Parry is not baked into AC currently. If it was then your AC would change when you pick up a weapon. You could argue that it is baked into HP I suppose (but that just further stretches the HP abstraction).
ThiS is incorrect.
Parry, dodge, physical reach, and assorted other elements are already backed into both AC and HP.
AC is not merely aror -- if it was, then an unarmored commoner would not have an AC of 10. HP is not merely physical wounds, if it was, there wouldn't be any increase to HP over time.
What it seems like you are seeking is a way to make AC & HP work "more realistically", and you are triggering off the terminology used to describe a decision made about what to do in this six second long period of time.
If you have ever fenced, or even watched fencing, you know that six seconds is a VERY long time. IF you have not, well, go and find some clips, lol. Go dig up any of the many different reenactment fights.
Then, realize that what D&D does is not about a swing and hit or miss once every six seconds. It is about a lot of swings and parries and assorted fighting efforts and the rolls represent the one moment out of 36 moments that a combatant has tried some fancy thing and managed to see an opening and tried to take it.
Everything there is to think of when it comes to defense and survival of a blow is taken account of in HP and AC.
You state that Riposte and Parry are something any trained swordsperson will know -- and that's true. THat is already included in AC and HP. Battlemasters are *better at it* than anyone else, though -- they have a particular insight into their skill and use of such that they can use it in ways to provide themselves and additional benefit.THe same applies to all of the Battlemaster features.
What you argue is that everyone would be a skilled combatant if they did this -- except that everyone is already a skilled combatant -- Battle mast4s are more skilled. You already have what you want, according to that.
So perhaps what you want is a way to make combat more exciting by being able to describe each swing -- all 36 movements in a six second round.
The point is that everything you mention is already taken into account between AC and HP.
All of tis is also why you don't have "i cut off an arm, a hand, a leg", and why the lingering injuries option is so rarely used, and why a lot of the stuff that's present in other games around Defensive Stats and Survival Stats that attempt to be "more realistic" are all so incredibly different in how they approach it. Not everyone likes the idea of a generic, abstract stat like HP and AC -- btu they are at the heart of D&D as a game, and that is one of the key things that makes it the most popular ttrpg in the world.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
As was pointed out earlier, the reason that they leave the fighter as it is, for the most part, with only minor tweaks, is that 80% of the responses they get suggest that's how people want their fighters to be. This is an important point though -- it isn't "some people" who want it like that. It is, at a minimum, 80% of the people want their fighters like that.
And that includes all the subclasses, as well. Indeed, it is actually speaking to the subclasses, specifically.
So your suggestions are to the smaller number of folks. This means that your suggestions will not be popular, as well. They just took out a bunch of possible secondary things because people didn't like them for other classes, including other subclasses of fighter.
And this matters because the single most popular combination of race and class over the last 40 years has been a Human Fighter. In 5e, that's the Champion subclass.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
I guess I missed "exactly equals the target AC". I'm not sure why that limitation is needed since there is a big trade off in not doing damage on the attack. What was your thinking on that part?
I think I was trying to make it something which is a rare occasion. I might instead make it in addition to the damage, so this forms something isolated from the Critical hit but also quite interesting to do. More of a "you happen to see an opportunity" kind of event rather than a "You planned this meticulously".
I would just like to point out that this is a major company conducting the survey, not someone’s high school math project. They aren’t just going to put the final numbers on a pie chart and say “go with the biggest wedge”; they’re almost certainly going to have a few statisticians break the information down and write up reports on the segments. Obviously majority opinions will have greater sway and those will be skewed by what segments most participate in the survey, but that’s how literally every customer opinion survey works, not a unique failing of WotC.
Absolutely. My point is just to clarify this because I've seen a lot of people in the aforementioned discussions completely overlook this fact. And you're right that Wizards will almost certainly understand this, because it is how they can profit the most after all lol.
I think Fighter is a good example of what The_Ace_of_Rogues is talking about.
