The question is - do fighters have to be "the basic class"? As of now, fighter class only has three features: action surge, second wind,, and indomitable. Four, if you count that extra extra attack. The sort of uniqueness comes in two additional feats (or ASI) that they get on levels 6 and 14. But does it exactly justify the lack of class-specific features? Does there have to be a class that has ASI instead of class features? If you want to be basic and just bash things until they die, there's barbarian, you can't get more primal than that.
I'd suggest that combat maneuvers, the feature of the most popular subclass, become baseline fighter feature. And subclasses could build upon that. A commander subclass could share the benefits of maneuvers with party members and gain access to additional tactical maneuvers, while an arms master would focus on individual fighting prowess and perhaps gain maneuvers that are specific to damage type of fighting style, like impale two enemies that stand in line with a piercing weapon, or stun with bludgeoning weapon, or do a flurry of attacks while dual-wielding.
Most importantly, maneuvers give fighters something to do, something to decide in combat. Simply hitting things with your sword gets stale after a while, and shoving can only get you so far. Of course, there's interactions with environment, where you could, say, drop something on your enemies, but in reality, you have to spend time tanking the enemy rather than running around battlefield looking for stuff to break or move. Maneuvers give you tactical options, decisions to make.
Then there's class identity. Fighters have none, they're the most blurred and blank class. I believe that future design should emphasize fighter's source of power, his essence. While barbarian is the embodiment of brute force, paladin represents chivalry, and ranger is a commando, fighter is about power from mastery in both technique and tactics. This is something that no other class represents as much as fighter with his most versatile, tactical feature - combat superiority.
The fundamental problem with the figher is that they have no story behind them, no identity. For once, the narrative itself is the problem, not the mechanics failing to match the narrative. What is a fighter? Someone good with weapons. And... that's it. Are they a knight, like the paladin? Or someone that relies on brute strength like the barbarian? Hunters?
Fighters are just a chasis that any concept that uses weapons can be attached to. Which, while some players like, directly leads to a lack of anything evocative about the class.
They do. There is actually a strong demand for the simple fighter that's just run up and smack things. No fiddly bits, no thinking, just hitting things while the player jokes around and has fun destressing after having to spend all day thinking at work. Champion Fighter is the most popular class/subclass combination in the game for a reason, and its not just because its in Basic. It actively fills a demand in the player base.
Yes, Champion is the most popular subclass for Fighter, not Battlemaster. Surveys have been quite clear on that. Battlemaster might be talked about more, but its also more complex and that complexity generates more discussion. People on boards also tend to like more choices and complexity than the people just there to chill and be happy with simple
As of now, fighter class only has three features: action surge, second wind,, and indomitable. Four, if you count that extra extra attack.
The sort of uniqueness comes in two additional feats (or ASI) that they get on levels 6 and 14. But does it exactly justify the lack of class-specific features? Does there have to be a class that has ASI instead of class features? If you want to be basic and just bash things until they die, there's barbarian, you can't get more primal than that.
Yes, the extra feats count as the fifth feature. Rogues are skill monkies, Fighters are feat monkies.
No, people don't want the Barbarian as the basic simple class. They want the Simple Fighter. Its iconic. The D&D NEXT survey was quite clear on that. And I doubt its changed in the years since then.
I'd suggest that combat maneuvers, the feature of the most popular subclass, become baseline fighter feature. And subclasses could build upon that. A commander subclass could share the benefits of maneuvers with party members and gain access to additional tactical maneuvers, while an arms master would focus on individual fighting prowess and perhaps gain maneuvers that are specific to damage type of fighting style, like impale two enemies that stand in line with a piercing weapon, or stun with bludgeoning weapon, or do a flurry of attacks while dual-wielding.
Most importantly, maneuvers give fighters something to do, something to decide in combat. Simply hitting things with your sword gets stale after a while, and shoving can only get you so far. Of course, there's interactions with environment, where you could, say, drop something on your enemies, but in reality, you have to spend time tanking the enemy rather than running around battlefield looking for stuff to break or move. Maneuvers give you tactical options, decisions to make.
Do fighters need something to do and decide in combat? Usually the complaint is the lack of things to do outside of combat. AFAIK, the D&D community is by and large happy with the Fighter in combat.
The fundamental problem with the figher is that they have no story behind them, no identity. For once, the narrative itself is the problem, not the mechanics failing to match the narrative. What is a fighter? Someone good with weapons. And... that's it. Are they a knight, like the paladin? Or someone that relies on brute strength like the barbarian? Hunters?
Fighters are just a chasis that any concept that uses weapons can be attached to. Which, while some players like, directly leads to a lack of anything evocative about the class.
That's the thing I wanted to address - fighters feel blank. Empty.
They do. There is actually a strong demand for the simple fighter that's just run up and smack things. No fiddly bits, no thinking, just hitting things while the player jokes around and has fun destressing after having to spend all day thinking at work. Champion Fighter is the most popular class/subclass combination in the game for a reason, and its not just because its in Basic. It actively fills a demand in the player base.
Yes, Champion is the most popular subclass for Fighter, not Battlemaster. Surveys have been quite clear on that. Battlemaster might be talked about more, but its also more complex and that complexity generates more discussion. People on boards also tend to like more choices and complexity than the people just there to chill and be happy with simple
But like I said, there's barbarian for that. It's the class that is specifically designed, both mechanically and lore-wise, to do just that - run up to things and beat them until they die. Fighter is meant to be more about skill and mastery, technique and tactics, than about brute strength.
Do fighters need something to do and decide in combat? Usually the complaint is the lack of things to do outside of combat. AFAIK, the D&D community is by and large happy with the Fighter in combat.
But then again, battlemasters can do stuff outside of combat due to their social maneuvers like tactical assassment, ambush, or commander's presence. Maneuvers provide the much needed versatility.
That's the thing I wanted to address - fighters feel blank. Empty.
Yet you focus only on inside combat. Which, going by the fighter's spot as number 1 class, isn't an issue with the larger community.
But like I said, there's barbarian for that. It's the class that is specifically designed, both mechanically and lore-wise, to do just that - run up to things and beat them until they die. Fighter is meant to be more about skill and mastery, technique and tactics, than about brute strength.
