If people keep wanting to say "let the base class be super simple, super basic, and super easy with absolutely no choice points, differentiation, or cool abilities and let the subclasses add complexity!", then they had BETTER(!!!) get on board with making subclasses dramatically more impactful than they currently are. Because for almost all classes in this game - fighters included - choice of subclass is not that much more impactful than "Do you want the Red ending, the Green ending, or the Blue ending?" in Mass Effect. the subclass system was supposed to be the answer to endless class bloat, but boy heccin' howdy did it fail in allowing people to take an existing class in an Exciting New Direction(C) in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred. Most classes are lucky if they have one subclass that really changes up their playstyle and invites the player to do something new with that subclass.
For fighters, that subclass is Battle Master, even if I would generally consider Battle Master to be a complete fighter rather than a redefined fighter. Battle Master feels like what a fighter should be: an expert in advanced combat techniques and tactics who can do stuff with a weapon in hand that lesser mortals gawp at and question how it's possible. It's why we want Superiority baked into the system so much. Superiority is just that cool, and is also the answer to so many "Martials vs. Casters" problems.
You want the Fighter base chassis to be even simpler and less capable than it currently is while abandoning Superiority entirely, even removing it from the Battle Master because the idea of Superiority just offends Keep It Simple-type players so much? All right. I'm going to disagree viciously, but all right. I had better be seeing some truly transformative subclasses, though. Eldritch Knights better be getting the same mix-a-cantrip-in Extra Attack that Bladesingers do, as well as the ability to Spell Strike and the ability to cleave enemy spells right out of the air with their empowered blades. Ditto the Arcane Archer; I'd best be seeing Arcane Shot options as good as if not better than Superiority options, since we're removing the fighter's access to Superiority entirely. The Champion is entirely unsalvageable, so the other PHB fighter options had better pick up the slack for the removal of Battle Master.
And if we're culling Superiority from the fighter because it's too complex for the Keep It Simple class, I had better be seeing it spread out to all the other martials. I want Superiority available to my rangers, my paladins, and anything else with a Fighting Style option. Anything with a Fighting Style should by all rights also have access to Superiority, but since we can't keep it on fighters we'd best make sure possibly the best, strongest, and most versatile tool available to any weaponscraft specialist in R5e is still there somewhere.
I don't think fighter needs any large scale change, fighter has a similar issue to Warlock where the base class needs a slight buff but there is a subclass that needs a nerf, which for fighter is battle master (and for warlock is hexblade). I think something most martials need, (with exception of Paladin) is something to help with saves. Martials are tankier beasts but too easily taken out by saving throws, which is why Paladin is the exception since they have their Aura of Protection which increases all saving throws by +CHA for themselves AND all allies in range.
I think what fighter needs is a "saving surge", an ability to re-roll a failed save once per short rest.
Battlemaster should have some things more restricted to melee, Arcane Archer is already basically a ranged version of battle master, but things like precision strike pair way too well with sharpshooter.
For the rest, I just think there needs to be small upgrades to DPR. Else wise I really don't think fighter needs that much; Barbarian, Ranger, Monk and Rogue are all far more in need of improvements in comparison.
There is also nothing wrong with fighter being basic, fundamentally there are people that want a basic class. Subclasses can add complexity, which some do and some don't. It's dumb and arrogant to look down on people for wanting to play a basic option, in my opinion.
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.
Fair, that argument makes sense. That being said, complexity does not always equal power, and you can increase a fighters, say, damage or AC, which keeps fighters simple while still making them more powerful.
Increase a fighter's damage? Hm. I wonder if you could do that by giving them a dice pool they can use to fuel enhanced attacks, most of which add the die they roll as damage to their blows.
Increase a fighter's AC? Hm. I wonder if you could do that by giving them a dice pool they can use on defensive abilities, using the die rolls to reduce damage or increase their own AC at need.
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.
Fair, that argument makes sense. That being said, complexity does not always equal power, and you can increase a fighters say, damage or AC, which keeps fighters simple while still making them more powerful.
The thing is that fighters don't really need additional damage or AC. What they need is increased versatility. The true power of casters is the sheer versatility that magic offers them; a wizard is able to use a variety of control spells to devasating effects in combat while having a large repoitore of utility spells like teleport, seeming, sending, Tiny Hut, etc. They are able to make massive impacts in and out of combat; that is why casters are so strong. So what fighters need is not more damage or AC, but more versatility so they can do more out of combat. Adding additional versatility is going to add additional complexity.
Increase a fighter's damage? Hm. I wonder if you could do that by giving them a dice pool they can use to fuel enhanced attacks, most of which add the die they roll as damage to their blows.
Increase a fighter's AC? Hm. I wonder if you could do that by giving them a dice pool they can use on defensive abilities, using the die rolls to reduce damage or increase their own AC at need.
Yes you could, but as I was saying, when there is a route to do something that is simpler, and accomplishes the same goal, why should you take the more complex route? There is no reason to have complexity for the sake of complexity, it should be for the sake of improvement. Yes, fighters will need to have some buffs that might make them more complicated, but when possible, those buffs should be as simple as can be. What you can accomplish by adding maneuvers to the base class, you can accomplish in different, simpler ways, that keep fighters fairly basic. Oh, and you can still have those maneuver options available too.
It is important to have a class that is easy for new players to use and understand. Yes, no class is massively complicated, but having one that is usually uncomplicated is a massive time/pain-saver for new players. And 5e already did a great job in making fighter something more advanced players can play with and have fun by having ways and subclasses, such as Battle Master that are are a bit more complicated, though admittedly, I do wish we had more of those.
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.
Fair, that argument makes sense. That being said, complexity does not always equal power, and you can increase a fighters say, damage or AC, which keeps fighters simple while still making them more powerful.