In Crawford’s recent video on this exact subject, he indicated polling showed most folks want a more complex playstyle than base Fighter, but that there was still a sizeable minority who are extremely happy with the simplicity. He also noted that base fighter was a great tool for new players to dip their feet into the game, without feeling overwhelmed (a common new player complaint and common fear keeping folks from trying the game).
Crawford basically confirmed that they were not going to side with the majority because they did not want two other demographics to suffer - the sizeable minority who want a simple characters and new players - as a result of deferring to the majority’s wants. Personally, that decision is one of the most reassuring things I have seen from Wizards throughout this entire 5.5e playtest—they have been putting so much emphasis on the majority opinions on their videos that it is nice to see they are not losing sight of other priorities.
Go forbid they would be creative enough to find a solution that satisfies those that want simplicity and those that don't. In fact I'd argue they should be trying to solve this for casters too - give players a better way to dip their toe in when their favorite fantasy character is a wizard.
They did. Subclasses. Or playing as a Bladesinger. Or a Hexblade. Or a Paladin. Or any of the other options available. Wizards isn’t the problem here - the problem is folks who want to play a character with options then just… don’t take advantage of the many ways to do it.
Now, do I think they should make some new complex subclass options for fighter? Certainly - but I would not force my desire for more complexity on the myriad players who do not want it.
No they most certainly did not. While I have come to accept that they likely WILL not, I most definitely don't accept that they have given us real martial choices (and I include rogue, monk, barbarian - all the classes that don't cast spells) that have the diversity and options available that spell casters have. And while I don't expect the fighter/rogue/etc to fully compete with a wizard they could at least have the same number of interesting things to do.
Bladesinger is just "hold my beer while I give wizards a mechanic that makes them better in combat than the 'masters of armor and weapons'". Hexblade is much the same but with different mechanics, and paladin too. The message in all of those is that the fighter has no real identity that other classes don't stomp all over at will.
The subclasses are a joke compared to the options and choices (again choices is not the same as power) that other classes are given as they progress.
It sounds more like the issue is not that Fighters suck, it's that spellcasting classes (swords bard, hexblade warlock, paladins, and bladesingers) are encroaching on their land, whilst their best effort is the Eldritch Knight, which frankly doesn't work very well.
It all boils down to the fact that a Fighter can deal a good amount of damage with Attack actions. The spellcasters can deal a good amoutn of damage in a huge variety of different ways. They both math up about the same over an adventuring day, but the Figher spent all day hitting the "A" key on his keyboard, and the Wizard wrote the first paragraph of Hamlet, to achieve the same outcome of "enemies are dead".
Yeah, weapon-users typically just spam Attack. That’s how you use a weapon in D&D. Special moves are already covered with Battlemaster, and beyond that there’s little room until you get into overt powers, which are not a part of the basic Fighter format, given the medieval fantasy premise. Mix of design preference and nature of the beast, at the end of the day.
It sounds more like the issue is not that Fighters suck, it's that spellcasting classes (swords bard, hexblade warlock, paladins, and bladesingers) are encroaching on their land, whilst their best effort is the Eldritch Knight, which frankly doesn't work very well.
It all boils down to the fact that a Fighter can deal a good amount of damage with Attack actions. The spellcasters can deal a good amoutn of damage in a huge variety of different ways. They both math up about the same over an adventuring day, but the Figher spent all day hitting the "A" key on his keyboard, and the Wizard wrote the first paragraph of Hamlet, to achieve the same outcome of "enemies are dead".
That's accurate.
A sub-problem here is just general lack of utility outside combat (the second wind stuff seems to help fighters a bit in this regard in the playtests).
