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

[Tales and Chronicles]

I explained that what I was referring to was your suggested charm and 3 answers effect

I dont know if that would make a difference, but I was not saying the fighter should be able to charm and ask question as part of an attack. Like, not a maneuver where you would strike someone then he would be charmed for X minute. I was referring to the same ''charm'' effect as the Swashbuckler.

I also dont wont magical stuff on the base fighter. I'm not even sure I want supernatural stuff or overly super-heroic/wuxia features on them. But I still think that having the capacity for mundane character to do something on par with spells without being magical can be done.

An exemple:
Lets say in a perfect world steelwind strike did not exist as a spell. Your fighter could have a feature like this:

Warrior's rush (level X):
You flourish your weapon, moving at an incredible speed to meet your fies. Choose up to five creatures you can see within your move distance. Make an attack against each target. On a hit, a target takes the normal weapon damage + 2 x your fighter level damage.

You must finish your move within 10 feet of one of the targets you hit or missed. You can use this feature once per rest. At level X you can use twice per rest.

or you rogue:
Network (level y):
At the start of a long rest in a settlement in which you maintained at least X lifestyle, you contact your network of informers and ask up to three questions that can be answered with a yes or no. You must ask your questions at the end of the long rest. You receive a correct answer for each question by the means of a messenger or spell effect.

The network aren't necessarily omniscient, so you might receive "unclear" as an answer if a question pertains to information that lies beyond the network's knowledge. In a case where a one-word answer could be misleading or contrary to the network's interests, the DM might offer a short phrase as an answer instead.

If you use this feature two or more times before a week has passed, there is a cumulative 25 percent chance for each use after the first that you get no answer. The DM makes this roll in secret.


Too me they arent too magical, but this is where preferences come into play.

 

[FrogReaver]

I dont know if that would make a difference, but I was not saying the fighter should be able to charm and ask question as part of an attack. Like, not a maneuver where you would strike someone then he would be charmed for X minute. I was referring to the same ''charm'' effect as the Swashbuckler.

I also dont wont magical stuff on the base fighter. I'm not even sure I want supernatural stuff or overly super-heroic/wuxia features on them. But I still think that having the capacity for mundane character to do something on par with spells without being magical can be done.

An exemple:
Lets say in a perfect world steelwind strike did not exist as a spell. Your fighter could have a feature like this:

Warrior's rush (level X):
You flourish your weapon, moving at an incredible speed to meet your fies. Choose up to five creatures you can see within your move distance. Make an attack against each target. On a hit, a target takes the normal weapon damage + 2 x your fighter level damage.

You must finish your move within 10 feet of one of the targets you hit or missed. You can use this feature once per rest. At level X you can use twice per rest.

or you rogue:
Network (level y):
At the start of a long rest in a settlement in which you maintained at least X lifestyle, you contact your network of informers and ask up to three questions that can be answered with a yes or no. You must ask your questions at the end of the long rest. You receive a correct answer for each question by the means of a messenger or spell effect.

The network aren't necessarily omniscient, so you might receive "unclear" as an answer if a question pertains to information that lies beyond the network's knowledge. In a case where a one-word answer could be misleading or contrary to the network's interests, the DM might offer a short phrase as an answer instead.

If you use this feature two or more times before a week has passed, there is a cumulative 25 percent chance for each use after the first that you get no answer. The DM makes this roll in secret.


Too me they arent too magical, but this is where preferences come into play.

hard to break up response on phone. I’m good with both of those features. No issues here. I’d event say l like them. Though I would steer clear of just making better damaging abilities for the fighter. Yours deals with mooks pretty well so I think it has a place. Overall I like them.

 

[Micah Sweet]

You know... was like.....''LOL no! Never!''...but then...I think, finally, you are right. There's just not enough interesting stuff for mundane to do at higher level, even worst when you spread rather average features over 20 levels (looking at you Indomitable).

Make the mundane classes (Rogue, Fighter, maybe Warlord and Barbarian) more condensed in only 10 level, let the magic ones have a slower progression toward 20 levels.
This would make mundanes better at using Prestige classes and multiclassing, having a wider spectrum of ability while the spellcaster have a deeper mastery of their thing: game-changing magic.

You know, I actually like this a lot. Cap the mundanes at 10th level (where they have certainly fully expressed all that a mundane fighter or rogue should be) and follow it up with prestige classes that expand on more specific areas. Prestige classes would even end my war on multiclassing, since there's no low level dip.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Though I would steer clear of just making better damaging abilities for the fighter.

That's the main problem with the fighter, innit? I can find about 1000 new ways to deal more damage or damage in a different ways, but I cant seem to find much thing to do for the out of combat portion, beyond going with skills/tools proficiency or expertise, which is a little boring.

I thing one problem is the frequent request of having a warlord as a separate class. It splits the theme of fighting-person a little too thin because you then have the fighter restricted to the damage/defense role because the party-enhancing/socialy apt things are left to the warlord. Then you have the ''angry armor less'' fighter as a separate class, the woodsy fighter as a separate class, the light skirmishing fighter as a separate class...the theme of the fighter is a little thin.

I'm not saying those classes should be merged with the fighter even though they could be, but the overall theme of the fighter needs to be stuffed a little.