The thing is that fighters don't really need additional damage or AC. What they need is increased versatility. The true power of casters is the sheer versatility that magic offers them; a wizard is able to use a variety of control spells to devasating effects in combat while having a large repoitore of utility spells like teleport, seeming, sending, Tiny Hut, etc. They are able to make massive impacts in and out of combat; that is why casters are so strong. So what fighters need is not more damage or AC, but more versatility so they can do more out of combat. Adding additional versatility is going to add additional complexity.
Firstly, we were only talking about the bolded part, and this what we have been talking about so far on this thread has only been about buffing martials in combat, and me explaining that their are other ways to do so. But since we are now moving on to a completely different topic about fighters, let me weigh in my two cents: I'm all for making fighters better outside of combat, that's one of the things I really think they need, and yes, I know that will add a bit of complexity. But i'm not arguing against it.
I'm arguing against unnecessary complexity for fighters, such as adding a billion different maneuvers to the base class to help balance it or "Make it cool" when you can do that in a billion different ways. I think fighters should remain a fairly basic class, and I think that's important. That being said, I'm fine with giving them a little extra versatility.
No one here is arguing to make fighters "'super simple, super basic, and super easy with absolutely no choice points, differentiation, or cool abilities and let the subclasses add complexity!'" And I for one, am certainly not advocating for removing Battle Master, I think it's great that more advanced players can play a more advanced fighter, and honestly wish there were more subclasses like that. I want fighters to be relatively simple so their's something people who want to play relatively simple classes can play. Does that mean that I'm against adding a billion super-complex maneuvers to the base fighter class? Yes. But does that mean that I want to change fighters into something boring and unfun for no good reason whatsoever? No, of course not.
This is just an idea I had, but it probably won't work. Anyways, my whole point is that there should be a relatively simple class for beginners and people who just want to play a simple class to play, so could the cool Battle Master maneuvery-knight be a different class than the basic, somewhat simple, fighter. I don't know, I just think there should be some class like this for beginners to play, and I think it's worth it for Wizards of the Coast to consider making a class with maneuvers and stuff, if that's what the fans want, but I also think there should be some sort of class for beginners and the other types of players mentioned above, to play and enjoy. Maybe barbarian could even become that simple class, or would that upset a lot of people who wanted to play complicated barbarians?
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 argument made in the original post was that Superiority (i.e. the actual name of the system/mechanic that grants maneuvers - Combat Superiority) is an extremely fun, flavorful, and highly impactful feature that should become a baseline option for the fighter class.
The counter-argument is, generally, that not only is Superiority far too complex, fiddly, and unwieldy to be made a baseline class feature for the "Keep It Simple" class, but that Superiority is so bad it should be cut from the Fighter completely via elimination of the Battle Master subclass in order to reduce cognitive load and mental overhead for the class. This would effectively remove Superiority from the game, which I vehemently disagree with, but it would certainly aid the purpose of ensuring that all fighters were always kept to an absolute maximum of in-game simplicity for the sake of new players and Pizza And BS-style players.
No, splitting Superiority off into a brand new base class is not viable. The PHB will not include new base classes. There isn't going to be enough room in the PHB 2.0 for everything they want to include anyways, devoting a dozen pages to an entirely new class is a complete nonstarter. There is a precisely zero percent chance we get a new class in the PHB 2.0, especially since it's passing likely they'll have to cram the artificer in there. What we have is what we're getting, so they cannot simply make a Better Fighter class and shunt people who want Better Fighter to that class.
The argument made in the original post was that Superiority (i.e. the actual name of the system/mechanic that grants maneuvers - Combat Superiority) is an extremely fun, flavorful, and highly impactful feature that should become a baseline option for the fighter class.
The counter-argument is, generally, that not only is Superiority far too complex, fiddly, and unwieldy to be made a baseline class feature for the "Keep It Simple" class, but that Superiority is so bad it should be cut from the Fighter completely via elimination of the Battle Master subclass in order to reduce cognitive load and mental overhead for the class. This would effectively remove Superiority from the game, which I vehemently disagree with, but it would certainly aid the purpose of ensuring that all fighters were always kept to an absolute maximum of in-game simplicity for the sake of new players and Pizza And BS-style players.
<Snip>
Hmmm... I've been arguing something fairly similar to the bolded part but I disagree with people wanting to eliminate the Battle Master subclass, I think it's important to have fighter be mainly intended as a simpler class, but still work for more advanced players. Battle Master, and other subclasses like it, help with that, as I outlined in my previous post. However, I haven't seen anyone on this thread actually say that, so if you could supply me with a link to the post where someone argued to remove Battle Master, I'd love to see it.
That being said, players who want Battle Master removed aren't necessarily "Pizza and {expletive} players," they have a point, even if both you and I strongly disagree with it.
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.
You yourself argued that Battle Master should be excised from the fighter and shunted into a "maneuvery-knight" class so the fighter could remain as simple, basic, and new Player Friendly as possible.
Spoilers: new players don't all want to be fighters just because a DM said so. My 'New Player' character was a multiclass rogue/ranger. The 'fighter' in our first game was a multiclass fighter/wizard. We had another Brand Newbie running a paladin, and another one running a cleric. All base classes need to be at least minimally viable for all tiers and levels of play. Artificer, sadly, fails this bar - I would not recommend most Brand Newbies try and get a grip on the artificer's shit. Fighter also fails this bar - there's not enough meat on its bones to be of use or interest to advanced players.
I feel Maneuvers are an awesome option. There are very easy, simple, straightforward maneuvers that take very little thought to use. Extra damage, extra chance to hit. There are maneuvers that require forethought and planning. Bait and Switch, Commanding Strike. Even if they did give baseline fighter a single superiority die and one or two options for it (similar to Martial Adept feat) that would not be particularly complicated. I am fairly certain I can explain to my nephews how it functions for the simple options, they don't have to use the more complicated ones. Kinda like the subclasses in that regard.
