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

[Neonchameleon]

Sadly a not insignificant number of players do not want a fighter who switches weapons based on the enemy and instead want to always use the same weapon which in the past even resulted in heirlom rules to increase the power of an existing weapon.

Why is having your weapon as a part of your character's identity sad? It's not my choice but I'm struggling to think of in fiction more than a couple of weapons associated with them, normally with one primary. In the real world it's similar because there isn't quite such an escalating accessible tech level. Continually replacing your sword for an extra +1 is pretty much a D&D and video game trope.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Imo the fighter, or rather one variant of fighter, should be merged with the ranger and be more like Gerald. That means monster knowledge and preparation, be it through poisons, traps or just knowledge which weapon to use against which monster (A sword against lizardmen? Only when you hit the legs. For the rest you need an axe).

A fighter as a specialist monster hunter would be awesome. The class has proficiency with all weapons and armor no because they can be built as you desire (though they can), but because they need to be able to use varying weaponry and armors to deal with enemies. In a game where immunities and vulnerbilities, as well as Mythic Trait would be better used, it would be awesome. Play as Geralt or the main character of the Monster Hunter or Dragon Dogma serie.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Why is having your weapon as a part of your character's identity sad? It's not my choice but I'm struggling to think of in fiction more than a couple of weapons associated with them, normally with one primary. In the real world it's similar because there isn't quite such an escalating accessible tech level. Continually replacing your sword for an extra +1 is pretty much a D&D and video game trope.

Because the monsters, in that game (the one described by Derren), monsters have specific vulnerabilties and resistances, not blanket ''you resist all that unless its magic''.

• Undead are resistant to slashing, immune to piercing and vulnerable to radiant and blunt!
• Oozes can split when hit by a slashing weapon, better change it for a spear or whatever!
• Iron golem need an adamantium blade to be damaged!
• Rust monster eats all metal that touches them, better switch to a hide armor and a club!
• Dragons will only be straffing over you with their breath, until you destroy their wings, witch are only non-resistant to slashing. Once on the ground, better break their scale with a blunt weapon before you try to use piercing or slashing weapon on them!

 

[Derren]

Why is having your weapon as a part of your character's identity sad? It's not my choice but I'm struggling to think of in fiction more than a couple of weapons associated with them, normally with one primary. In the real world it's similar because there isn't quite such an escalating accessible tech level. Continually replacing your sword for an extra +1 is pretty much a D&D and video game trope.

Actually in the real world most serious fighter (if we exclude archers) were trained in several weapons. Simply because not all weapons being effective against all armor types. A knight did not only know how to use a sword, they were also trained with the lance, usually the polaxe and of course wrestling with a dagger because a sword was nearly useless against someone in plate armor. Samurai too were not just trained with the katana but also spears and the bow.

And in a world full of supernatural monsters those vulnerabilities would also extend to them. See the examples @vincegetorix posted.

Of course on the other hand you could also have fighter feats which would allow them to overcome such resistances thanks to advance fighting techniques. Or at least use weapons in a different way like performing mordhau with a two handed sword.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Actually in the real world most serious fighter (if we exclude archers) were trained in several weapons. Simply because not all weapons being effective against all armor types. A knight did not only know how to use a sword, they were also trained with the lance, usually the polaxe and of course wrestling with a dagger because a sword was nearly useless against someone in plate armor. Samurai too were not just trained with the katana but also spears and the bow.

I said in fiction. And even in reality most of those weapons weren't alternatives for each other and you didn't keep upgrading your sword over time. Arthur had Excalibur (which he only ever upgraded when his sword broke) and his spear, Ron. Robin Hood had a bow and a sword. In play it's been mostly the same; I can't recall the last time I saw someone make a barbarian who didn't bring along javelins, throwing hammers, or something ranged - or a low level archer without a sword (although high level ones occasionally are able to Legolas-it-up, shooting in melee.

The D&D-specific problem isn't having multiple types of weapon for multiple jobs (which is something heirloom weapons don't do much about). It's the weapon upgrade treadmill where you start with an ordinary sword and throw it away or sell it on when you get a +1 sword. Let alone swap your sword for an axe just because it has an extra +1.

