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

[tetrasodium]

There's no need to have 10 to 20. My idea would be 2-3 non-combat retainers (like the Noble feature) and 1 ''pick from two'' companion, like the beastmaster. At high level, say 11+.

In my experience these turn into a smarter version of the 10 foot pole or the equivalent of "I send my familiar to scout with no foxes given if it dies" that doesn't get stopped by a door.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

In my experience these turn into a smarter version of the 10 foot pole or the equivalent of "I send my familiar to scout with no foxes given if it dies" that doesn't get stopped by a door.

Well, the Retainer feature's explicitly calls that they will leave if asked to do some stupid, dangerous stuff. Going to scout and recon would be ok, using their faces to detect traps would not. They are loyal, not stupid or suicidal.

EDIT: This makes me think: isnt it a problem with retainers in general? They are cheap and expendable. But I dont think ''but the players will abuse them and act like a**es with them'' is not a good reason to not have retainers in the game, in general or built in classes. Player's doing stupid crap with the game features should be dealt with at the table, not ignored by the book just in case.
See, at my table, the player's would not even think of abusing the loyalty of their retainers. If they did though, I think that would require a good long person to person talk: the problem is deeper than just a rule in a game.

 

[Asisreo]

No, like I said, it does not matter to this discussion. Talking about it is a waste of time, attention, and progress.

Very few people hold that a fighter's raw beatdown is a problem. I think we can posit that the fighter's biggest problem, if it exists, is not raw beatdown of monsters.

So why argue about it or talk about it? Waste of life.

It does matter. Bards are best at social pillars, bar none. Their exploration isn't best and their combat is passable, but they have every component needed to be the best social class easily with their spellcasting modifier, spell list, and class features.

The reason it matters is because if the fighter is unequivocally better in a fight, then we can understand to what degree they need a boost in the other 2 aspects. If they are equals to the warlock in both social and exploration but are also better than them in more combat situations, they'd make the warlock the absolute worst class with no way to make up for it, which isn't fair.

I understand we're trying to "fix" the fighter but I don't want to break everything else in such an attempt.

Let's be honest, none of what we're saying really matter to Level Up. Maybe Morrus will read our thread and maybe he'll add it to the survey and maybe it will be a big hit. But if in the market analysis side, such a project won't make much money outside of a few members, changes will need to be made in the direction of money.

But, let's be optimistic and say the end of this thread is going to be the team's final decision. Since we're all volunteering our time and brain power for free, we may as well try to be thorough and look through every angle.

I'm not against a different, crunchier, more versatile fighter and I don't think all the ideas posted are bad but a project being made without knowing the flaws will fail. Every idea has flaws and it's important to understand those flaws and limitations and sometimes it needs to be said that you're okay with the flaw even if it doesn't personally fit your fancy. But we should identify them.

 

[tetrasodium]

Well, the Retainer feature's explicitly calls that they will leave if asked to do some stupid, dangerous stuff. Going to scout and recon would be ok, using their faces to detect traps would not. They are loyal, not stupid or suicidal.

EDIT: This makes me think: isnt it a problem with retainers in general? They are cheap and expendable. But I dont think ''but the players will abuse them and act like a**es with them'' is not a good reason to not have retainers in the game, in general or built in classes. Player's doing stupid crap with the game features should be dealt with at the table, not ignored by the book just in case.
See, at my table, the player's would not even think of abusing the loyalty of their retainers. If they did though, I think that would require a good long person to person talk: the problem is deeper than just a rule in a game.

In order for players to not do "stupid crap" there needs to be pain involved in losing it.
Compare the 3.5 find familiar to it

5e loses the bonuses & keeps the deliver touch spells, but without a tactical component to combat & dramatically less squishy casters it's not a thing of note even when you consider that 5e does not actually have touch spells any longer despite 5e find familiar referencing them. In one version of d&d (basic?) you permanently lost hp if your familiar got killed.

I'm not going to breakdown 4e familiars because they were spread across like 5 pages & the system is too different to easily compare but pretty much amounted to gaining a sense bonus or small ability. In 5e losing your familiar costs 10gp & 1hr.. Losing your attendants?... again they don't really do anything so might as well use them to guard/watch/whatever till they get killed. You can't blame players for doing "stupid crap" with a resource that has no benefit when losing it has no cost. Likewise you can't expect the GM to pickup the slack because wotc left them unfinished instead of considering this kinda stuff & designing with it in mind.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

here needs to be pain involved in losing it.

