Improvised weapons are a thing. Telling the DM that you're grabbing someone and wrenching the weapon out of their hand is a thing. Doing less damage is, under no definition, a save or die effect. Messing around with mindless mobs is not nearly on par with a Banishment spell that lets you reshape the battlefield at whim.
Do you know why most people don't bother with disarming? Because the disarming just drops the weapon in the same square, and then the antagonist simply uses their free interact-with-object action to bend down, pick up the weapon, and continue the fight with no difference in damage output. 5e disarm rules are crap, even as a maneuver.
People that play a barbarian often do so because they generally want to play a big weapon rage boi with nature-survival connotations. That's a different class fantasy from the Fighter, who's more of a generalist. Concepts like this matter.
Its not that people can't track dice, its that they don't want to. Basic bonk players aren't dumb. They just don't want to deal with extra stuff, because that's not fun for them. And that's valid. Trying to make the base Fighter complex is taking away fun from a large demographic within the playerbase. That's what we call a d*** move.
There's lots of ways to improve the Fighter without taking the fun away from basic bonk. I don't think including more exploratory or social stuff in the base class would hurt. More complex and overtly supernatural subclasses are good.
Yes, default disarm rules are stupid and unrealistic, so me and my group just agreed that disarm flings the weapon in a random spot within 30 ft. And yes, when you're fighting someone who has a greatsword+2 with +2d6 necrotic damage that blocks healing for a round on hit, reducing them to dealing 1+str damage is a lifesaver.
You're saying that people don't want to track dice, but the reality is that all fighter subclasses except champion have stuff to track. Psi warrior has psionic energy dice, arcane archer has shots to track, cavalier has to track unwavering mark and warding maneuver (separately), rune knight has to track which runes are activated, and samurai has to track his fighting spirit uses. And where's the fun in being unable to do anything but basic bonk?
Point them out to me. I'll give you two: Battlemaster and Hexblade. What are two more? Point me at two subclasses that offer meaingful variation on the base gameplay for their class, and I will abandon this thread and allow you, Mephista, and the rest to merrily go about ruining the fighter and rendering it unplayable for anyone who wants more from their game than Basic Bonk. Meaningful variations on the base gameplay, mind - not just "I do the same thing every other single member of my class does, but I do it with orange lights instead of blue ones!"
Gonna play the devil's advocate here, but there's way of the shadow, that turns monk into a stealth master ninja, and way of mercy, that turns monk into a combat healer. My favorite examples of subclass design, by the way. And no, I'm not arguing against you (I support your points in this thread), just pointing out that there are... some subclasses that really make a difference. But they're very few. When I suggested that there should be more of that, well, people here didn't like it, because actually different subclasses means roles, roles are from 4e, and 4e is evil that should be erased from history.
This debate is going in circles, and people keep quoting me for things I've never said. So this will probably be the last post I'm making on this thread, and in it, please let me clarify my position. I do not dislike Superiority. I fact want it be a more used mechanic, but not for the class where simplicity is so important. If Superiority is really as flexible as Yurei keeps saying it is, then it can easily be put in any other class, so why fighter? I do not want to remove Battle Master or any other complicated subclasss from fighter, I actually love these subclasses because it means that both advanced ad new players can play and enjoy fighters. I do not want to remove all the complexity out of all the classes, or anything of that sort whatsoever.. I'm fine with having some complex classes, because I enjoy playing classes like those. But as long as other people want a simple class, you shouldn't take it away from them just because you want something cool. Especially if you can have put that coolness in other places without taking it away from the people who need it. Just because maneuvers aren't complex to you, does't mean they are not complex to anyone else. Imagine a new player picking what they thought "the simple class" was and DDB's database telling them they needed to pick all their maneuvers from the massive list at level 1. You can, to a small degree, limit the amount of complexity for maneuvers, but
It's really weird seeing people call baseline monks 'complicated'
Especially since those same people are saying that the basic bonk class can't be barbarian because of how it's flavored when monks are even more locked in. So they can't really be the default advanced bonk class by their own logic.
Wow. I write an 11 paragraph essay and now people nitpick sentence from it to talk about. We were talking about making "bonks advanced," not the most complicated classes, and Ki can do the former. And as for the point in bold, it's another thing I've never actually said. No one on this thread even brought up that idea, and I most certainly didn't respond to it. If you're going to respond to what I write, actually respond to what I write.
So there, I'm gone from this debate. If anyone wants to have a civil discussion with me in future, please respond to the points I actually write as opposed to putting words in my mouth that I never actually said.
What I don't get is why you want Fighter, and not Barbarian, to be the simple class.
