently Barbarian only or Fighter only.
 

Sure, but "I am a landed noble" isn't something that you can bake into a class like the fighter without raising some serious eyebrows.

Heck, it isn't even something I'd want to see as a feat, I want that as a completely different sub-system that is opt in. Like Colville did. Because while I love running a realm and dealing with my own mini-campaign of companions, baking into the class is forcing that game style on people who don't want it.

And, it causes issues. Why doesn't my cleric have church followers? What if my Warlock starts a cult? Wiard wants to found a magic academy? Rogue wants to make a Thieves Guild? Druid is interested in creating an organic foods farm?

Every class has unique stories that can be told through that medium, and restricting it to fighters doesn't make any sense.




I'm not sure I agree. The Heavily armored soldier is still a space for the fighter, the master of the battlefield. It may be a thin place, but it is there and should be preserved.
In first ed, every class did have a follower and/or land mechanic, each according to their nature. It's certainly not impossible.
 

TheSword

Legend
Supporter
The fighter class has been around since 1974. Love it or hate it, it’s part of D&D’s bones. Yes it absolutely is a sacred cow.

The irony to the forum-hate the fighter gets is that it’s the most popular class according to WOC’s stats. While that may be because of multi-classing and low level play but the suggestion that it would be removed from the game and the role split across other combat classes is a pipe dream.

I have no problem with more tweaks and options, but there is simply no evidence that the fighter needs a complete re-write.
 

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top