IS it necessary to add a basic maneuver to the fighter class, no. Could it be a very rewarding feature, yes. I think the best way they could implement this would be to limit the initial options similarly to the first level feats. Allow the simpler ones to start, then later on you can change em up.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Where words fail, swords prevail. Where blood is spilled, my cup is filled" -Cartaphilus
"I have found the answer to the meaning of life. You ask me what the answer is? You already know what the answer to life is. You fear it more than the strike of a viper, the ravages of disease, the ire of a lover. The answer is always death. But death is a gentle mistress with a sweet embrace, and you owe her a debt of restitution. Life is not a gift, it is a loan."
You yourself argued that Battle Master should be excised from the fighter and shunted into a "maneuvery-knight" class so the fighter could remain as simple, basic, and new Player Friendly as possible.
Spoilers: new players don't all want to be fighters just because a DM said so. My 'New Player' character was a multiclass rogue/ranger. The 'fighter' in our first game was a multiclass fighter/wizard. We had another Brand Newbie running a paladin, and another one running a cleric. All base classes need to be at least minimally viable for all tiers and levels of play. Artificer, sadly, fails this bar - I would not recommend most Brand Newbies try and get a grip on the artificer's shit. Fighter also fails this bar - there's not enough meat on its bones to be of use or interest to advanced players.
There is vast difference between saying it might work to remove superiority from fighters to give it a bigger role in another class and saying superiority shouldn't be used whatsoever. My whole literal point is not that I don't like the superiority mechanic -- I think it's really cool -- my point is that it would make the base fighter class way too complicated. However, I think superiority is great for a subclass, because it means more advanced players can play more advanced fighters. And honestly, I'd like more complicated subclasses like that, while keeping the base class simple for people who want it to be. If your impression of what I'm saying is "superiority is bad, it should be removed from the game altogether," then it leaves me wondering whether you've actually been reading or even just skimming the posts I've made.
The point of having a relatively simple class for newbs to play is not so that the DM can force them into playing it, but so they have the option of something simplier and easier to play. Every game should have something simple that a beginner, or just someone who wants to play something less complicated, can easily play with and have fun. .Not everybody will choose the easy option, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. However, for so many beginners, it is helpful to have that choice, and there's nothing wrong with making use of that option. Just because you or your players wouldn't make use of it, doesn't mean no one else would. When I was new to the game, the fighter class was there for me, and it helped me learn how to play. Would you want every beginner not to be able to play a relatively simple class, just because you don't want them to? Having a choice to limit the complexity of a game you're new to, especially one as complicated as D&D, is a great choice to have. A choice that nobody should be able to take away from you because "oh look, how cool it could be!"
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 can not comprehend how anyone actually believes the superiority die system is even slightly complex in order to make a class too complicated. The reason why we see so many champion fighters in the game is too many people suggest it to new players as a easy class to learn when in fact almost any of the martial classes is effectively just as easy to learn. But again a easy way to make it simpler is to remove X per short rest as a mechanic and just say one per turn. At early levels when you have just one attack if you are trying to play a easy class it should be pretty easy to remember hey i roll a d6 and can either trip or push them every turn, by the time you have a second attack I think you have enough experience to understand once per turn means not every attack but just one of them.
Increase a fighter's damage? Hm. I wonder if you could do that by giving them a dice pool they can use to fuel enhanced attacks, most of which add the die they roll as damage to their blows.
Increase a fighter's AC? Hm. I wonder if you could do that by giving them a dice pool they can use on defensive abilities, using the die rolls to reduce damage or increase their own AC at need.
Yes you could, but as I was saying, when there is a route to do something that is simpler, and accomplishes the same goal, why should you take the more complex route? There is no reason to have complexity for the sake of complexity, it should be for the sake of improvement. Yes, fighters will need to have some buffs that might make them more complicated, but when possible, those buffs should be as simple as can be. What you can accomplish by adding maneuvers to the base class, you can accomplish in different, simpler ways, that keep fighters fairly basic. Oh, and you can still have those maneuver options available too.
It is important to have a class that is easy for new players to use and understand. Yes, no class is massively complicated, but having one that is usually uncomplicated is a massive time/pain-saver for new players. And 5e already did a great job in making fighter something more advanced players can play with and have fun by having ways and subclasses, such as Battle Master that are are a bit more complicated, though admittedly, I do wish we had more of those.
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.
Fair, that argument makes sense. That being said, complexity does not always equal power, and you can increase a fighters say, damage or AC, which keeps fighters simple while still making them more powerful.
The thing is that fighters don't really need additional damage or AC. What they need is increased versatility. The true power of casters is the sheer versatility that magic offers them; a wizard is able to use a variety of control spells to devasating effects in combat while having a large repoitore of utility spells like teleport, seeming, sending, Tiny Hut, etc. They are able to make massive impacts in and out of combat; that is why casters are so strong. So what fighters need is not more damage or AC, but more versatility so they can do more out of combat. Adding additional versatility is going to add additional complexity.
Firstly, we were only talking about the bolded part, and this what we have been talking about so far on this thread has only been about buffing martials in combat, and me explaining that their are other ways to do so. But since we are now moving on to a completely different topic about fighters, let me weigh in my two cents: I'm all for making fighters better outside of combat, that's one of the things I really think they need, and yes, I know that will add a bit of complexity. But i'm not arguing against it.
I'm arguing against unnecessary complexity for fighters, such as adding a billion different maneuvers to the base class to help balance it or "Make it cool" when you can do that in a billion different ways. I think fighters should remain a fairly basic class, and I think that's important. That being said, I'm fine with giving them a little extra versatility.