 

[Derren]

I said in fiction. And even in reality most of those weapons weren't alternatives for each other and you didn't keep upgrading your sword over time. Arthur had Excalibur (which he only ever upgraded when his sword broke) and his spear, Ron. Robin Hood had a bow and a sword. In play it's been mostly the same; I can't recall the last time I saw someone make a barbarian who didn't bring along javelins, throwing hammers, or something ranged - or a low level archer without a sword (although high level ones occasionally are able to Legolas-it-up, shooting in melee.

The D&D-specific problem isn't having multiple types of weapon for multiple jobs (which is something heirloom weapons don't do much about). It's the weapon upgrade treadmill where you start with an ordinary sword and throw it away or sell it on when you get a +1 sword. Let alone swap your sword for an axe just because it has an extra +1.

Wasn't 5E supposed to do away with this treadmill?
But even in the real world there were big quality differences and a pick from the royal armory as reward could be quite an upgrade.

 

[TwoSix]

Wasn't 5E supposed to do away with this treadmill?
But even in the real world there were big quality differences and a pick from the royal armory as reward could be quite an uograde.

It isn't really as bad as all that. Outside of a few focused builds (like Polearm Master/GWM), most warrior types are willing to switch weapons if a stronger magical weapon drops into their lap. There's probably still too many focused feats and class features in the game, with Fighting Styles and feats like PAM being the worst offenders. I do think the "using weapons for different bonuses" would be a nice trope to add to the fighter, maybe as an additional fighting style. And the Ranger, specifically, should have way more Witcher in it. (And probably would have if 5e had come out in 2017 instead of 2014.)

 

[Minigiant]

So what? If we're not allowed to use mythological characters with divine ancestry as our inspiration then we're going to have to say that most mythological wizards from Circe to Gandalf can't be used as inspiration (and for that matter Geoffrey of Monmouth's Merlin was half-demon).

If we're allowing demigods as player character inspiration then Achilles is no Hercules and calling him 20th level is a bit ridiculous. If we're not allowing demigods then we might as well ban most wizards and sorcerers.

And if we want an actual muggle class to hang with the demigod inspired class then perhaps not make the muggles into the tanks? Batman works with the Justice League as something close to either a rogue or a monk. Tony Stark's an artificer. Cap's explicitly a superhuman while the main party tanks, Thor and Hulk are both barbarians (Storm Herald for Thor, Rageblood for Hulk); the humans are rogue types who don't directly trade blows with the enemy.

Oh it's fine wih me.

I just am confused with people saying they want the high level fighter closer to the mundane then use Achilles, Hercules, Thor, and Samson as examples.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Just a quick thought: would it be OP for high level fighters (say tier 4) to have all the fighting styles? So, if they pick up a single weapon and shield, they benefit from Dueling, if they grab a two-handed weapon, they get GWF, and if they pick up two weapons, benefit from TWF-style.

With armor on (most of the time), they get the +1 to AC. If they have a shield, they can use their reaction for protection. Finally, make Archery something more universal like "ranged/thrown", so whenever the fire a ranged weapon or throw a weapon, they can get a +2 to attack rolls.

Is all that too much? It gives Fighters enormous versatility IMO and I don't think it is too much off-hand. shrug

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

The D&D-specific problem isn't having multiple types of weapon for multiple jobs (which is something heirloom weapons don't do much about). It's the weapon upgrade treadmill where you start with an ordinary sword and throw it away or sell it on when you get a +1 sword. Let alone swap your sword for an axe just because it has an extra +1.

My answer to that would be to have +X separate from the ''trait''.

+X would be the level of ''masterwork'' of your weapon. You could find +X weapon, but they still wont be magical. You could pay a blacksmith a hefty sum to increase the workmanship of your weapon, and visit and enchanter or blacksmith to add trait's to it.

Traits would be:
Magical (void weapon resistance from special creatures like dragons or elementals)
Silvered (void weapon resistance from shapechangers)
Cold-iron (void weapon resistance from feys)
Sacred (void weapon resistance from fiends and undead)
Corrupted (void weapon resistance from celestials)

This means having a Masterwork +2 spear would be cool, but against the General of the Archfey, you would be better to switch to a more basic +0 Cold-iron dagger.