I'd add that when I hear "play 3.5 or pathfinder" that's like swinging the pendulum from "just an A-key" to "here's a small programming language", lol. There has to be a middle ground (which is what I was playing around with in the original post). The idea that the designers can't give one group of players a viable "I just wanna spam the A-key" choices while also providing other players something that still fulfills a high-fantasy fighter (not some other class masquerading as a fighter) is just wrong. They may not be WILLING to do it, but it isn't because they can't do it. There are options out there (I outlined some, another poster put some in, I've see stuff in simpler games even).
It's so exciting to be a skilled warrior and know 2 whole tricks and be able use one of them once per fight (at most). Gosh, what will they write in the history books about me?
It's so exciting to be a skilled warrior and know 2 whole tricks and be able use one of them once per fight (at most). Gosh, what will they write in the history books about me?
That you and possibly also your DM should have read the "Improvising An Action" sidebar in the Combat chapter? You can do a lot more in 5e than "I attack."
I would be fine with having a more complex Warrior. Preferably though, it would be a new class so that none of the beloved existing simple choices or more niche martial classes become playable only to a small number of players.
With this being said, I do think we need a simple caster. Yes, one could tell me that some of the spellcasters in fifth really aren't that complicated, but I think that even whatever the least complicated one is, it is nowhere near as complex as the most confusing base class for a Warrior.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
I don't think you should be fooled by names like "Parry" etc. into thinking that every other combatant in all the DnD universes doesn't know "put my slashy stick in way of opponent slashy stick makes it not hurt". A more accurate name would be something like "Skillfull parry", but that's a mouth full. Every other class just has its parry baked into AC, which of course is an oversimplification, but pretty much everything in the DnD rules is.
Not to mention, some monsters even have what you would smartly classify as "Skillful parry". They can take a reaction to parry something and add +2 to their AC against one attack, I believe.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
The vast majority of this seems to boil down to one basic idea.
My martial character is boring in combat and out of it.
Talk to your DM. There are plenty of options in the PHB and DMG that can make your martial more interesting in combat. Use an action to disarm your foe, then a free action to kick it away. Use your action to Intimidate the horde of minions into not attacking- and substitute a display of physical prowess (Athletics) rather than verbally (Intimidation). For out of combat, request the DM be specific when having NPC interactions. Why would a warrior-king talk to the untrustworthy bard when a noble knight is present? Perhaps the DM could use some help with worldbuilding.
Talk to the other players. Just because you are not skilled at Investigation doesn't mean you cannot Help search a room. Perhaps you just need to slap the bard and tell them to shut up once in a while (let him give the Help to you). Assert your utility in the quiet moments- who is inspecting the groups weapons and armor, sharpening the blades, setting watch schedules? Why wait until the DM asks for it and make it part of your personality to handle it? Role-playing opportunities can be within the party, not just with NPCs.
Lastly, see if you can make adjustments to your background skills and backstory to fill a hole your party doesn't have. Something as simple as Animal Handling proficiency can give you a whole range of combat options against beasts, for instance.
I've done many of these (and others). Heck, my fighter was elected by the group to be the captain of our pirate ship (over half-hearted protests from the very charismatic warlock).
However, I'm sure you can understand that there is something helpful about having mechanical support for your character to do interesting things (if there wasn't we would all play free form RPGs with no rules).
As others have said, the simple fighter isn't going away because it is extremely popular. I tend to add complexity to martial characters with custom magic items, and the extra feats for rogue and fighter help. You can also homebrew your own subclasses with more complexity, the character building tools provide plenty of ways to do so.
"Just homebrew it" might not be a satisfying answer to you, but it is a real solution with the tools that you have that can address your needs. It is 1000% more likely to improve your life than complaining on this forum about it.
What I'm more interested in is a collection of actions for outside of combat. In my experience, martials are satisfying to play in combat but sit on the sidelines in the other two pillars of the game while the spellcasters dip into the vast utility of their spell lists.
As others have said, the simple fighter isn't going away because it is extremely popular. I tend to add complexity to martial characters with custom magic items, and the extra feats for rogue and fighter help. You can also homebrew your own subclasses with more complexity, the character building tools provide plenty of ways to do so.
