That doesn’t mean there is 110 builds. The builds I was referencing were (+1, as I’ve thought of another unique one) 1. Ranged Fighter (will nearly always take the archery fighting style, crossbow expert/gunner, sharpshooter, use a heavy crossbow or longbow in games without firearms, and focus dexterity, and take other feats which allow for mobility, better initiative or more damage) 2. Melee Two-Handed Fighter (prioritises strength and constitution, almost always will take the defence or great weapon fighting style, great weapon master, and use a greatsword/greataxe and take other feats which aid defence) 3. Melee Sword and Board Fighter (prioritises strength or dexterity and constitution, will almost always take dueling or defence, wear medium or heavy armour) 4. Sentinel/PAM Fighter (prioritises strength and constitution, will almost always take defence or great weapon fighting, wield a glaive, halberd, or pike, and take other feats which aid defence and/or battlefield control) 5. Grappling Fighter (prioritises strength and constitution, will almost always take the unarmed fighting style, grappler feat, and feats that aid grappling and/or defence)
That is not true. I have personally have played all of the following which are not on your list:
1. I played a rolled stat V. Human Battlemaster fighter with high strength and high dexterity who had both GWM and Sharpshooter. She had a 18 strength and 18 Dexterity at level 6, criminal background and a high stealth. For fighting style she had protection. She had a 12 constitution. If I had to do it over again I would have taken a strength ASI instead of GWM.
2. I played a V.Human Arcane Archer with superior technique fighting style and the martial adept feat. She was the favorite fighter I have ever played. She was on point buy and finished with an 8 strength, 16 Dexterity, 20 Intelligence and 10 constitution at the end of the campaign (15th level). She also had Observant, Shadow Touched (Cause Fear), Fey Touched (Hex) and Telepathic feats.
3. I played a Glasya Tiefling Arcane Archer again with superior technique fighting style and the martial adept feat and sharpshooter (which worked with darts and quick toss from her fighting style). She also had magic initiate feat with charm person, Friends and Green Flame Blade and took the actor feat at 12th level. She had a 17 Charisma, 16 Dexterity, 14 Intelligence at start. She took the actor feat at 12th level. She could deal a ton of damage on an opening alpha round with Action Surge getting 4 attacks (later 6) with her bow, one with grasping arrow and one with menacing attack, and then throw a sharpshooter dart with quick toss. if all those landed (which they usually didn't) that was 4d8+1d4+4d6+65 damage (average 99.5 damage at 6th level, 134.5 at 12th level) with additional effects including one enemy who is slowed and takes more damage when he moves and another that is frightened and she still had another arcane shot to use in the future. Again she had a 10 constitution.
4. I played a Shaddar Kai battlemaster with sharpshooter, thrown weapon fighting and a 20 strength who primarily used silvered darts (and had the quick toss maneuver). She also had a 10 constitution.
5. There are broadly two different variations on Grappler I have seen and neither of them use the grappler feat. The first, which is more common, uses unarmed fighting style and the Tavern Brawler feat (I have played this one). The second uses battlemaster, skill expert feat and Grappling Strike maneuver. The grappler feat is not a good feat for a grappler fighter. For a Rogue Grapple build I could see it (although still weak) but it offers nothing at all that I can see for a fighter.
I also rarely see any fighters take great weapon fighting any more. Usually it is defense or blind fighting although personally I take superior technique.
Now I have seen a lot of builds close to your examples, but I hardly think they are ubiquitous as you claim and I have seen many players deviate from these.
So using Redpelt's classifications, we have:
1. A ranged fighter/two-hander hybrid enabled by lucky rolled stats.
2. A ranged fighter
3. Another ranged fighter
4. Yet another ranged fighter
5. A discussion of variations on the grappler theme
The difference here is that you think swapping out a couple feats or a fighting style makes for a fighter distinct enough to classify as a completely different build, whereas I look at these and see a bunch of characters likely using the same actions more often than not. How often did your builds 2, 3, and 4, do something besides pick an enemy and make a ranged attack at it in combat? After #3 fired off all nearly all its abilities on an alpha strike, what did it do until you got a chance for a short rest?
The problem gets to be in the actual doing of it. Flat bonuses are a tough thing to add in bounded accuracy.
Not really. Just make it a damage bonus instead of a flat attack bonus (for example, the Brute monster feature, though that would likely be overpowered).
Adding something like 1d4 or ½PB to every melee hit wouldn’t be OP.
That doesn’t mean there is 110 builds. The builds I was referencing were (+1, as I’ve thought of another unique one) 1. Ranged Fighter (will nearly always take the archery fighting style, crossbow expert/gunner, sharpshooter, use a heavy crossbow or longbow in games without firearms, and focus dexterity, and take other feats which allow for mobility, better initiative or more damage) 2. Melee Two-Handed Fighter (prioritises strength and constitution, almost always will take the defence or great weapon fighting style, great weapon master, and use a greatsword/greataxe and take other feats which aid defence) 3. Melee Sword and Board Fighter (prioritises strength or dexterity and constitution, will almost always take dueling or defence, wear medium or heavy armour) 4. Sentinel/PAM Fighter (prioritises strength and constitution, will almost always take defence or great weapon fighting, wield a glaive, halberd, or pike, and take other feats which aid defence and/or battlefield control) 5. Grappling Fighter (prioritises strength and constitution, will almost always take the unarmed fighting style, grappler feat, and feats that aid grappling and/or defence)
That is not true. I have personally have played all of the following which are not on your list:
1. I played a rolled stat V. Human Battlemaster fighter with high strength and high dexterity who had both GWM and Sharpshooter. She had a 18 strength and 18 Dexterity at level 6, criminal background and a high stealth. For fighting style she had protection. She had a 12 constitution. If I had to do it over again I would have taken a strength ASI instead of GWM.