No one here is arguing to make fighters "'super simple, super basic, and super easy with absolutely no choice points, differentiation, or cool abilities and let the subclasses add complexity!'" And I for one, am certainly not advocating for removing Battle Master, I think it's great that more advanced players can play a more advanced fighter, and honestly wish there were more subclasses like that. I want fighters to be relatively simple so their's something people who want to play relatively simple classes can play. Does that mean that I'm against adding a billion super-complex maneuvers to the base fighter class? Yes. But does that mean that I want to change fighters into something boring and unfun for no good reason whatsoever? No, of course not.
This is just an idea I had, but it probably won't work. Anyways, my whole point is that there should be a relatively simple class for beginners and people who just want to play a simple class to play, so could the cool Battle Master maneuvery-knight be a different class than the basic, somewhat simple, fighter. I don't know, I just think there should be some class like this for beginners to play, and I think it's worth it for Wizards of the Coast to consider making a class with maneuvers and stuff, if that's what the fans want, but I also think there should be some sort of class for beginners and the other types of players mentioned above, to play and enjoy. Maybe barbarian could even become that simple class, or would that upset a lot of people who wanted to play complicated barbarians?
The issue is that simplicity often comes with lessened versatility which will cause the quadratic wizard linear fighter issue. Like I see a lot of complaints about the disparity between casters and martials and I don't really see a way to solve that without adding in additional complexity.
If we do add in subclasses that offer a caster level of complexity, then there is a good chance that complex option will outstrip the simpler option. Someone else earlier said that battlemaster could use a nerf, which I feel is wrong. Are we willing to accept having some subclasses be subpar in terms of overall mechanical power for the sake of keeping simplicity?
I'm not sure I agree with the premise of this thread.
The barbarian is the 'basic combat' class. It's extremely straight forward, extremely easy, a class I see new players gravitate to a lot. Unlike the Fighter, it has zero 'harder' subclasses. There's no Barbarian equivalent to the eldritch knight or battlemaster, or even the rune knight or echo knight.
It's also the class I see people burn out on the most over campaigns, specifically because it's so straight forward. Much more often than on other straight forward classes like the Fighter or Paladin.
I also disagree with the second poster's assertion that the fighter is bad because it doesn't have a strong narrative theme either. The flexibility is a big part of the class' appeal, and I don't think it's a coincidence that the same charts that list Fighters as the most popular class also tend to put the most thematically restrictive classes (like the druid) toward the bottom.
DnD isn't a Ubisoft or ActivisionBlizzard game. It doesn't have an obligation to be simple to the point of offering no choices and no room for error, handholding the player as if they were 5 years old or mentally handicapped. Don't underestimate the intelligence of people who come to DnD. If one can handle creating a character in the first place, then the same person can handle having more than one way of hitting the enemy. Not to mention that DnD is a party game and there's always someone at the table willing to help you figure out something you might not understand.
Saying that fighter being basic is iconic or traditional isn't much of an argument either. Fighter used to be simple because the game was simple back in 70s. Almost half a century passed. The game evolved, shifted. Why change tradition? Because tradition isn't a value in itself. Some traditions even should be abandoned.
There's always barbarian. Barbarian is designed to be simple. Barbarian already occupies a niche of a basic class. Though even then, barbarian has some survival stuff and ribbons that help outside combat.
Wherever there's complexity, there's always a way to play it simple. Even as a wizard, potentially the most complex class because all of the things wizard can do, you can always just go for the fireball. Give the fighter a subclass with exclusive "stronger bonk" maneuver that simply deals more damage than your usual maneuvers, and you're good.
But again a easy way to make it simpler is to remove X per short rest as a mechanic and just say one per turn. At early levels when you have just one attack if you are trying to play a easy class it should be pretty easy to remember hey i roll a d6 and can either trip or push them every turn, by the time you have a second attack I think you have enough experience to understand once per turn means not every attack but just one of them.
I think you just found oil. It's an elegant solution to the short rest dependency that can be expanded with levels. Say, at level 1 as a fighter you get a couple of maneuvers, no added damage, just effects, and you can use them once per turn. Then you could get additional damage either through a passive buff to all maneuvers or as a special maneuver, and an ability that can make all your attacks maneuvers for a single turn PB times per long rest. That way, you cuold just use this "all hits are maneuvers" feature and make all attacks "strong bonk" maneuver if you want that extra surge of power.
Saying that fighter being basic is iconic or traditional isn't much of an argument either. Fighter used to be simple because the game was simple back in 70s. Almost half a century passed. The game evolved, shifted. Why change tradition? Because tradition isn't a value in itself. Some traditions even should be abandoned.
It's not a matter of tradition. In older versions of the game, Fighters became lords that had castles and armies. In 3.5, Fighters had to navigate a minefield of absurd feat options to justify their existence and the convoluted, problematic full attack system. 4e Fighters were genuinely one of the more involved classes in the game because of its penchant for both battlefield control and damage at the same time. If anything, the Champion Fighter is an aberration from a historical perspective unless you go way, way, way back to some of the most basic rulesets the game had.
What I think is a more compelling argument isn't tradition, but product success. Fighters are year after year, survey after survey, chart after chart, the most successful class in the game in terms of getting people to actually play them.
Does it really make sense to do a ground up total conversion of a class that, by all visible forms of measurement, people actually like? Last time I saw one of those D&D Beyond charts, champion + battlemaster fighters alone outnumbered the entire wizard class (and wizards + druids combined barely managed to equal just fighters). Which class is the failure of design that needs a rework again?
Does it really make sense to do a ground up total conversion of a class that, by all visible forms of measurement, people actually like? Last time I saw one of those D&D Beyond charts, champion + battlemaster fighters alone outnumbered the entire wizard class (and wizards + druids combined barely managed to equal just fighters). Which class is the failure of design that needs a rework again?