"Just homebrew it" might not be a satisfying answer to you, but it is a real solution with the tools that you have that can address your needs. It is 1000% more likely to improve your life than complaining on this forum about it.
What I'm more interested in is a collection of actions for outside of combat. In my experience, martials are satisfying to play in combat but sit on the sidelines in the other two pillars of the game while the spellcasters dip into the vast utility of their spell lists.
You may be right about homebrew; and you're definitely right about feats.
I'm curious if the second wind changes in the playtest help scratch your out-of-combat itch?
It's so exciting to be a skilled warrior and know 2 whole tricks and be able use one of them once per fight (at most). Gosh, what will they write in the history books about me?
Probably that you responded in a waspish fashion to a legitimate in-game suggestion that did not break, bend, or invent any rules. You wanted some of the abilities that the Battlemaster has and you can get them. Surely your present sub-class has tricks of its own to fall upon? You could also consider a multiclass dip into another martial class to get more martial skills, Twilight Cleric, Peace Cleric, War Cleric, or Rogue for further options.
It's so exciting to be a skilled warrior and know 2 whole tricks and be able use one of them once per fight (at most). Gosh, what will they write in the history books about me?
Probably that you responded in a waspish fashion to a legitimate in-game suggestion that did not break, bend, or invent any rules. You wanted some of the abilities that the Battlemaster has and you can get them. Surely your present sub-class has tricks of its own to fall upon? You could also consider a multiclass dip into another martial class to get more martial skills, Twilight Cleric, Peace Cleric, War Cleric, or Rogue for further options.
It's so exciting to be a skilled warrior and know 2 whole tricks and be able use one of them once per fight (at most). Gosh, what will they write in the history books about me?
Probably that you responded in a waspish fashion to a legitimate in-game suggestion that did not break, bend, or invent any rules. You wanted some of the abilities that the Battlemaster has and you can get them. Surely your present sub-class has tricks of its own to fall upon? You could also consider a multiclass dip into another martial class to get more martial skills, Twilight Cleric, Peace Cleric, War Cleric, or Rogue for further options.
Oh and surely your "Or you know..." wasn't intended to be sarcastic, condescending, or both. Feigning innocence after the fact is sad. Provide sarcasm and get some in response.
WotC should be creative enough to satisfy those that want simplicity and those that don't.
They should be trying to give players a better way to dip their toe in when their favorite fantasy character is a wizard.
They have not given us real martial choices that have the diversity and options available that spell casters have.
Fighter/rogue/etc should at least have the same number of interesting things to do as Spellcasters
Bladesinger and Hexblade send the message that the fighter has no real identity that other classes don't stomp all over at will.
The subclasses for fighter are a joke compared to the options and choices of other classes
There is just general lack of utility outside combat.
So, once again, I am going to chime in with some horrible things you very pointedly do not seem to want to hear.
Those subclasses for Fighter and Rogue and Etc are also all individually liked by at least 80%of the total base of folks who have responded to the survey. A Survey that is available and encouraged to all of the 15 million (call it 12 million to account for all the bots, right?) folks who are registered here (but probably only half a million actually respond, statistically).
THe Devs may glance through these forums, but what happens here in the General forum isn't going to be one they have a solid business oriented, development based reason to look at -- the UA forum, maybe, but beyond that and the functionality stuff (which is a different team) they aren't going to give a rat's butt, because the flat out basic goals for all of the classes and subclasses is that each one of the classes and each of the four subclasses that they are going to put into the the 2024 PHB have to all garner at least 80% approval through those surveys.
That's it. Period. You are correct, then, in your "why don't they address the other 20% of us?" kind of bitterness, because they aren't going to do anything but what they have done, no matter how many posts about it there are, because the only thing they are going to do is fit those 80% measures.
If you are not part of that 80%, then go learn some ttrpg mechanics and start building your own classes, because if you are going to hold your breath until they do make changes that you personally are going to be able to approve, well...