No, sorry, but I disagree. Player that want to treat their followers as stupid automatons devoid of will or sense of self-preservation are not a problem with the rules, they are a table problem (or more, a problem player).

Just adding this '' and will leave if they are frequently endangered or abused. '' (from the Retainer feature of the Knight background) already solve 99% of problem with player abusing stuff. The remaining 1% is generally handle by the ultimate rule :'' Dont be a d*ck!''.
I generally define the ''obey your commands'' clause of familiars and such as having the same limits as Suggestion spells: ''The suggestion must be worded in such a manner as to make the course of action sound reasonable. Asking the creature to stab itself, throw itself onto a spear, immolate itself, or do some other obviously harmful act ends the spell result in the follower/familiar to ignore the command and acts on its own, focusing on protecting itself . ''

But I trust my players, I dont think having a bunch of rules to keep them in leash and refrain them from abusing NPC would not be necessary. Anyway, I'm the DM, if players abuse followers, I can have the follower reveal itself as an hidden avatar of Jorglub, Major Deity of Shut-Up-Carl!, and smash their abuser. If they act like juvenile pricks, I can too

 

[tetrasodium]

No, sorry, but I disagree. Player that want to treat their followers as stupid automatons devoid of will or sense of self-preservation are not a problem with the rules, they are a table problem (or more, a problem player).

Just adding this '' and will leave if they are frequently endangered or abused. '' (from the Retainer feature of the Knight background) already solve 99% of problem with player abusing stuff. The remaining 1% is generally handle by the ultimate rule :'' Dont be a d*ck!''.
I generally define the ''obey your commands'' clause of familiars and such as having the same limits as Suggestion spells: ''The suggestion must be worded in such a manner as to make the course of action sound reasonable. Asking the creature to stab itself, throw itself onto a spear, immolate itself, or do some other obviously harmful act ends the spell result in the follower/familiar to ignore the command and acts on its own, focusing on protecting itself . ''

But I trust my players, I dont think having a bunch of rules to keep them in leash and refrain them from abusing NPC would not be necessary. Anyway, I'm the DM, if players abuse followers, I can have the follower reveal itself as an hidden avatar of Jorglub, Major Deity of Shut-Up-Carl!, and smash their abuser. If they act like juvenile pricks, I can too

"I send my owl to scout" proves you wrong People didn't do that as recklessly back in3.5 because it could mean losing the alert feat benfits among other things & he sneaky rogur/ranger/whatever did it better or good enough

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

"I send my owl to scout" proves you wrong

Is it a reasonable request in said situation? If the owl can scout from a mile up in the air and report back, its all good. If you send it flying in a closed room or active dungeon full of potentials monster, the familiar will just say "lol no''.

The DM is playing the NPCs, if he cant keep its player from abusing stuff, there's a bigger problem than a cheap, no consequence Find Familiar.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Is it a reasonable request in said situation? If the owl can scout from a mile up in the air and report back, its all good. If you send it flying in a closed room or active dungeon full of potentials monster, the familiar will just say "lol no''.

The DM is playing the NPCs, if he cant keep its player from abusing stuff, there's a bigger problem than a cheap, no consequence Find Familiar.

FWIW an easy way to prevent abuse of familiars is to give a level of exhaustion to the PC if their familiar dies. MWAHAHAHAHA!

 

[tetrasodium]

Is it a reasonable request in said situation? If the owl can scout from a mile up in the air and report back, its all good. If you send it flying in a closed room or active dungeon full of potentials monster, the familiar will just say "lol no''.

The DM is playing the NPCs, if he cant keep its player from abusing stuff, there's a bigger problem than a cheap, no consequence Find Familiar.

That's the problem. It's too good at scouting to the point where it's basically a silent parrot drone that has no meaningful cost if you lose it & in many ways this disposable thing is better at scouting than stealth classes with a lot of their identity wrapped up in being stealthy for the reasons you cite. as to your last point no that is not in any way a reasonable design "yea this ability doesn't really do what fits it thematically & there's really only one valid choice with all other familiars being pretty identical but the gm will make up rules that steer this trainwreck of a feature back on course" is not a reasonable way to design a system the gm pays for

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

abuse of familiars

Does this really happens all that much?

I think its one of those theoric problem seen on the internet and not much at the table, and even when it does happen at the table, it is quickly dealt with with a mature discussion.

and if the table is actually ok with sacrificing followers left and right because they can and the DM does not mind, more power to them.