Then add complexity to the barbarian. Or make a new class. Simple Fighter is popular. It's what a notable percentage of the D&D community wants.
Do fighters need something to do and decide in combat? Usually the complaint is the lack of things to do outside of combat. AFAIK, the D&D community is by and large happy with the Fighter in combat.
But then again, battlemasters can do stuff outside of combat due to their social maneuvers like tactical assassment, ambush, or commander's presence. Maneuvers provide the much needed versatility.
Then why not just play battlemaster? Like, why shove the subclass you want down the throats of everyone when it's clearly not wanted?
I think all martials should get maneuvers with class specific ones, I further think the maneuver die should be rolled into most mundane tasks with investment. Something like take commanding presence maneuver and you can add your maneuver die to persuasion attempts on a success the target rolls vs your save dc or is charmed, epic leap roll your maneuver die when jumping the die the result times 5 is the number of extra feet you can jump, your jump distance can exceed your movement rate for the turn, shattering blow your damage against unattended objects is double for your next strike, add your maneuver die to your damage roll. To make it easier I'd say instead of X a short rest just have the limit one per turn or round.
The game seems to recognize 3 pillars of play, combat, social, exploration, make sure every class has features that dip into these fields, sure for example make bards the best in the social field, but every class should have features in them for spell casters its usually their spells, for martial let it be the maneuver die.
Why should anyone who wants a fighter with an I.Q. greater than their shoe size be forced to play Battlemaster and nothing but Battlemaster every single time they want to run fighter?
The barbarian is already the Big Dumb Bruiser that's actively discouraged from having any mental score higher than 9. Superiority is such a popular system that Wizards turned it into a fighting style and a feat, as well as adding a bunch of new maneuvers in Tasha's Cauldron despite maneuvers technically only being one feature of one subclass of one class. "Big Stupid Fighter" is popular, yes. So are maneuvers. There can be a fighter that does BSF stuff - make the Champion the go-to Big Stupid Fighter that doesn't contribute to its team do anything but run up to things and hit them with a hitting stick. Give the Champion a way to turn Superiority dice into raw damage akin to a paladin Smite, so they can just use the one thing. Spread the Big Dumb out, instead of concentrating all down into one sole single class that basically doesn't exist once you decide you want more from your D&D game than "I run up and hit it with my Hittin' Stick!"
No reason to add this to the base fighter's toolkit. Let the sub-classes add the extra flavor and uniqueness to the player character. I think it's exactly where it belongs - in the sub-classes.
Then they're going to have to do a better job of making fighter subclasses actually be engaging, fun to use, and able to dramatically alter the playstyle of the fighter, because as of right now R5e's fighter subclasses almost universally fail all of those goals. The reason so many people want Superiority baked into the fighter by default is because Battle Master is the only fighter subclass that hits all those notes. The Champion is actively detrimental to its party and worse than taking no fighter subclass at all; the Eldritch Knight is actively bad, the Arcane Archer is significantly worse; the Samurai was a noble attempt (and makes a better basic "Big Stupid Fighter" subclass than the Champion) but it doesn't change the way the fighter plays at all; the Psi Warrior is a confused morass that tried to be a Jedi and almost succeeded...almost...; the Cavalier is a wannabe paladin that can't actually use its whole mounted combat schtick because the mounted combat rules in R5e are awful; the Purple Dragon Knight never needed to exist; and the Rune knight can be described as "what if the Battle Master and the Eldritch Knight had a kid together who grew up Trying His Best?"
I keep trying to run fighters that aren't Battle Masters, and every time I do I arrive at the same conclusion - anything I can do with a non-Battle Master fighter, I can do more effectively and with more engagement and fun with another class. They can't keep telling everybody who wants to play fighter but actually think about their D&D when they do to 'just play Battle Master!' Eventually, you've played Battle Master, and there's no more reason to run one.
ADDENDUM: just remembered, DDB has been doing us dirty for years. The "I don't want to think, I don't want to engage, I don't want to do anything but sit down, hit stuff and unwind" players shouldn't be running the fighter at all. They should be running the 'Warrior' sidekick class from Tasha's, which J-Craw himself was designed to also be an extremely easy, simple, mindless Beginner Proto-Class for players not up to engaging with the regular process. Shunt the brain-off folks who just want low-resolution monster mashing to Warrior and let's upgrade fighters into the "Strength of Mastery" characters they always should have been.
Give the Champion a way to turn Superiority dice into raw damage akin to a paladin Smite, so they can just use the one thing.
This is the way. The entire fighter class, with the whole idea of "power from mastery", need not be basic - one subclass dedicated to basicness is enough. Just let the champion convert maneuver dice into damage at a better ratio while sacrificing any additional effects, that's it.
Why should anyone who wants a fighter with an I.Q. greater than their shoe size be forced to play Battlemaster and nothing but Battlemaster every single time they want to run fighter?
Playstyle shaming now? Really? I honestly never expected such insulting, gatekeepy attitude from you, Yurei. This swings both ways. Why should the actual fans of the current Fighter be forced to have Battlemaster every single time they want to run a Fighter? Its hands down the most popular class, after all, so the current design MUST be doing something right.
Simple is part of the Fighter's design, and part of the appeal for many. If that doesn't intererst you... there's monk, paladin, ranger, rogue and every single caster. Literally any other class besides barbarian; people that like simple classes can only have one option is a rather elitist stance - why should complex classes be everywhere with only one bone thrown to everyone else? And why should the people that want simple be forced to play a "big dumb bruiser" with anger issues? Barbarian isn't conductive to a two weapon dervish, or an archer, or even just a jack-of-all-weapons. These people aren't dumb.
There's also the fact that you can take battlemaster maneuvers as both a Fighting Style and a feat - you even get more feats than other people. Surprisingly, you already have all Fighters with maneuvers... as an option. Everyone can have what they want. That's an absolute win-win situation.
No one is holding a gun to your head and making you play a specific class or subclass. Indeed, when most people pick a class, they pick a concept first, then look to see what fits. If someone sits down and tries to make a mystic blacksmith, they''re going to look at Runic Fighter, but also a few Artificer subclasses and the Forge Cleric. Maybe even look over the Creation Bard. The overwhelming majority won't sit down and go, "Whelp, today is Fighter day. Lets see what crappy subclass I have to take. Sigh."