You will be waiting until they decide to do 6e at the soonest. So maybe 2030, probably 2034. And that's oly if someone manages to give them a good reason based in the business (and, sorry, but "address the needs of the 20%" doesn't cut it -- because if it did, they would have done so. Not that in that 20% are all the folks who want 5e to be more like 1e, or 3.5e, or PF, or Tunnels and Trolls or CHampions or pick whatever other game you can think of because that 20% is fractured into a hundred tiny pieces that will not agree with you, so you wouldn't even be making them work for the 20%, but rather for the fraction of 1%).
Best bet -- if the folks who want those changes can be shown to spend like 30% of the total amount of money on all the D&D things, you could get your wish. Anything less, you really only have one genuine option, given that I happen to agree with how telling you to "go play a different game" is like slapping in you in the face with rudeness and being rather bleeping lousy at explaining things to boot.
You have to homebrew. No, I will correct that. You must homebrew.
And I don't mean homebrew it up on DDB. Flat out, you probably won't be able to do so, imo/ime. For genuinely creative structures, the system here doesn't allow nor was it created to allow such things. I mean, I'm sure you could homebrew your special purpose monster warrior by banging together different existing features -- but that's not creative, and the flat truth is that you have to do it in concert with your DM, since the only place you will be able to play it is that one.
But, if you did do it here, and someone else saw it and they liked it, they might talk to their DM and get them to let it be used in their campaign.
That's the rub.
Now, if you think that telling you that homebrew things is the only viable solution you have "doesn't solve your problem", then the problem isn't with WotC, or the advice any of the folks here have given you.
I have homebrewed classes for decades. I just finished doing playtesting over seven months of 19 different classes. I don't happen to like any single one of the subclasses or classes in the game at present or coming out of the UA. Nope, not a one. I have a legion of reasons for it. So I created my own. I do like them.
If I am lucky, maybe someone will want to play a Reeve or Envoy or Witch or Shaman down the road in someone else's game. Probably not an FR game, though -- all of my classes are designed and built around the game world I created -- just like I always do, unless it is just going to be a hellride like the campaign that I created and ran while I worked on this next one.
because I don't have the goal of pleasing 80% of the total player base of D&D. I just have to make myself and my table happy.
I am not going to pound sand here in a place where there is the lowest possible chance of having my gripes be seen that they somehow magically decide I must know more than they do and give me some all powerful role as the final arbiter of the game should be designed.
Because while my ego is so large it has invaded 20 other universes (you think that's air you're breathing? Nope. That's my ego), it isn't a damn fool.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Oh and surely your "Or you know..." wasn't intended to be sarcastic, condescending, or both. Feigning innocence after the fact is sad. Provide sarcasm and get some in response.
Because up until that point nobody had mentioned the feat, and were making suggestions that required GM fiat. I wasn't talking to you, I was talking to everybody else.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
ThiS is incorrect.
Parry, dodge, physical reach, and assorted other elements are already backed into both AC and HP.
AC is not merely aror -- if it was, then an unarmored commoner would not have an AC of 10. HP is not merely physical wounds, if it was, there wouldn't be any increase to HP over time.
What it seems like you are seeking is a way to make AC & HP work "more realistically", and you are triggering off the terminology used to describe a decision made about what to do in this six second long period of time.
If you have ever fenced, or even watched fencing, you know that six seconds is a VERY long time. IF you have not, well, go and find some clips, lol. Go dig up any of the many different reenactment fights.
Then, realize that what D&D does is not about a swing and hit or miss once every six seconds. It is about a lot of swings and parries and assorted fighting efforts and the rolls represent the one moment out of 36 moments that a combatant has tried some fancy thing and managed to see an opening and tried to take it.
Everything there is to think of when it comes to defense and survival of a blow is taken account of in HP and AC.