And then you look at the forums and see a milliion of threads like "I'm a fighter, what do I do outside combat?", "I'm level 2 fighter and I'm already bored of hitting things with sword", "what can fighter do in combat other than hitting things with a sword?". Besides, you said it yourself, battlemaster is very popular. It's not about players who start a fighter, it's about who stays a fighter.
The issue is that simplicity often comes with lessened versatility which will cause the quadratic wizard linear fighter issue. Like I see a lot of complaints about the disparity between casters and martials and I don't really see a way to solve that without adding in additional complexity.
If we do add in subclasses that offer a caster level of complexity, then there is a good chance that complex option will outstrip the simpler option. Someone else earlier said that battlemaster could use a nerf, which I feel is wrong. Are we willing to accept having some subclasses be subpar in terms of overall mechanical power for the sake of keeping simplicity?
I've already proposed several ways you can balance martials and casters in combat, but outside of it, as I acknowledged and explained several times now, I'm fine with adding a bit of complexity to fighters so that they can have a bigger role outside of combat, as long as they're kept relatively simple. Also, I literally think Battle Master is a great subclass, since it means more advanced players can pick subclasses like it, and play a more advanced fighter. There are numerous ways to add mechanical power in game without adding large degrees of complexity, I gave several examples HERE.
Quote from Yurei1453>>Fighter also fails this bar - there's not enough meat on its bones to be of use or interest to advanced players.
You can't think every class at any level will work for every type of play, that's an impossible standard to meet. For example, what newbs could play a level 20 wizard easily in their first go and have no trouble. At levels 1-2 for fighters, it's relatively simple because at that level, the game is relatively simple, it's mostly an outlier at higher levels. And that's why, at those higher levels, there are subclasses like Battle Master that can be interesting to advanced players. Take Orym from Critical Role for instance, Liam, a very advanced player, is playing the "simple class" in a complicated way, and he seems to have a lot of fun doing it. So no, fighter can be interesting to advanced players, and saying that it can't be is objectively innacurate.
I feel Maneuvers are an awesome option. There are very easy, simple, straightforward maneuvers that take very little thought to use. Extra damage, extra chance to hit. There are maneuvers that require forethought and planning. Bait and Switch, Commanding Strike. Even if they did give baseline fighter a single superiority die and one or two options for it (similar to Martial Adept feat) that would not be particularly complicated. I am fairly certain I can explain to my nephews how it functions for the simple options, they don't have to use the more complicated ones. Kinda like the subclasses in that regard.
IS it necessary to add a basic maneuver to the fighter class, no. Could it be a very rewarding feature, yes. I think the best way they could implement this would be to limit the initial options similarly to the first level feats. Allow the simpler ones to start, then later on you can change em up.
Still, at low levels, having to remember all their maneuvers and keep track of their superiority dice is going to be pretty complicated, especially for newer players, even if those maneuevers that they spent the time and work choosing are some of the simpler ones. Just because you feel that maneuvers are cool, doesn't mean people should take away the "Simple class" in D&D away from new players who need it. There are other ways to implement Superiority, which I honestly think is a cool mechanic, into the game, without taking the option of playing a simple class away from all players. Having a class like fighter there can be a great help for people learning how to play the game, and making an unnecessary change to the base fighter class to "Make it cooler!" Isn't a very good justification for removing that.
Saying that fighter being basic is iconic or traditional isn't much of an argument either. Fighter used to be simple because the game was simple back in 70s. Almost half a century passed. The game evolved, shifted. Why change tradition? Because tradition isn't a value in itself. Some traditions even should be abandoned.
It's not a matter of tradition. In older versions of the game, Fighters became lords that had castles and armies. In 3.5, Fighters had to navigate a minefield of absurd feat options to justify their existence and the convoluted, problematic full attack system. 4e Fighters were genuinely one of the more involved classes in the game because of its penchant for both battlefield control and damage at the same time. If anything, the Champion Fighter is an aberration from a historical perspective unless you go way, way, way back to some of the most basic rulesets the game had.
What I think is a more compelling argument isn't tradition, but product success. Fighters are year after year, survey after survey, chart after chart, the most successful class in the game in terms of getting people to actually play them.
Does it really make sense to do a ground up total conversion of a class that, by all visible forms of measurement, people actually like? Last time I saw one of those D&D Beyond charts, champion + battlemaster fighters alone outnumbered the entire wizard class (and wizards + druids combined barely managed to equal just fighters). Which class is the failure of design that needs a rework again?
That has almost nothing to do with the mechanics and almost everything to do with how the imagery of a warrior is more popular than that of a spell caster. The people who play the classes are frequently disappointed with the fighter, i almost never see people complain about how the wizard plays, well not wizard players its everyone else complaining that the wizard made them look bad.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
If people keep wanting to say "let the base class be super simple, super basic, and super easy with absolutely no choice points, differentiation, or cool abilities and let the subclasses add complexity!", then they had BETTER(!!!) get on board with making subclasses dramatically more impactful than they currently are. Because for almost all classes in this game - fighters included - choice of subclass is not that much more impactful than "Do you want the Red ending, the Green ending, or the Blue ending?" in Mass Effect. the subclass system was supposed to be the answer to endless class bloat, but boy heccin' howdy did it fail in allowing people to take an existing class in an Exciting New Direction(C) in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred. Most classes are lucky if they have one subclass that really changes up their playstyle and invites the player to do something new with that subclass.
For fighters, that subclass is Battle Master, even if I would generally consider Battle Master to be a complete fighter rather than a redefined fighter. Battle Master feels like what a fighter should be: an expert in advanced combat techniques and tactics who can do stuff with a weapon in hand that lesser mortals gawp at and question how it's possible. It's why we want Superiority baked into the system so much. Superiority is just that cool, and is also the answer to so many "Martials vs. Casters" problems.