I mean, honestly. If the class is boring to you... then just play anything else that does interest you? Current Fighter has its fans. Why take it away from them?
I think all martials should get maneuvers with class specific ones, I further think the maneuver die should be rolled into most mundane tasks with investment. Something like take commanding presence maneuver and you can add your maneuver die to persuasion attempts on a success the target rolls vs your save dc or is charmed, epic leap roll your maneuver die when jumping the die the result times 5 is the number of extra feet you can jump, your jump distance can exceed your movement rate for the turn, shattering blow your damage against unattended objects is double for your next strike, add your maneuver die to your damage roll. To make it easier I'd say instead of X a short rest just have the limit one per turn or round.
The game seems to recognize 3 pillars of play, combat, social, exploration, make sure every class has features that dip into these fields, sure for example make bards the best in the social field, but every class should have features in them for spell casters its usually their spells, for martial let it be the maneuver die.
I agree that all classes should interact with all three pillars in some way.
But? If everyone uses manevers for everything... wouldn't that just be back to where we started, and destroy the whole concept of bounded accuracy? Can you imagine rogues with inspiration, expertise, maneuvers for their favorite skill? And wouldn't this destroy what people want to make Fighter stand out more?
Then they're going to have to do a better job of making fighter subclasses actually be engaging, fun to use, and able to dramatically alter the playstyle of the fighter, because as of right now R5e's fighter subclasses almost universally fail all of those goals.
They fail... for you. Fighter has maintained a postiion as most popular class pretty much throughout the entirty of 5e so far. And from the last data points I saw from 2020, only about 20% of those were Battlemaster, with Champion a few percentages higher. That means 60% were these other "failing" subclasses.
ADDENDUM: just remembered, DDB has been doing us dirty for years. The "I don't want to think, I don't want to engage, I don't want to do anything but sit down, hit stuff and unwind" players shouldn't be running the fighter at all. They should be running the 'Warrior' sidekick class from Tasha's, which J-Craw himself was designed to also be an extremely easy, simple, mindless Beginner Proto-Class for players not up to engaging with the regular process. Shunt the brain-off folks who just want low-resolution monster mashing to Warrior and let's upgrade fighters into the "Strength of Mastery" characters they always should have been.
The have-fun-relaxing people shouldn't be allowed to play the class literally designed for them? Okay.
"You're not good enough to play a real class. Here, have this half-powered crap version." You do realize that the martial companion classes are literally based on the Champion Fighter and Mastermind Rogue but with slower progression, and caster companions grow at half speed?
Give the Champion a way to turn Superiority dice into raw damage akin to a paladin Smite, so they can just use the one thing.
This is the way. The entire fighter class, with the whole idea of "power from mastery", need not be basic - one subclass dedicated to basicness is enough. Just let the champion convert maneuver dice into damage at a better ratio while sacrificing any additional effects, that's it.
This is literally the opposite of how things work, in real world or in game design. You can take something simple and add complexity to it, but you can't take complex things and add more to them to make simple.
I mean, hells. There's already maneuvers that only boost damage. But you still have to track extra dice, you still have to make decisions when to use said dice, you still have to keep note of extra things. That's added complexity. You are not making it simple.
This is literally the opposite of how things work, in real world or in game design. You can take something simple and add complexity to it, but you can't take complex things and add more to them to make simple.
I mean, hells. There's already maneuvers that only boost damage. But you still have to track extra dice, you still have to make decisions when to use said dice, you still have to keep note of extra things. That's added complexity. You are not making it simple.
Think of it this way. When you're playing a wizard, you can weave creatuve illusions, play mind games, and turn your environment against your foes while having a spare spellbook in a leomund's tiny chest and a simulacrum in case of emergency. Or you could just throw fireball. And then another, harder-hitting fireball. You can play a complex class in a simple way. But you can't play a simple class in a complex way, because you just won't have the tools.
I mean, honestly. If the class is boring to you... then just play anything else that does interest you? Current Fighter has its fans. Why take it away from them?
Who's taking away basic bonk? It's impossible to take anything away from someone who doesn't have anything.
This is an article from Monte Cook, designer of 3e, and a look at the ultimate underlying philosophy of that edition, as well as ultimately Pathfinder. Pretty sure that's what people are arguing for here too.
The essence of a tabletop RPG is making decisions. I don't know how much we need to cater to people whose playstyle is "I don't want to make decisions or pay attention, I just want to sit here, eat pizza, and BS until I get to hit something." Not even meaning that harshly - those people will Pizza And BS no matter what, they'll just ignore any class feature that gets in the way of Pizza And BS. Refit Superiority throughout the base fighter and the Pizza And BS crowd will just not bother using it. The barbarian is also specifically built for Pizza And BS players - it's a character class deliberately designed to dump all mental stats and just be an angry, hitty caricature they can meme with while letting the one long-suffering cat wrangler who's trying to drive the plot do all the deciding between fights.
People who want to make decisions, pay attention and be involved in the game but who truly struggle to manage anything more complex than Champion fighter? Sure. If I were Queen of 5e For a Day, the sidekick classes would be tuned up into "Foundation" classes specifically designed to be simple frameworks easy to pin classic character tropes on whilst being even simpler to execute than the Champion. Those builds should absolutely exist. Every class should also have at least one subclass designed for simpler play, up to and including the dreaded Wizard. An "Intro to [X]" option for those not quite ready for the real deal but who want to try anyway.
How many classes need to be entirely devoted to Pizza And BS, with no option to engage more deeply and try to make impactful decisions? Fighters, barbarians, to a surprising degree rogues, even sorcerers to an extent - all Pizza And BS classes with limited to nonexistent options for more involved gameplay.
A girl can only play so many warlocks, wizards, and artificers before her table starts giving her the stink-eye. Why not try and patch in some involvement into some of these other classes during this one chance we'll ever have to do so?
Think of it this way. When you're playing a wizard, you can weave creatuve illusions, play mind games, and turn your environment against your foes while having a spare spellbook in a leomund's tiny chest and a simulacrum in case of emergency. Or you could just throw fireball. And then another, harder-hitting fireball. You can play a complex class in a simple way. But you can't play a simple class in a complex way, because you just won't have the tools.