Why is it so important for Fighter to be simple when Barbarian, which is also pretty simple, already exists?
I ask this because what makes the distinction between a Fighter and a Barbarian flavour-wise is that Fighters are generally more sophisticated in their combat training and abilities, whereas Barbarians rely more on brute strength and resilience and (depending on the subclass) a little bit of supernatural help.
I don’t think any class other than fighters should get access to maneuvers or superiority dice, that should remain strictly a fighters only thing. Paladins get smite, rangers get… whatever rangers get, maneuvers should stay with fighters.
What I don't get is why you want Fighter, and not Barbarian, to be the simple class.
Why is it so important for Fighter to be simple when Barbarian, which is also pretty simple, already exists?
I ask this because what makes the distinction between a Fighter and a Barbarian flavour-wise is that Fighters are generally more sophisticated in their combat training and abilities, whereas Barbarians rely more on brute strength and resilience and (depending on the subclass) a little bit of supernatural help.
I'll make one more post on this thread to explain what I've been saying about that and this will be it.(That last sentence was speaking to myself not you.) I don't actually think fighter needs to be "the simple class," I think there needs to be a simple class. I'd actually be fine with it being barbarians, but fighters are really popular as is, and it would require changing the way fighter is built to add complexity to it, and then to remove complexity from barbarians. In short, I'm fine with doing that, but I don't really think 1DD is going to completely change the way fighter and barbarian are built to switch the two archetypes. I also think there are a lot of people who like barbarians and fighters as is. So it's a more of a practical/logistical reason than just what I want, it's what I think is possibly feasible for the next edition.
I don’t think any class other than fighters should get access to maneuvers or superiority dice, that should remain strictly a fighters only thing. Paladins get smite, rangers get… whatever rangers get, maneuvers should stay with fighters.
I would guess that ship has sailed considering we already have Martial Adept and the upcoming Dragonlance book(s) are likely to add 4 new feats that give Maneuvers to non Fighters should they have passed the UA process.
I don’t think any class other than fighters should get access to maneuvers or superiority dice, that should remain strictly a fighters only thing. Paladins get smite, rangers get… whatever rangers get, maneuvers should stay with fighters.
I would guess that ship has sailed considering we already have Martial Adept and the upcoming Dragonlance book(s) are likely to add 4 new feats that give Maneuvers to non Fighters should they have passed the UA process.
Yeah, but that’s different from making them a Paladin or Ranger class feature.
I don’t think any class other than fighters should get access to maneuvers or superiority dice, that should remain strictly a fighters only thing. Paladins get smite, rangers get… whatever rangers get, maneuvers should stay with fighters.
I would guess that ship has sailed considering we already have Martial Adept and the upcoming Dragonlance book(s) are likely to add 4 new feats that give Maneuvers to non Fighters should they have passed the UA process.
Yeah, but that’s different from making them a Paladin or Ranger class feature.
That's true, I just mean that Maneuvers are not Fighter exclusive the way Divine Smite is Paladin exclusive or Rage is Barbarian exclusive features.
To be fair, smite spells are shared all over the freaking place. In tiefling races, in cleric subclasses, in hexblade... We have Invocations and Metamagic up for grab too.
So, its not like class features aren't entirely exclusive anymore for a lot of things.
It's really weird seeing people call baseline monks 'complicated'
Especially since those same people are saying that the basic bonk class can't be barbarian because of how it's flavored when monks are even more locked in. So they can't really be the default advanced bonk class by their own logic.
Wow. I write an 11 paragraph essay and now people nitpick sentence from it to talk about. We were talking about making "bonks advanced," not the most complicated classes, and Ki can do the former. And as for the point in bold, it's another thing I've never actually said. No one on this thread even brought up that idea, and I most certainly didn't respond to it. If you're going to respond to what I write, actually respond to what I write.
You're right. I went to check and although two people did bring up using barbarian as the "basic bonk" class, no one made any sort of rebuttal and instead ignored them. I thought you had replied to those people that a new player might not want to play a big mean angry person however I must have imagined it. I'm sorry.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I feel the same way when people say "massive amounts of complexity" when talking about Superiority.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Yes, default disarm rules are stupid and unrealistic, so me and my group just agreed that disarm flings the weapon in a random spot within 30 ft. And yes, when you're fighting someone who has a greatsword+2 with +2d6 necrotic damage that blocks healing for a round on hit, reducing them to dealing 1+str damage is a lifesaver.