You want the Fighter base chassis to be even simpler and less capable than it currently is while abandoning Superiority entirely, even removing it from the Battle Master because the idea of Superiority just offends Keep It Simple-type players so much? All right. I'm going to disagree viciously, but all right. I had better be seeing some truly transformative subclasses, though. Eldritch Knights better be getting the same mix-a-cantrip-in Extra Attack that Bladesingers do, as well as the ability to Spell Strike and the ability to cleave enemy spells right out of the air with their empowered blades. Ditto the Arcane Archer; I'd best be seeing Arcane Shot options as good as if not better than Superiority options, since we're removing the fighter's access to Superiority entirely. The Champion is entirely unsalvageable, so the other PHB fighter options had better pick up the slack for the removal of Battle Master.
And if we're culling Superiority from the fighter because it's too complex for the Keep It Simple class, I had better be seeing it spread out to all the other martials. I want Superiority available to my rangers, my paladins, and anything else with a Fighting Style option. Anything with a Fighting Style should by all rights also have access to Superiority, but since we can't keep it on fighters we'd best make sure possibly the best, strongest, and most versatile tool available to any weaponscraft specialist in R5e is still there somewhere.
Please do not contact or message me.
I don't think fighter needs any large scale change, fighter has a similar issue to Warlock where the base class needs a slight buff but there is a subclass that needs a nerf, which for fighter is battle master (and for warlock is hexblade). I think something most martials need, (with exception of Paladin) is something to help with saves. Martials are tankier beasts but too easily taken out by saving throws, which is why Paladin is the exception since they have their Aura of Protection which increases all saving throws by +CHA for themselves AND all allies in range.
I think what fighter needs is a "saving surge", an ability to re-roll a failed save once per short rest.
Battlemaster should have some things more restricted to melee, Arcane Archer is already basically a ranged version of battle master, but things like precision strike pair way too well with sharpshooter.
For the rest, I just think there needs to be small upgrades to DPR. Else wise I really don't think fighter needs that much; Barbarian, Ranger, Monk and Rogue are all far more in need of improvements in comparison.
There is also nothing wrong with fighter being basic, fundamentally there are people that want a basic class. Subclasses can add complexity, which some do and some don't. It's dumb and arrogant to look down on people for wanting to play a basic option, in my opinion.
Fair, that argument makes sense. That being said, complexity does not always equal power, and you can increase a fighters, say, damage or AC, which keeps fighters simple while still making them more powerful.
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.Increase a fighter's damage? Hm. I wonder if you could do that by giving them a dice pool they can use to fuel enhanced attacks, most of which add the die they roll as damage to their blows.
Increase a fighter's AC? Hm. I wonder if you could do that by giving them a dice pool they can use on defensive abilities, using the die rolls to reduce damage or increase their own AC at need.
Please do not contact or message me.
The thing is that fighters don't really need additional damage or AC. What they need is increased versatility. The true power of casters is the sheer versatility that magic offers them; a wizard is able to use a variety of control spells to devasating effects in combat while having a large repoitore of utility spells like teleport, seeming, sending, Tiny Hut, etc. They are able to make massive impacts in and out of combat; that is why casters are so strong. So what fighters need is not more damage or AC, but more versatility so they can do more out of combat. Adding additional versatility is going to add additional complexity.
Yes you could, but as I was saying, when there is a route to do something that is simpler, and accomplishes the same goal, why should you take the more complex route? There is no reason to have complexity for the sake of complexity, it should be for the sake of improvement. Yes, fighters will need to have some buffs that might make them more complicated, but when possible, those buffs should be as simple as can be. What you can accomplish by adding maneuvers to the base class, you can accomplish in different, simpler ways, that keep fighters fairly basic. Oh, and you can still have those maneuver options available too.
It is important to have a class that is easy for new players to use and understand. Yes, no class is massively complicated, but having one that is usually uncomplicated is a massive time/pain-saver for new players. And 5e already did a great job in making fighter something more advanced players can play with and have fun by having ways and subclasses, such as Battle Master that are are a bit more complicated, though admittedly, I do wish we had more of those.
Firstly, we were only talking about the bolded part, and this what we have been talking about so far on this thread has only been about buffing martials in combat, and me explaining that their are other ways to do so. But since we are now moving on to a completely different topic about fighters, let me weigh in my two cents: I'm all for making fighters better outside of combat, that's one of the things I really think they need, and yes, I know that will add a bit of complexity. But i'm not arguing against it.
I'm arguing against unnecessary complexity for fighters, such as adding a billion different maneuvers to the base class to help balance it or "Make it cool" when you can do that in a billion different ways. I think fighters should remain a fairly basic class, and I think that's important. That being said, I'm fine with giving them a little extra versatility.
-------------------------------------------------------
No one here is arguing to make fighters "'super simple, super basic, and super easy with absolutely no choice points, differentiation, or cool abilities and let the subclasses add complexity!'" And I for one, am certainly not advocating for removing Battle Master, I think it's great that more advanced players can play a more advanced fighter, and honestly wish there were more subclasses like that. I want fighters to be relatively simple so their's something people who want to play relatively simple classes can play. Does that mean that I'm against adding a billion super-complex maneuvers to the base fighter class? Yes. But does that mean that I want to change fighters into something boring and unfun for no good reason whatsoever? No, of course not.
-------------------------------------------------------
This is just an idea I had, but it probably won't work. Anyways, my whole point is that there should be a relatively simple class for beginners and people who just want to play a simple class to play, so could the cool Battle Master maneuvery-knight be a different class than the basic, somewhat simple, fighter. I don't know, I just think there should be some class like this for beginners to play, and I think it's worth it for Wizards of the Coast to consider making a class with maneuvers and stuff, if that's what the fans want, but I also think there should be some sort of class for beginners and the other types of players mentioned above, to play and enjoy. Maybe barbarian could even become that simple class, or would that upset a lot of people who wanted to play complicated barbarians?