You state that Riposte and Parry are something any trained swordsperson will know -- and that's true. THat is already included in AC and HP. Battlemasters are *better at it* than anyone else, though -- they have a particular insight into their skill and use of such that they can use it in ways to provide themselves and additional benefit.THe same applies to all of the Battlemaster features.
What you argue is that everyone would be a skilled combatant if they did this -- except that everyone is already a skilled combatant -- Battle mast4s are more skilled. You already have what you want, according to that.
So perhaps what you want is a way to make combat more exciting by being able to describe each swing -- all 36 movements in a six second round.
The point is that everything you mention is already taken into account between AC and HP.
All of tis is also why you don't have "i cut off an arm, a hand, a leg", and why the lingering injuries option is so rarely used, and why a lot of the stuff that's present in other games around Defensive Stats and Survival Stats that attempt to be "more realistic" are all so incredibly different in how they approach it. Not everyone likes the idea of a generic, abstract stat like HP and AC -- btu they are at the heart of D&D as a game, and that is one of the key things that makes it the most popular ttrpg in the world.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
As was pointed out earlier, the reason that they leave the fighter as it is, for the most part, with only minor tweaks, is that 80% of the responses they get suggest that's how people want their fighters to be. This is an important point though -- it isn't "some people" who want it like that. It is, at a minimum, 80% of the people want their fighters like that.
And that includes all the subclasses, as well. Indeed, it is actually speaking to the subclasses, specifically.
So your suggestions are to the smaller number of folks. This means that your suggestions will not be popular, as well. They just took out a bunch of possible secondary things because people didn't like them for other classes, including other subclasses of fighter.
And this matters because the single most popular combination of race and class over the last 40 years has been a Human Fighter. In 5e, that's the Champion subclass.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
I think I was trying to make it something which is a rare occasion. I might instead make it in addition to the damage, so this forms something isolated from the Critical hit but also quite interesting to do. More of a "you happen to see an opportunity" kind of event rather than a "You planned this meticulously".
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
No they most certainly did not. While I have come to accept that they likely WILL not, I most definitely don't accept that they have given us real martial choices (and I include rogue, monk, barbarian - all the classes that don't cast spells) that have the diversity and options available that spell casters have. And while I don't expect the fighter/rogue/etc to fully compete with a wizard they could at least have the same number of interesting things to do.
Bladesinger is just "hold my beer while I give wizards a mechanic that makes them better in combat than the 'masters of armor and weapons'". Hexblade is much the same but with different mechanics, and paladin too. The message in all of those is that the fighter has no real identity that other classes don't stomp all over at will.
The subclasses are a joke compared to the options and choices (again choices is not the same as power) that other classes are given as they progress.
It sounds more like the issue is not that Fighters suck, it's that spellcasting classes (swords bard, hexblade warlock, paladins, and bladesingers) are encroaching on their land, whilst their best effort is the Eldritch Knight, which frankly doesn't work very well.
It all boils down to the fact that a Fighter can deal a good amount of damage with Attack actions. The spellcasters can deal a good amoutn of damage in a huge variety of different ways. They both math up about the same over an adventuring day, but the Figher spent all day hitting the "A" key on his keyboard, and the Wizard wrote the first paragraph of Hamlet, to achieve the same outcome of "enemies are dead".
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
Yeah, weapon-users typically just spam Attack. That’s how you use a weapon in D&D. Special moves are already covered with Battlemaster, and beyond that there’s little room until you get into overt powers, which are not a part of the basic Fighter format, given the medieval fantasy premise. Mix of design preference and nature of the beast, at the end of the day.
That's accurate.
A sub-problem here is just general lack of utility outside combat (the second wind stuff seems to help fighters a bit in this regard in the playtests).