You're saying that people don't want to track dice, but the reality is that all fighter subclasses except champion have stuff to track. Psi warrior has psionic energy dice, arcane archer has shots to track, cavalier has to track unwavering mark and warding maneuver (separately), rune knight has to track which runes are activated, and samurai has to track his fighting spirit uses. And where's the fun in being unable to do anything but basic bonk?
Gonna play the devil's advocate here, but there's way of the shadow, that turns monk into a stealth master ninja, and way of mercy, that turns monk into a combat healer. My favorite examples of subclass design, by the way. And no, I'm not arguing against you (I support your points in this thread), just pointing out that there are... some subclasses that really make a difference. But they're very few. When I suggested that there should be more of that, well, people here didn't like it, because actually different subclasses means roles, roles are from 4e, and 4e is evil that should be erased from history.
This debate is going in circles, and people keep quoting me for things I've never said. So this will probably be the last post I'm making on this thread, and in it, please let me clarify my position. I do not dislike Superiority. I fact want it be a more used mechanic, but not for the class where simplicity is so important. If Superiority is really as flexible as Yurei keeps saying it is, then it can easily be put in any other class, so why fighter? I do not want to remove Battle Master or any other complicated subclasss from fighter, I actually love these subclasses because it means that both advanced ad new players can play and enjoy fighters. I do not want to remove all the complexity out of all the classes, or anything of that sort whatsoever.. I'm fine with having some complex classes, because I enjoy playing classes like those. But as long as other people want a simple class, you shouldn't take it away from them just because you want something cool. Especially if you can have put that coolness in other places without taking it away from the people who need it. Just because maneuvers aren't complex to you, does't mean they are not complex to anyone else. Imagine a new player picking what they thought "the simple class" was and DDB's database telling them they needed to pick all their maneuvers from the massive list at level 1. You can, to a small degree, limit the amount of complexity for maneuvers, but
Let me clarify one more thing before I go.
Wow. I write an 11 paragraph essay and now people nitpick sentence from it to talk about. We were talking about making "bonks advanced," not the most complicated classes, and Ki can do the former. And as for the point in bold, it's another thing I've never actually said. No one on this thread even brought up that idea, and I most certainly didn't respond to it. If you're going to respond to what I write, actually respond to what I write.
------------------------------------------------------------
A good example of a subclass that changes the way you play a specific class, for better or worse, is the Wild Magic Sorcerer.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
So there, I'm gone from this debate. If anyone wants to have a civil discussion with me in future, please respond to the points I actually write as opposed to putting words in my mouth that I never actually said.
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.What I don't get is why you want Fighter, and not Barbarian, to be the simple class.
Why is it so important for Fighter to be simple when Barbarian, which is also pretty simple, already exists?
I ask this because what makes the distinction between a Fighter and a Barbarian flavour-wise is that Fighters are generally more sophisticated in their combat training and abilities, whereas Barbarians rely more on brute strength and resilience and (depending on the subclass) a little bit of supernatural help.
I don’t think any class other than fighters should get access to maneuvers or superiority dice, that should remain strictly a fighters only thing. Paladins get smite, rangers get… whatever rangers get, maneuvers should stay with fighters.
I'll make one more post on this thread to explain what I've been saying about that and this will be it. (That last sentence was speaking to myself not you.) I don't actually think fighter needs to be "the simple class," I think there needs to be a simple class. I'd actually be fine with it being barbarians, but fighters are really popular as is, and it would require changing the way fighter is built to add complexity to it, and then to remove complexity from barbarians. In short, I'm fine with doing that, but I don't really think 1DD is going to completely change the way fighter and barbarian are built to switch the two archetypes. I also think there are a lot of people who like barbarians and fighters as is. So it's a more of a practical/logistical reason than just what I want, it's what I think is possibly feasible for the next edition.
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 would guess that ship has sailed considering we already have Martial Adept and the upcoming Dragonlance book(s) are likely to add 4 new feats that give Maneuvers to non Fighters should they have passed the UA process.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Yeah, but that’s different from making them a Paladin or Ranger class feature.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
That's true, I just mean that Maneuvers are not Fighter exclusive the way Divine Smite is Paladin exclusive or Rage is Barbarian exclusive features.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
To be fair, smite spells are shared all over the freaking place. In tiefling races, in cleric subclasses, in hexblade... We have Invocations and Metamagic up for grab too.
So, its not like class features aren't entirely exclusive anymore for a lot of things.
You're right. I went to check and although two people did bring up using barbarian as the "basic bonk" class, no one made any sort of rebuttal and instead ignored them. I thought you had replied to those people that a new player might not want to play a big mean angry person however I must have imagined it. I'm sorry.