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 argument made in the original post was that Superiority (i.e. the actual name of the system/mechanic that grants maneuvers - Combat Superiority) is an extremely fun, flavorful, and highly impactful feature that should become a baseline option for the fighter class.
The counter-argument is, generally, that not only is Superiority far too complex, fiddly, and unwieldy to be made a baseline class feature for the "Keep It Simple" class, but that Superiority is so bad it should be cut from the Fighter completely via elimination of the Battle Master subclass in order to reduce cognitive load and mental overhead for the class. This would effectively remove Superiority from the game, which I vehemently disagree with, but it would certainly aid the purpose of ensuring that all fighters were always kept to an absolute maximum of in-game simplicity for the sake of new players and Pizza And BS-style players.
No, splitting Superiority off into a brand new base class is not viable. The PHB will not include new base classes. There isn't going to be enough room in the PHB 2.0 for everything they want to include anyways, devoting a dozen pages to an entirely new class is a complete nonstarter. There is a precisely zero percent chance we get a new class in the PHB 2.0, especially since it's passing likely they'll have to cram the artificer in there. What we have is what we're getting, so they cannot simply make a Better Fighter class and shunt people who want Better Fighter to that class.
Please do not contact or message me.
Hmmm... I've been arguing something fairly similar to the bolded part but I disagree with people wanting to eliminate the Battle Master subclass, I think it's important to have fighter be mainly intended as a simpler class, but still work for more advanced players. Battle Master, and other subclasses like it, help with that, as I outlined in my previous post. However, I haven't seen anyone on this thread actually say that, so if you could supply me with a link to the post where someone argued to remove Battle Master, I'd love to see it.
That being said, players who want Battle Master removed aren't necessarily "Pizza and {expletive} players," they have a point, even if both you and I strongly disagree with it.
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.You yourself argued that Battle Master should be excised from the fighter and shunted into a "maneuvery-knight" class so the fighter could remain as simple, basic, and new Player Friendly as possible.
Spoilers: new players don't all want to be fighters just because a DM said so. My 'New Player' character was a multiclass rogue/ranger. The 'fighter' in our first game was a multiclass fighter/wizard. We had another Brand Newbie running a paladin, and another one running a cleric. All base classes need to be at least minimally viable for all tiers and levels of play. Artificer, sadly, fails this bar - I would not recommend most Brand Newbies try and get a grip on the artificer's shit. Fighter also fails this bar - there's not enough meat on its bones to be of use or interest to advanced players.
Please do not contact or message me.
I feel Maneuvers are an awesome option. There are very easy, simple, straightforward maneuvers that take very little thought to use. Extra damage, extra chance to hit. There are maneuvers that require forethought and planning. Bait and Switch, Commanding Strike. Even if they did give baseline fighter a single superiority die and one or two options for it (similar to Martial Adept feat) that would not be particularly complicated. I am fairly certain I can explain to my nephews how it functions for the simple options, they don't have to use the more complicated ones. Kinda like the subclasses in that regard.
IS it necessary to add a basic maneuver to the fighter class, no. Could it be a very rewarding feature, yes. I think the best way they could implement this would be to limit the initial options similarly to the first level feats. Allow the simpler ones to start, then later on you can change em up.
"Where words fail, swords prevail. Where blood is spilled, my cup is filled" -Cartaphilus
"I have found the answer to the meaning of life. You ask me what the answer is? You already know what the answer to life is. You fear it more than the strike of a viper, the ravages of disease, the ire of a lover. The answer is always death. But death is a gentle mistress with a sweet embrace, and you owe her a debt of restitution. Life is not a gift, it is a loan."
There is vast difference between saying it might work to remove superiority from fighters to give it a bigger role in another class and saying superiority shouldn't be used whatsoever. My whole literal point is not that I don't like the superiority mechanic -- I think it's really cool -- my point is that it would make the base fighter class way too complicated. However, I think superiority is great for a subclass, because it means more advanced players can play more advanced fighters. And honestly, I'd like more complicated subclasses like that, while keeping the base class simple for people who want it to be. If your impression of what I'm saying is "superiority is bad, it should be removed from the game altogether," then it leaves me wondering whether you've actually been reading or even just skimming the posts I've made.
The point of having a relatively simple class for newbs to play is not so that the DM can force them into playing it, but so they have the option of something simplier and easier to play. Every game should have something simple that a beginner, or just someone who wants to play something less complicated, can easily play with and have fun. .Not everybody will choose the easy option, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. However, for so many beginners, it is helpful to have that choice, and there's nothing wrong with making use of that option. Just because you or your players wouldn't make use of it, doesn't mean no one else would. When I was new to the game, the fighter class was there for me, and it helped me learn how to play. Would you want every beginner not to be able to play a relatively simple class, just because you don't want them to? Having a choice to limit the complexity of a game you're new to, especially one as complicated as D&D, is a great choice to have. A choice that nobody should be able to take away from you because "oh look, how cool it could be!"
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 can not comprehend how anyone actually believes the superiority die system is even slightly complex in order to make a class too complicated. The reason why we see so many champion fighters in the game is too many people suggest it to new players as a easy class to learn when in fact almost any of the martial classes is effectively just as easy to learn. But again a easy way to make it simpler is to remove X per short rest as a mechanic and just say one per turn. At early levels when you have just one attack if you are trying to play a easy class it should be pretty easy to remember hey i roll a d6 and can either trip or push them every turn, by the time you have a second attack I think you have enough experience to understand once per turn means not every attack but just one of them.
The issue is that simplicity often comes with lessened versatility which will cause the quadratic wizard linear fighter issue. Like I see a lot of complaints about the disparity between casters and martials and I don't really see a way to solve that without adding in additional complexity.