I'd add that when I hear "play 3.5 or pathfinder" that's like swinging the pendulum from "just an A-key" to "here's a small programming language", lol. There has to be a middle ground (which is what I was playing around with in the original post). The idea that the designers can't give one group of players a viable "I just wanna spam the A-key" choices while also providing other players something that still fulfills a high-fantasy fighter (not some other class masquerading as a fighter) is just wrong. They may not be WILLING to do it, but it isn't because they can't do it. There are options out there (I outlined some, another poster put some in, I've see stuff in simpler games even).
Or you know, pick up [feat]Martial Adept[/feat]?
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
It's so exciting to be a skilled warrior and know 2 whole tricks and be able use one of them once per fight (at most). Gosh, what will they write in the history books about me?
That you and possibly also your DM should have read the "Improvising An Action" sidebar in the Combat chapter? You can do a lot more in 5e than "I attack."
I would be fine with having a more complex Warrior. Preferably though, it would be a new class so that none of the beloved existing simple choices or more niche martial classes become playable only to a small number of players.
With this being said, I do think we need a simple caster. Yes, one could tell me that some of the spellcasters in fifth really aren't that complicated, but I think that even whatever the least complicated one is, it is nowhere near as complex as the most confusing base class for a Warrior.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.Not to mention, some monsters even have what you would smartly classify as "Skillful parry". They can take a reaction to parry something and add +2 to their AC against one attack, I believe.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.The vast majority of this seems to boil down to one basic idea.
My martial character is boring in combat and out of it.
Talk to your DM. There are plenty of options in the PHB and DMG that can make your martial more interesting in combat. Use an action to disarm your foe, then a free action to kick it away. Use your action to Intimidate the horde of minions into not attacking- and substitute a display of physical prowess (Athletics) rather than verbally (Intimidation). For out of combat, request the DM be specific when having NPC interactions. Why would a warrior-king talk to the untrustworthy bard when a noble knight is present? Perhaps the DM could use some help with worldbuilding.
Talk to the other players. Just because you are not skilled at Investigation doesn't mean you cannot Help search a room. Perhaps you just need to slap the bard and tell them to shut up once in a while (let him give the Help to you). Assert your utility in the quiet moments- who is inspecting the groups weapons and armor, sharpening the blades, setting watch schedules? Why wait until the DM asks for it and make it part of your personality to handle it? Role-playing opportunities can be within the party, not just with NPCs.
Lastly, see if you can make adjustments to your background skills and backstory to fill a hole your party doesn't have. Something as simple as Animal Handling proficiency can give you a whole range of combat options against beasts, for instance.
I've done many of these (and others). Heck, my fighter was elected by the group to be the captain of our pirate ship (over half-hearted protests from the very charismatic warlock).
However, I'm sure you can understand that there is something helpful about having mechanical support for your character to do interesting things (if there wasn't we would all play free form RPGs with no rules).
As others have said, the simple fighter isn't going away because it is extremely popular. I tend to add complexity to martial characters with custom magic items, and the extra feats for rogue and fighter help. You can also homebrew your own subclasses with more complexity, the character building tools provide plenty of ways to do so.
"Just homebrew it" might not be a satisfying answer to you, but it is a real solution with the tools that you have that can address your needs. It is 1000% more likely to improve your life than complaining on this forum about it.
What I'm more interested in is a collection of actions for outside of combat. In my experience, martials are satisfying to play in combat but sit on the sidelines in the other two pillars of the game while the spellcasters dip into the vast utility of their spell lists.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
You may be right about homebrew; and you're definitely right about feats.
I'm curious if the second wind changes in the playtest help scratch your out-of-combat itch?
Probably that you responded in a waspish fashion to a legitimate in-game suggestion that did not break, bend, or invent any rules. You wanted some of the abilities that the Battlemaster has and you can get them. Surely your present sub-class has tricks of its own to fall upon? You could also consider a multiclass dip into another martial class to get more martial skills, Twilight Cleric, Peace Cleric, War Cleric, or Rogue for further options.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Oh and surely your "Or you know..." wasn't intended to be sarcastic, condescending, or both. Feigning innocence after the fact is sad. Provide sarcasm and get some in response.