I'm disagreeing with you, not misunderstanding you. Fireball wizards have their own issues - getting to fireballing levels in the first place, deciding what to do with lower level slots, tracking fireballs per day, which spell slot you're using fireball with, where you place fireball to not hit your allies and hit the most enemies, what to do when faced with red dragons / devils / iron golems / fire elementals.
Just because it's less complex than it could be doesn't mean that it's simple.
Who's taking away basic bonk? It's impossible to take anything away from someone who doesn't have anything.
The essence of a tabletop RPG is making decisions.
The essence of a TTRPG is playing a character with others doing the same. There are many ways to play said character, all of them valid. Both yours AND the Simple Fighter fans.
I don't know how much we need to cater to people whose playstyle is "I don't want to make decisions or pay attention, I just want to sit here, eat pizza, and BS until I get to hit something."
Two classes - fighter, barb. Is that so much to ask for? Just 15%. Not even that if you consider how much room is taken up by magic/spell rules.
Not even meaning that harshly - those people will Pizza And BS no matter what, they'll just ignore any class feature that gets in the way of Pizza And BS.
They are part of the community and should have nice things made for them too.
The barbarian is also specifically built for Pizza And BS players - it's a character class deliberately designed to dump all mental stats and just be an angry, hitty caricature they can meme with while letting the one long-suffering cat wrangler who's trying to drive the plot do all the deciding between fights.
As you so eloquently put it, Barbarian is a rather specific class fantasy with baggage that people might not want in their pretendy fun times.
They also might want, say, archery.
People who want to make decisions, pay attention and be involved in the game but who truly struggle to manage anything more complex than Champion fighter? Sure. If I were Queen of 5e For a Day, the sidekick classes would be tuned up into "Foundation" classes specifically designed to be simple frameworks easy to pin classic character tropes on whilst being even simpler to execute than the Champion.
So you want to remake the Fighter, then create a new class? Why not make, say, a Warlord class with all the maneuvers and complexity and keep the Fighter as is for the people that like it? That's what I did.
Well, got one off the DM Guild. But still.
And, if the comment about future proofing spell lists are anything to go by, they are at least considering more classes going forwards.
Those builds should absolutely exist. Every class should also have at least one subclass designed for simpler play, up to and including the dreaded Wizard.
They do. They're the Basic options. Evoker wizard, life cleric, champion fighter, thief rogue, etc.
But intro-subclasses of a complex class are still complex.
A girl can only play so many warlocks, wizards, and artificers before her table starts giving her the stink-eye. Why not try and patch in some involvement into some of these other classes during this one chance we'll ever have to do so?
Because, in this specific case, you're doing so by taking things away from others. And that's cringe.
Why not a bard or paladin? Tasha Beastmaster Rangers are pretty lit.
And if people give you the evil eye for playing too much warlock? Tell them NO SUCH THING. It's a whole mood.
This is an article from Monte Cook, designer of 3e, and a look at the ultimate underlying philosophy of that edition, as well as ultimately Pathfinder. Pretty sure that's what people are arguing for here too.
The mistake in that article is the design of deliberate rules traps, not necessarily "here's the rules, make of them what you will". Trying to explain the best use case for each and every rule in the book is annoying, exhausting, fundamentally impossible, and also unnecessary. If you don't engineer traps into your game, you don't need to explain proper use cases. They'll intuitively suggest themselves, or people will discover them. Monte Cook is not wrong - demonstrating mastery of a game's rules and systems feels really good, and a lot of players desire that particular reward feeling.
What you are suggesting is that those players be strictly confined to a small subset of a small set of classes - that they be confined strictly to wizards, artificers, and maybe - maybe - ONE subclass of one or two of the other classes, because Simplicity Is Desirable and people don't want to lose it. Here's the thing - simplicity is desirable, but the people who desire it don't need it more than once. One "Simple Option" is all they need, because kinda by definition people who want Simple Stuff they don't have to think about or make decisions with aren't looking to make decisions. They'll happily play The Simple Option over and over, because not only do they not like making decisions but their increased familiarity with The One Simple Option breeds confidence in that option. The more they play a Champion fighter, the more they know exactly how to do that and don't have to feel intimidated by a plethora of unfamiliar options.
That's why I endorse the idea of a "walk it back" subclass for Fighter, or a Foundational class that doesn't even have subclasses and is exactly the same character every single time you play it. Familiarity is a big deal to the sorts of "simplicity is best!" players you're advocating for, if they have a single option they can play over and over again and become deeply familiar with they'll be happy. They don't WANT options. Options are the enemy to those players. They don't need an entire class, or a plethora of subclasses. In many cases they don't want those things; Champion fighter is the "I don't want to have to think about this weird 'subclass' thing" subclass.
The people who want to explore, try new ideas, do cool new things, and exercise mastery of the system, though? Telling them "Just play Battle Master again, you stupid moron!" will swiftly get old. I know, because it has gotten old seeing every single fighter at any table my group and I are at be played as a Battle Master because the Fighter chassis is deeply lacking, Battle Master is the only thing that shores it up to 'playable', and not everybody can "just play a wizard" all the time. Parties need martial frontliners, and currently all the game's martial frontline classes are annoyingly decisionless. Fighters are just kinda egregiously so.
I think fighter should be kept fairly basic. When I was new to the game, I played fighters and only fighters, and boy am I glad that they were there to be a fun, easy & class to play and understand. If you want to play a more complex fighter, then you can pick a subclass such as Battlemaster and/or use them to make a more advanced build. That being said, as Yurei says, people who want to play more complex fighters shouldn't be stuck with having to pick Battlemaster or taking a multiclass dip or something, so I would like a couple more complicated subclasses, and a bit more versatility worked into the 1DD fighter.
However, I think it's important to have a relatively simple class that can serve as a great introduction to the game for beginners. And fighters still can be for more advanced players, depending on the subclasses/features they pick. By and large, I think it should be kept this way.
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 see a lot of people complain about linear fighter quadratic wizards. Here are people trying to solve that by giving fighters more things which will ultimately make them more complex and now we have complaints of not keeping fighters basic.
If we are to buff martials to be on par with casters, some additional complexity has to be added.
Unless we want to go the route of nerfing casters down to martial levels, which frankly seems more antifun, some complexity will have to be added.