Now you have the fighter be the specialist of the Stronghold/Retainer subsystem, just like the Ranger being the master of Journey subsystem would be awesome if Journey rules were indeed interesting. Making those 2 systems A) not optional B) actually meaningful in the developing story should really be a priority for A5E if it the rangers and fighters have any chances of success.

 

[TwoSix]

I thing one problem is the frequent request of having a warlord as a separate class. It splits the theme of fighting-person a little too thin because you then have the fighter restricted to the damage/defense role because the party-enhancing/socialy apt things are left to the warlord. Then you have the ''angry armor less'' fighter as a separate class, the woodsy fighter as a separate class, the light skirmishing fighter as a separate class...the theme of the fighter is a little thin.

I think you could probably make a strong argument that the more choices you put into a class, the less class choices you actually need.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

You know, I actually like this a lot. Cap the mundanes at 10th level (where they have certainly fully expressed all that a mundane fighter or rogue should be) and follow it up with prestige classes that expand on more specific areas. Prestige classes would even end my war on multiclassing, since there's no low level dip.

Exactly. End ideally, you should threat casters who take a prestige class as a normal multiclass, meaning that you still gain higher level spells slots, but not higher-level known spells. So if a casters want to go all in and learn 9th level spells, they will need to stay mono-class. This way for mundanes, prestige classes are a natural progression, for caster they are a choice with a cost.

 

[FrogReaver]

That's the main problem with the fighter, innit? I can find about 1000 new ways to deal more damage or damage in a different ways, but I cant seem to find much thing to do for the out of combat portion, beyond going with skills/tools proficiency or expertise, which is a little boring.

I thing one problem is the frequent request of having a warlord as a separate class. It splits the theme of fighting-person a little too thin because you then have the fighter restricted to the damage/defense role because the party-enhancing/socialy apt things are left to the warlord. Then you have the ''angry armor less'' fighter as a separate class, the woodsy fighter as a separate class, the light skirmishing fighter as a separate class...the theme of the fighter is a little thin.

I'm not saying those classes should be merged with the fighter even though they could be, but the overall theme of the fighter needs to be stuffed a little.

Now you have the fighter be the specialist of the Stronghold/Retainer subsystem, just like the Ranger being the master of Journey subsystem would be awesome if Journey rules were indeed interesting. Making those 2 systems A) not optional B) actually meaningful in the developing story should really be a priority for A5E if it the rangers and fighters have any chances of success.

That's the main problem with the fighter, innit? I can find about 1000 new ways to deal more damage or damage in a different ways, but I cant seem to find much thing to do for the out of combat portion, beyond going with skills/tools proficiency or expertise, which is a little boring.

I thing one problem is the frequent request of having a warlord as a separate class. It splits the theme of fighting-person a little too thin because you then have the fighter restricted to the damage/defense role because the party-enhancing/socialy apt things are left to the warlord. Then you have the ''angry armor less'' fighter as a separate class, the woodsy fighter as a separate class, the light skirmishing fighter as a separate class...the theme of the fighter is a little thin.

I'm not saying those classes should be merged with the fighter even though they could be, but the overall theme of the fighter needs to be stuffed a little.

Now you have the fighter be the specialist of the Stronghold/Retainer subsystem, just like the Ranger being the master of Journey subsystem would be awesome if Journey rules were indeed interesting. Making those 2 systems A) not optional B) actually meaningful in the developing story should really be a priority for A5E if it the rangers and fighters have any chances of success.

I think that’s maybe the problem

A fighter is one who fights.

a rogue is one who is skillful (typically at thievery and persuasion/deception)

a wizard is one who studies to cast spells

a cleric is one who gets magic from the gods

a paladin is an oath take that derives magical power from his path

each other class defines who they are in the world by describing what they do in the world and not just how that they fight.

perhaps magical power should stop at 5th level spells. Spread those out over the level range a bit slower. Require items to allow you to cast higher spells than 5th.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

I think you could probably make a strong argument that the more choices you put into a class, the less class choices you actually need.

Yeah, deep down inside, I would prefer less classes with more choices and variants, but D&D being what it is, its pretty hard to go back to less; people are still clamoring back for the classes they lost from 4e, even though AD&D had like 4 core classes and now in 2020 we have 12 core classes.

 

[FrogReaver]

Yeah, deep down inside, I would prefer less classes with more choices and variants, but D&D being what it is, its pretty hard to go back to less; people are still clamoring back for the classes they lost from 4e, even though AD&D had like 4 core classes and now in 2020 we have 12 core classes.

Im the opposite. Make a class for everything is my preference. Just get rid of multiclassing when you do.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

perhaps magical power should stop at 5th level spells. Spread those out over the level range a bit slower. Require items to allow you to cast higher spells than 5th.

This. 10000 times this.
All characters, no matter the class, should have to spend time, money or other resources to gain the type of power generated by a 6th level spell. A spell slot (and maybe a component) is not, and never will be an high enough cost to justify that type of power.

Have wizards deal with weird and rare reagents, have warlock deal and do a favor for their patron, have the cleric sacrifice or quest for their god in order to gain access to the higher level of magic. If a fighter has to quest or spend a lot of money for access to better weapon/equipment, so should the casters.