So, once again, I am going to chime in with some horrible things you very pointedly do not seem to want to hear.
Those subclasses for Fighter and Rogue and Etc are also all individually liked by at least 80% of the total base of folks who have responded to the survey. A Survey that is available and encouraged to all of the 15 million (call it 12 million to account for all the bots, right?) folks who are registered here (but probably only half a million actually respond, statistically).
THe Devs may glance through these forums, but what happens here in the General forum isn't going to be one they have a solid business oriented, development based reason to look at -- the UA forum, maybe, but beyond that and the functionality stuff (which is a different team) they aren't going to give a rat's butt, because the flat out basic goals for all of the classes and subclasses is that each one of the classes and each of the four subclasses that they are going to put into the the 2024 PHB have to all garner at least 80% approval through those surveys.
That's it. Period. You are correct, then, in your "why don't they address the other 20% of us?" kind of bitterness, because they aren't going to do anything but what they have done, no matter how many posts about it there are, because the only thing they are going to do is fit those 80% measures.
If you are not part of that 80%, then go learn some ttrpg mechanics and start building your own classes, because if you are going to hold your breath until they do make changes that you personally are going to be able to approve, well...
You will be waiting until they decide to do 6e at the soonest. So maybe 2030, probably 2034. And that's oly if someone manages to give them a good reason based in the business (and, sorry, but "address the needs of the 20%" doesn't cut it -- because if it did, they would have done so. Not that in that 20% are all the folks who want 5e to be more like 1e, or 3.5e, or PF, or Tunnels and Trolls or CHampions or pick whatever other game you can think of because that 20% is fractured into a hundred tiny pieces that will not agree with you, so you wouldn't even be making them work for the 20%, but rather for the fraction of 1%).
Best bet -- if the folks who want those changes can be shown to spend like 30% of the total amount of money on all the D&D things, you could get your wish. Anything less, you really only have one genuine option, given that I happen to agree with how telling you to "go play a different game" is like slapping in you in the face with rudeness and being rather bleeping lousy at explaining things to boot.
You have to homebrew. No, I will correct that. You must homebrew.
And I don't mean homebrew it up on DDB. Flat out, you probably won't be able to do so, imo/ime. For genuinely creative structures, the system here doesn't allow nor was it created to allow such things. I mean, I'm sure you could homebrew your special purpose monster warrior by banging together different existing features -- but that's not creative, and the flat truth is that you have to do it in concert with your DM, since the only place you will be able to play it is that one.
But, if you did do it here, and someone else saw it and they liked it, they might talk to their DM and get them to let it be used in their campaign.
That's the rub.
Now, if you think that telling you that homebrew things is the only viable solution you have "doesn't solve your problem", then the problem isn't with WotC, or the advice any of the folks here have given you.
I have homebrewed classes for decades. I just finished doing playtesting over seven months of 19 different classes. I don't happen to like any single one of the subclasses or classes in the game at present or coming out of the UA. Nope, not a one. I have a legion of reasons for it. So I created my own. I do like them.
If I am lucky, maybe someone will want to play a Reeve or Envoy or Witch or Shaman down the road in someone else's game. Probably not an FR game, though -- all of my classes are designed and built around the game world I created -- just like I always do, unless it is just going to be a hellride like the campaign that I created and ran while I worked on this next one.
because I don't have the goal of pleasing 80% of the total player base of D&D. I just have to make myself and my table happy.
I am not going to pound sand here in a place where there is the lowest possible chance of having my gripes be seen that they somehow magically decide I must know more than they do and give me some all powerful role as the final arbiter of the game should be designed.
Because while my ego is so large it has invaded 20 other universes (you think that's air you're breathing? Nope. That's my ego), it isn't a damn fool.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Because up until that point nobody had mentioned the feat, and were making suggestions that required GM fiat. I wasn't talking to you, I was talking to everybody else.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale