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

[Amhain]

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.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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]

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.