What you are suggesting is that those players be strictly confined to a small subset of a small set of classes - that they be confined strictly to wizards, artificers, and maybe - maybe - ONE subclass of one or two of the other classes, because Simplicity Is Desirable and people don't want to lose it.
No? I'm suggesting leaving the Simple Fighter for the people that like the simple fighter. Fighter is a popular class as is. Its a class that is filling a very specific need for a specific group of players, and that we shouldn't mess with their enjoyment of the game. There's a reason that Tasha's new "optional" features didn't include any band aids like the Ranger, Sorcerer or other classes. It just offered new Fighting Styles, new Maneuvers, and the ability to swap them every four levels like spells can.
I'm also not suggesting we do this for any other class. Just Fighter.
Want to talk about fixing or updating Warlock? Ranger? Sorcerer? Monk? Barbarians? Druid and its unhealthy fixation on crappy shapeshifting? I'm down with that. I'd also like to spend some time talking about paladins and mounts. Half casters should have good pet options. Even if its just a subclass. Full casters can summon, half casters get pets, and I'm partial to martials getting sidekicks and strongholds. So, yeah. Beastmasters. Golemancers. Chain pacts. Cool mounts for paladins at within playable levels.
But leave the Fighters alone for all the people that already want and like it as is.
Here's the thing - simplicity is desirable, but the people who desire it don't need it more than once. One "Simple Option" is all they need, because kinda by definition people who want Simple Stuff they don't have to think about or make decisions with aren't looking to make decisions.
Putting aside the fact I disagree with the One Thing Only (sounds like you're stereotyping there, everything is a spectrum). Lets pretend you are right. And that simple option is the Fighter. Which you want to take from them. They all don't want the magical anger guy you keep trying to push.
Above you accused me of wanting to restrict people to a small selection of classes. That's exactly what you're doing here. You want to restrict an entire demographic of players to ONE class. And not even the one that's deliberately designed with them in mind.
The people who want to explore, try new ideas, do cool new things, and exercise mastery of the system, though? Telling them "Just play Battle Master again, you stupid moron!" will swiftly get old.
I've got nothing against new subclasses on the order of Battlemaster. In fact, I wish they'd expanded all the psionic-Fighter stuff in that subclass. It has a lot of potential. I even told my players that, if they took the Telepath feat, I'd let them have all the soul knife features in their class. Conversely, Telekinetic feat for being the rogue.
Just don't screw up the base class for those that don't want every fighter to be Battlemasters either.
What you are suggesting is that those players be strictly confined to a small subset of a small set of classes - that they be confined strictly to wizards, artificers, and maybe - maybe - ONE subclass of one or two of the other classes, because Simplicity Is Desirable and people don't want to lose it.
No? I'm suggesting leaving the Simple Fighter for the people that like the simple fighter. Fighter is a popular class as is. Its a class that is filling a very specific need for a specific group of players, and that we shouldn't mess with their enjoyment of the game. There's a reason that Tasha's new "optional" features didn't include any band aids like the Ranger, Sorcerer or other classes. It just offered new Fighting Styles, new Maneuvers, and the ability to swap them every four levels like spells can.
I'm also not suggesting we do this for any other class. Just Fighter.
Want to talk about fixing or updating Warlock? Ranger? Sorcerer? Monk? Barbarians? Druid and its unhealthy fixation on crappy shapeshifting? I'm down with that. I'd also like to spend some time talking about paladins and mounts. Half casters should have good pet options. Even if its just a subclass. Full casters can summon, half casters get pets, and I'm partial to martials getting sidekicks and strongholds. So, yeah. Beastmasters. Golemancers. Chain pacts. Cool mounts for paladins at within playable levels.
But leave the Fighters alone for all the people that already want and like it as is.
Here's the thing - simplicity is desirable, but the people who desire it don't need it more than once. One "Simple Option" is all they need, because kinda by definition people who want Simple Stuff they don't have to think about or make decisions with aren't looking to make decisions.
Putting aside the fact I disagree with the One Thing Only (sounds like you're stereotyping there, everything is a spectrum). Lets pretend you are right. And that simple option is the Fighter. Which you want to take from them. They all don't want the magical anger guy you keep trying to push.
Above you accused me of wanting to restrict people to a small selection of classes. That's exactly what you're doing here. You want to restrict an entire demographic of players to ONE class. And not even the one that's deliberately designed with them in mind.
The people who want to explore, try new ideas, do cool new things, and exercise mastery of the system, though? Telling them "Just play Battle Master again, you stupid moron!" will swiftly get old.
I've got nothing against new subclasses on the order of Battlemaster. In fact, I wish they'd expanded all the psionic-Fighter stuff in that subclass. It has a lot of potential. I even told my players that, if they took the Telepath feat, I'd let them have all the soul knife features in their class. Conversely, Telekinetic feat for being the rogue.
Just don't screw up the base class for those that don't want every fighter to be Battlemasters either.
Then is it safe to assume that you are also fine with the disparity between fighters and fullcasters such as wizards? Buffing fighter so that it is on par with casters will require adding complexity to them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The question is - do fighters have to be "the basic class"? As of now, fighter class only has three features: action surge, second wind,, and indomitable. Four, if you count that extra extra attack. The sort of uniqueness comes in two additional feats (or ASI) that they get on levels 6 and 14. But does it exactly justify the lack of class-specific features? Does there have to be a class that has ASI instead of class features? If you want to be basic and just bash things until they die, there's barbarian, you can't get more primal than that.
I'd suggest that combat maneuvers, the feature of the most popular subclass, become baseline fighter feature. And subclasses could build upon that. A commander subclass could share the benefits of maneuvers with party members and gain access to additional tactical maneuvers, while an arms master would focus on individual fighting prowess and perhaps gain maneuvers that are specific to damage type of fighting style, like impale two enemies that stand in line with a piercing weapon, or stun with bludgeoning weapon, or do a flurry of attacks while dual-wielding.
Most importantly, maneuvers give fighters something to do, something to decide in combat. Simply hitting things with your sword gets stale after a while, and shoving can only get you so far. Of course, there's interactions with environment, where you could, say, drop something on your enemies, but in reality, you have to spend time tanking the enemy rather than running around battlefield looking for stuff to break or move. Maneuvers give you tactical options, decisions to make.