If we do add in subclasses that offer a caster level of complexity, then there is a good chance that complex option will outstrip the simpler option. Someone else earlier said that battlemaster could use a nerf, which I feel is wrong. Are we willing to accept having some subclasses be subpar in terms of overall mechanical power for the sake of keeping simplicity?
I'm not sure I agree with the premise of this thread.
The barbarian is the 'basic combat' class. It's extremely straight forward, extremely easy, a class I see new players gravitate to a lot. Unlike the Fighter, it has zero 'harder' subclasses. There's no Barbarian equivalent to the eldritch knight or battlemaster, or even the rune knight or echo knight.
It's also the class I see people burn out on the most over campaigns, specifically because it's so straight forward. Much more often than on other straight forward classes like the Fighter or Paladin.
I also disagree with the second poster's assertion that the fighter is bad because it doesn't have a strong narrative theme either. The flexibility is a big part of the class' appeal, and I don't think it's a coincidence that the same charts that list Fighters as the most popular class also tend to put the most thematically restrictive classes (like the druid) toward the bottom.
DnD isn't a Ubisoft or ActivisionBlizzard game. It doesn't have an obligation to be simple to the point of offering no choices and no room for error, handholding the player as if they were 5 years old or mentally handicapped. Don't underestimate the intelligence of people who come to DnD. If one can handle creating a character in the first place, then the same person can handle having more than one way of hitting the enemy. Not to mention that DnD is a party game and there's always someone at the table willing to help you figure out something you might not understand.
Saying that fighter being basic is iconic or traditional isn't much of an argument either. Fighter used to be simple because the game was simple back in 70s. Almost half a century passed. The game evolved, shifted. Why change tradition? Because tradition isn't a value in itself. Some traditions even should be abandoned.
There's always barbarian. Barbarian is designed to be simple. Barbarian already occupies a niche of a basic class. Though even then, barbarian has some survival stuff and ribbons that help outside combat.
Wherever there's complexity, there's always a way to play it simple. Even as a wizard, potentially the most complex class because all of the things wizard can do, you can always just go for the fireball. Give the fighter a subclass with exclusive "stronger bonk" maneuver that simply deals more damage than your usual maneuvers, and you're good.
I think you just found oil. It's an elegant solution to the short rest dependency that can be expanded with levels. Say, at level 1 as a fighter you get a couple of maneuvers, no added damage, just effects, and you can use them once per turn. Then you could get additional damage either through a passive buff to all maneuvers or as a special maneuver, and an ability that can make all your attacks maneuvers for a single turn PB times per long rest. That way, you cuold just use this "all hits are maneuvers" feature and make all attacks "strong bonk" maneuver if you want that extra surge of power.
It's not a matter of tradition. In older versions of the game, Fighters became lords that had castles and armies. In 3.5, Fighters had to navigate a minefield of absurd feat options to justify their existence and the convoluted, problematic full attack system. 4e Fighters were genuinely one of the more involved classes in the game because of its penchant for both battlefield control and damage at the same time. If anything, the Champion Fighter is an aberration from a historical perspective unless you go way, way, way back to some of the most basic rulesets the game had.
What I think is a more compelling argument isn't tradition, but product success. Fighters are year after year, survey after survey, chart after chart, the most successful class in the game in terms of getting people to actually play them.
Does it really make sense to do a ground up total conversion of a class that, by all visible forms of measurement, people actually like? Last time I saw one of those D&D Beyond charts, champion + battlemaster fighters alone outnumbered the entire wizard class (and wizards + druids combined barely managed to equal just fighters). Which class is the failure of design that needs a rework again?
And then you look at the forums and see a milliion of threads like "I'm a fighter, what do I do outside combat?", "I'm level 2 fighter and I'm already bored of hitting things with sword", "what can fighter do in combat other than hitting things with a sword?". Besides, you said it yourself, battlemaster is very popular. It's not about players who start a fighter, it's about who stays a fighter.
I've already proposed several ways you can balance martials and casters in combat, but outside of it, as I acknowledged and explained several times now, I'm fine with adding a bit of complexity to fighters so that they can have a bigger role outside of combat, as long as they're kept relatively simple. Also, I literally think Battle Master is a great subclass, since it means more advanced players can pick subclasses like it, and play a more advanced fighter. There are numerous ways to add mechanical power in game without adding large degrees of complexity, I gave several examples HERE.
You can't think every class at any level will work for every type of play, that's an impossible standard to meet. For example, what newbs could play a level 20 wizard easily in their first go and have no trouble. At levels 1-2 for fighters, it's relatively simple because at that level, the game is relatively simple, it's mostly an outlier at higher levels. And that's why, at those higher levels, there are subclasses like Battle Master that can be interesting to advanced players. Take Orym from Critical Role for instance, Liam, a very advanced player, is playing the "simple class" in a complicated way, and he seems to have a lot of fun doing it. So no, fighter can be interesting to advanced players, and saying that it can't be is objectively innacurate.
Still, at low levels, having to remember all their maneuvers and keep track of their superiority dice is going to be pretty complicated, especially for newer players, even if those maneuevers that they spent the time and work choosing are some of the simpler ones. Just because you feel that maneuvers are cool, doesn't mean people should take away the "Simple class" in D&D away from new players who need it. There are other ways to implement Superiority, which I honestly think is a cool mechanic, into the game, without taking the option of playing a simple class away from all players. Having a class like fighter there can be a great help for people learning how to play the game, and making an unnecessary change to the base fighter class to "Make it cooler!" Isn't a very good justification for removing that.
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.That has almost nothing to do with the mechanics and almost everything to do with how the imagery of a warrior is more popular than that of a spell caster. The people who play the classes are frequently disappointed with the fighter, i almost never see people complain about how the wizard plays, well not wizard players its everyone else complaining that the wizard made them look bad.