Then there's class identity. Fighters have none, they're the most blurred and blank class. I believe that future design should emphasize fighter's source of power, his essence. While barbarian is the embodiment of brute force, paladin represents chivalry, and ranger is a commando, fighter is about power from mastery in both technique and tactics. This is something that no other class represents as much as fighter with his most versatile, tactical feature - combat superiority.
The fundamental problem with the figher is that they have no story behind them, no identity. For once, the narrative itself is the problem, not the mechanics failing to match the narrative. What is a fighter? Someone good with weapons. And... that's it. Are they a knight, like the paladin? Or someone that relies on brute strength like the barbarian? Hunters?
Fighters are just a chasis that any concept that uses weapons can be attached to. Which, while some players like, directly leads to a lack of anything evocative about the class.
They do. There is actually a strong demand for the simple fighter that's just run up and smack things. No fiddly bits, no thinking, just hitting things while the player jokes around and has fun destressing after having to spend all day thinking at work. Champion Fighter is the most popular class/subclass combination in the game for a reason, and its not just because its in Basic. It actively fills a demand in the player base.
Yes, Champion is the most popular subclass for Fighter, not Battlemaster. Surveys have been quite clear on that. Battlemaster might be talked about more, but its also more complex and that complexity generates more discussion. People on boards also tend to like more choices and complexity than the people just there to chill and be happy with simple
Yes, the extra feats count as the fifth feature. Rogues are skill monkies, Fighters are feat monkies.
No, people don't want the Barbarian as the basic simple class. They want the Simple Fighter. Its iconic. The D&D NEXT survey was quite clear on that. And I doubt its changed in the years since then.
Do fighters need something to do and decide in combat? Usually the complaint is the lack of things to do outside of combat. AFAIK, the D&D community is by and large happy with the Fighter in combat.
That's the thing I wanted to address - fighters feel blank. Empty.
But like I said, there's barbarian for that. It's the class that is specifically designed, both mechanically and lore-wise, to do just that - run up to things and beat them until they die. Fighter is meant to be more about skill and mastery, technique and tactics, than about brute strength.
But then again, battlemasters can do stuff outside of combat due to their social maneuvers like tactical assassment, ambush, or commander's presence. Maneuvers provide the much needed versatility.
Yet you focus only on inside combat. Which, going by the fighter's spot as number 1 class, isn't an issue with the larger community.
Then add complexity to the barbarian. Or make a new class. Simple Fighter is popular. It's what a notable percentage of the D&D community wants.
Then why not just play battlemaster? Like, why shove the subclass you want down the throats of everyone when it's clearly not wanted?
I get that the types of people who post on forums or reddit tend to favor complex classes.
But it's not fair to the more casual players who don't want complex classes either.
I think all martials should get maneuvers with class specific ones, I further think the maneuver die should be rolled into most mundane tasks with investment. Something like take commanding presence maneuver and you can add your maneuver die to persuasion attempts on a success the target rolls vs your save dc or is charmed, epic leap roll your maneuver die when jumping the die the result times 5 is the number of extra feet you can jump, your jump distance can exceed your movement rate for the turn, shattering blow your damage against unattended objects is double for your next strike, add your maneuver die to your damage roll. To make it easier I'd say instead of X a short rest just have the limit one per turn or round.
The game seems to recognize 3 pillars of play, combat, social, exploration, make sure every class has features that dip into these fields, sure for example make bards the best in the social field, but every class should have features in them for spell casters its usually their spells, for martial let it be the maneuver die.
Why should anyone who wants a fighter with an I.Q. greater than their shoe size be forced to play Battlemaster and nothing but Battlemaster every single time they want to run fighter?
The barbarian is already the Big Dumb Bruiser that's actively discouraged from having any mental score higher than 9. Superiority is such a popular system that Wizards turned it into a fighting style and a feat, as well as adding a bunch of new maneuvers in Tasha's Cauldron despite maneuvers technically only being one feature of one subclass of one class. "Big Stupid Fighter" is popular, yes. So are maneuvers. There can be a fighter that does BSF stuff - make the Champion the go-to Big Stupid Fighter that doesn't
contribute to its teamdo anything but run up to things and hit them with a hitting stick. Give the Champion a way to turn Superiority dice into raw damage akin to a paladin Smite, so they can just use the one thing. Spread the Big Dumb out, instead of concentrating all down into one sole single class that basically doesn't exist once you decide you want more from your D&D game than "I run up and hit it with my Hittin' Stick!"Please do not contact or message me.
No reason to add this to the base fighter's toolkit. Let the sub-classes add the extra flavor and uniqueness to the player character. I think it's exactly where it belongs - in the sub-classes.
Then they're going to have to do a better job of making fighter subclasses actually be engaging, fun to use, and able to dramatically alter the playstyle of the fighter, because as of right now R5e's fighter subclasses almost universally fail all of those goals. The reason so many people want Superiority baked into the fighter by default is because Battle Master is the only fighter subclass that hits all those notes. The Champion is actively detrimental to its party and worse than taking no fighter subclass at all; the Eldritch Knight is actively bad, the Arcane Archer is significantly worse; the Samurai was a noble attempt (and makes a better basic "Big Stupid Fighter" subclass than the Champion) but it doesn't change the way the fighter plays at all; the Psi Warrior is a confused morass that tried to be a Jedi and almost succeeded...almost...; the Cavalier is a wannabe paladin that can't actually use its whole mounted combat schtick because the mounted combat rules in R5e are awful; the Purple Dragon Knight never needed to exist; and the Rune knight can be described as "what if the Battle Master and the Eldritch Knight had a kid together who grew up Trying His Best?"
I keep trying to run fighters that aren't Battle Masters, and every time I do I arrive at the same conclusion - anything I can do with a non-Battle Master fighter, I can do more effectively and with more engagement and fun with another class. They can't keep telling everybody who wants to play fighter but actually think about their D&D when they do to 'just play Battle Master!' Eventually, you've played Battle Master, and there's no more reason to run one.
ADDENDUM: just remembered, DDB has been doing us dirty for years. The "I don't want to think, I don't want to engage, I don't want to do anything but sit down, hit stuff and unwind" players shouldn't be running the fighter at all. They should be running the 'Warrior' sidekick class from Tasha's, which J-Craw himself was designed to also be an extremely easy, simple, mindless Beginner Proto-Class for players not up to engaging with the regular process. Shunt the brain-off folks who just want low-resolution monster mashing to Warrior and let's upgrade fighters into the "Strength of Mastery" characters they always should have been.
Please do not contact or message me.
This is the way. The entire fighter class, with the whole idea of "power from mastery", need not be basic - one subclass dedicated to basicness is enough. Just let the champion convert maneuver dice into damage at a better ratio while sacrificing any additional effects, that's it.
Playstyle shaming now? Really? I honestly never expected such insulting, gatekeepy attitude from you, Yurei. This swings both ways. Why should the actual fans of the current Fighter be forced to have Battlemaster every single time they want to run a Fighter? Its hands down the most popular class, after all, so the current design MUST be doing something right.
Simple is part of the Fighter's design, and part of the appeal for many. If that doesn't intererst you... there's monk, paladin, ranger, rogue and every single caster. Literally any other class besides barbarian; people that like simple classes can only have one option is a rather elitist stance - why should complex classes be everywhere with only one bone thrown to everyone else? And why should the people that want simple be forced to play a "big dumb bruiser" with anger issues? Barbarian isn't conductive to a two weapon dervish, or an archer, or even just a jack-of-all-weapons. These people aren't dumb.
There's also the fact that you can take battlemaster maneuvers as both a Fighting Style and a feat - you even get more feats than other people. Surprisingly, you already have all Fighters with maneuvers... as an option. Everyone can have what they want. That's an absolute win-win situation.
No one is holding a gun to your head and making you play a specific class or subclass. Indeed, when most people pick a class, they pick a concept first, then look to see what fits. If someone sits down and tries to make a mystic blacksmith, they''re going to look at Runic Fighter, but also a few Artificer subclasses and the Forge Cleric. Maybe even look over the Creation Bard. The overwhelming majority won't sit down and go, "Whelp, today is Fighter day. Lets see what crappy subclass I have to take. Sigh."
I mean, honestly. If the class is boring to you... then just play anything else that does interest you? Current Fighter has its fans. Why take it away from them?
I agree that all classes should interact with all three pillars in some way.
But? If everyone uses manevers for everything... wouldn't that just be back to where we started, and destroy the whole concept of bounded accuracy? Can you imagine rogues with inspiration, expertise, maneuvers for their favorite skill? And wouldn't this destroy what people want to make Fighter stand out more?
They fail... for you. Fighter has maintained a postiion as most popular class pretty much throughout the entirty of 5e so far. And from the last data points I saw from 2020, only about 20% of those were Battlemaster, with Champion a few percentages higher. That means 60% were these other "failing" subclasses.
The have-fun-relaxing people shouldn't be allowed to play the class literally designed for them? Okay.
"You're not good enough to play a real class. Here, have this half-powered crap version." You do realize that the martial companion classes are literally based on the Champion Fighter and Mastermind Rogue but with slower progression, and caster companions grow at half speed?
This is literally the opposite of how things work, in real world or in game design. You can take something simple and add complexity to it, but you can't take complex things and add more to them to make simple.
I mean, hells. There's already maneuvers that only boost damage. But you still have to track extra dice, you still have to make decisions when to use said dice, you still have to keep note of extra things. That's added complexity. You are not making it simple.
Think of it this way. When you're playing a wizard, you can weave creatuve illusions, play mind games, and turn your environment against your foes while having a spare spellbook in a leomund's tiny chest and a simulacrum in case of emergency. Or you could just throw fireball. And then another, harder-hitting fireball. You can play a complex class in a simple way. But you can't play a simple class in a complex way, because you just won't have the tools.
Who's taking away basic bonk? It's impossible to take anything away from someone who doesn't have anything.
Let me just put this here: https://twitter.com/FreyjaErlings/status/1567197915784830976
This is an article from Monte Cook, designer of 3e, and a look at the ultimate underlying philosophy of that edition, as well as ultimately Pathfinder. Pretty sure that's what people are arguing for here too.
The essence of a tabletop RPG is making decisions. I don't know how much we need to cater to people whose playstyle is "I don't want to make decisions or pay attention, I just want to sit here, eat pizza, and BS until I get to hit something." Not even meaning that harshly - those people will Pizza And BS no matter what, they'll just ignore any class feature that gets in the way of Pizza And BS. Refit Superiority throughout the base fighter and the Pizza And BS crowd will just not bother using it. The barbarian is also specifically built for Pizza And BS players - it's a character class deliberately designed to dump all mental stats and just be an angry, hitty caricature they can meme with while letting the one long-suffering cat wrangler who's trying to drive the plot do all the deciding between fights.
People who want to make decisions, pay attention and be involved in the game but who truly struggle to manage anything more complex than Champion fighter? Sure. If I were Queen of 5e For a Day, the sidekick classes would be tuned up into "Foundation" classes specifically designed to be simple frameworks easy to pin classic character tropes on whilst being even simpler to execute than the Champion. Those builds should absolutely exist. Every class should also have at least one subclass designed for simpler play, up to and including the dreaded Wizard. An "Intro to [X]" option for those not quite ready for the real deal but who want to try anyway.
How many classes need to be entirely devoted to Pizza And BS, with no option to engage more deeply and try to make impactful decisions? Fighters, barbarians, to a surprising degree rogues, even sorcerers to an extent - all Pizza And BS classes with limited to nonexistent options for more involved gameplay.
A girl can only play so many warlocks, wizards, and artificers before her table starts giving her the stink-eye. Why not try and patch in some involvement into some of these other classes during this one chance we'll ever have to do so?
Please do not contact or message me.
I'm disagreeing with you, not misunderstanding you. Fireball wizards have their own issues - getting to fireballing levels in the first place, deciding what to do with lower level slots, tracking fireballs per day, which spell slot you're using fireball with, where you place fireball to not hit your allies and hit the most enemies, what to do when faced with red dragons / devils / iron golems / fire elementals.
Just because it's less complex than it could be doesn't mean that it's simple.
Haha. Cute.
The essence of a TTRPG is playing a character with others doing the same. There are many ways to play said character, all of them valid. Both yours AND the Simple Fighter fans.
Two classes - fighter, barb. Is that so much to ask for? Just 15%. Not even that if you consider how much room is taken up by magic/spell rules.
They are part of the community and should have nice things made for them too.
As you so eloquently put it, Barbarian is a rather specific class fantasy with baggage that people might not want in their pretendy fun times.
They also might want, say, archery.
So you want to remake the Fighter, then create a new class? Why not make, say, a Warlord class with all the maneuvers and complexity and keep the Fighter as is for the people that like it? That's what I did.
Well, got one off the DM Guild. But still.
And, if the comment about future proofing spell lists are anything to go by, they are at least considering more classes going forwards.
They do. They're the Basic options. Evoker wizard, life cleric, champion fighter, thief rogue, etc.
But intro-subclasses of a complex class are still complex.
Because, in this specific case, you're doing so by taking things away from others. And that's cringe.
Why not a bard or paladin? Tasha Beastmaster Rangers are pretty lit.
And if people give you the evil eye for playing too much warlock? Tell them NO SUCH THING. It's a whole mood.
The mistake in that article is the design of deliberate rules traps, not necessarily "here's the rules, make of them what you will". Trying to explain the best use case for each and every rule in the book is annoying, exhausting, fundamentally impossible, and also unnecessary. If you don't engineer traps into your game, you don't need to explain proper use cases. They'll intuitively suggest themselves, or people will discover them. Monte Cook is not wrong - demonstrating mastery of a game's rules and systems feels really good, and a lot of players desire that particular reward feeling.
What you are suggesting is that those players be strictly confined to a small subset of a small set of classes - that they be confined strictly to wizards, artificers, and maybe - maybe - ONE subclass of one or two of the other classes, because Simplicity Is Desirable and people don't want to lose it. Here's the thing - simplicity is desirable, but the people who desire it don't need it more than once. One "Simple Option" is all they need, because kinda by definition people who want Simple Stuff they don't have to think about or make decisions with aren't looking to make decisions. They'll happily play The Simple Option over and over, because not only do they not like making decisions but their increased familiarity with The One Simple Option breeds confidence in that option. The more they play a Champion fighter, the more they know exactly how to do that and don't have to feel intimidated by a plethora of unfamiliar options.
That's why I endorse the idea of a "walk it back" subclass for Fighter, or a Foundational class that doesn't even have subclasses and is exactly the same character every single time you play it. Familiarity is a big deal to the sorts of "simplicity is best!" players you're advocating for, if they have a single option they can play over and over again and become deeply familiar with they'll be happy. They don't WANT options. Options are the enemy to those players. They don't need an entire class, or a plethora of subclasses. In many cases they don't want those things; Champion fighter is the "I don't want to have to think about this weird 'subclass' thing" subclass.
The people who want to explore, try new ideas, do cool new things, and exercise mastery of the system, though? Telling them "Just play Battle Master again, you stupid moron!" will swiftly get old. I know, because it has gotten old seeing every single fighter at any table my group and I are at be played as a Battle Master because the Fighter chassis is deeply lacking, Battle Master is the only thing that shores it up to 'playable', and not everybody can "just play a wizard" all the time. Parties need martial frontliners, and currently all the game's martial frontline classes are annoyingly decisionless. Fighters are just kinda egregiously so.
Please do not contact or message me.
I think fighter should be kept fairly basic. When I was new to the game, I played fighters and only fighters, and boy am I glad that they were there to be a fun, easy & class to play and understand. If you want to play a more complex fighter, then you can pick a subclass such as Battlemaster and/or use them to make a more advanced build. That being said, as Yurei says, people who want to play more complex fighters shouldn't be stuck with having to pick Battlemaster or taking a multiclass dip or something, so I would like a couple more complicated subclasses, and a bit more versatility worked into the 1DD fighter.
However, I think it's important to have a relatively simple class that can serve as a great introduction to the game for beginners. And fighters still can be for more advanced players, depending on the subclasses/features they pick. By and large, I think it should be kept this way.
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.I see a lot of people complain about linear fighter quadratic wizards. Here are people trying to solve that by giving fighters more things which will ultimately make them more complex and now we have complaints of not keeping fighters basic.
If we are to buff martials to be on par with casters, some additional complexity has to be added.
Unless we want to go the route of nerfing casters down to martial levels, which frankly seems more antifun, some complexity will have to be added.
No? I'm suggesting leaving the Simple Fighter for the people that like the simple fighter. Fighter is a popular class as is. Its a class that is filling a very specific need for a specific group of players, and that we shouldn't mess with their enjoyment of the game. There's a reason that Tasha's new "optional" features didn't include any band aids like the Ranger, Sorcerer or other classes. It just offered new Fighting Styles, new Maneuvers, and the ability to swap them every four levels like spells can.
I'm also not suggesting we do this for any other class. Just Fighter.
Want to talk about fixing or updating Warlock? Ranger? Sorcerer? Monk? Barbarians? Druid and its unhealthy fixation on crappy shapeshifting? I'm down with that. I'd also like to spend some time talking about paladins and mounts. Half casters should have good pet options. Even if its just a subclass. Full casters can summon, half casters get pets, and I'm partial to martials getting sidekicks and strongholds. So, yeah. Beastmasters. Golemancers. Chain pacts. Cool mounts for paladins at within playable levels.
But leave the Fighters alone for all the people that already want and like it as is.
Putting aside the fact I disagree with the One Thing Only (sounds like you're stereotyping there, everything is a spectrum). Lets pretend you are right. And that simple option is the Fighter. Which you want to take from them. They all don't want the magical anger guy you keep trying to push.
Above you accused me of wanting to restrict people to a small selection of classes. That's exactly what you're doing here. You want to restrict an entire demographic of players to ONE class. And not even the one that's deliberately designed with them in mind.
I've got nothing against new subclasses on the order of Battlemaster. In fact, I wish they'd expanded all the psionic-Fighter stuff in that subclass. It has a lot of potential. I even told my players that, if they took the Telepath feat, I'd let them have all the soul knife features in their class. Conversely, Telekinetic feat for being the rogue.
Just don't screw up the base class for those that don't want every fighter to be Battlemasters either.
Then is it safe to assume that you are also fine with the disparity between fighters and fullcasters such as wizards? Buffing fighter so that it is on par with casters will require adding complexity to them.