2. I played a V.Human Arcane Archer with superior technique fighting style and the martial adept feat. She was the favorite fighter I have ever played. She was on point buy and finished with an 8 strength, 16 Dexterity, 20 Intelligence and 10 constitution at the end of the campaign (15th level). She also had Observant, Shadow Touched (Cause Fear), Fey Touched (Hex) and Telepathic feats.
3. I played a Glasya Tiefling Arcane Archer again with superior technique fighting style and the martial adept feat and sharpshooter (which worked with darts and quick toss from her fighting style). She also had magic initiate feat with charm person, Friends and Green Flame Blade and took the actor feat at 12th level. She had a 17 Charisma, 16 Dexterity, 14 Intelligence at start. She took the actor feat at 12th level. She could deal a ton of damage on an opening alpha round with Action Surge getting 4 attacks (later 6) with her bow, one with grasping arrow and one with menacing attack, and then throw a sharpshooter dart with quick toss. if all those landed (which they usually didn't) that was 4d8+1d4+4d6+65 damage (average 99.5 damage at 6th level, 134.5 at 12th level) with additional effects including one enemy who is slowed and takes more damage when he moves and another that is frightened and she still had another arcane shot to use in the future. Again she had a 10 constitution.
4. I played a Shaddar Kai battlemaster with sharpshooter, thrown weapon fighting and a 20 strength who primarily used silvered darts (and had the quick toss maneuver). She also had a 10 constitution.
5. There are broadly two different variations on Grappler I have seen and neither of them use the grappler feat. The first, which is more common, uses unarmed fighting style and the Tavern Brawler feat (I have played this one). The second uses battlemaster, skill expert feat and Grappling Strike maneuver. The grappler feat is not a good feat for a grappler fighter. For a Rogue Grapple build I could see it (although still weak) but it offers nothing at all that I can see for a fighter.
I also rarely see any fighters take great weapon fighting any more. Usually it is defense or blind fighting although personally I take superior technique.
Now I have seen a lot of builds close to your examples, but I hardly think they are ubiquitous as you claim and I have seen many players deviate from these.
So using Redpelt's classifications, we have:
1. A ranged fighter/two-hander hybrid enabled by lucky rolled stats.
2. A ranged fighter
3. Another ranged fighter
4. Yet another ranged fighter
5. A discussion of variations on the grappler theme
The difference here is that you think swapping out a couple feats or a fighting style makes for a fighter distinct enough to classify as a completely different build, whereas I look at these and see a bunch of characters likely using the same actions more often than not. How often did your builds 2, 3, and 4, do something besides pick an enemy and make a ranged attack at it in combat? After #3 fired off all nearly all its abilities on an alpha strike, what did it do until you got a chance for a short rest?
If you are solely classifying them by the type of the attacks they make; there are only two types of attacks melee and ranged so every fighter is going to use that and making the fighter itself more complex will not change that they are still going to use ranged or melee attacks. No changes you are going to make to the fighter class will alter this, you would need to change the combat mechanics themselves to give your weapons-users more options than a ranged attack or a melee attack.
Regarding those examples, he mentioned specific things his builds have and the examples I gave do not have those specific thing (to be clear have played other fighters that did):
#1 Hybrid is not on his list at all. It is a hybrid, a hybrid which is not a character he mentioned. I will also add that while the character had good rolls, this type build is also available on point buy by putting a 16 in both Dex and Strength. In a game where you can buy magic items or get the DM to drop specific magic items you can even put an 8 in strength and do this with gauntlets of ogre power, I don't play those games often but based on posts here, many do.
#2 did not take ANY of the feats or fighting styles he said "will nearly always take" and also did not "focus on dexterity" I took no ASIs or even half feats in Dexterity. She maxed intelligence though half feats instead. She also used magic in combat, particularly Hex and cause fear, and cause fear takes an action. Cause Fear was usually used with action surge letting her control one enemy (once a day) before she went on to "pick an enemy and attack"
#3 was more of a face and trickster and controller build than a Ranged fighter. She actually used intimidate quite a bit in combat, so she was not "always picking and enemy and making a ranged attack". She had a devastating nova attack, but had other options for the grind of combat. Again she did not focus on Dexterity or use Archery Fighting Style, did not focus on monility or initiative feats.
#4 Did not use a crossbow, longbow or firearm like in his example. Focused on Strength, not Dexterity. Did not take feats enabling mobility or initiative (although blessing of the Rave Queen does give mobility as a race). She took thrown weapon fighting instead of archery, she also engaged in melee quite often, so she was not "picking an enemy and making a ranged attack".
I would disagree with your premise, I don't think the real problem is lack of variety. I think the problem is many, think there are only a few viable options. When Redpelt says ranged Fighters focus on dexterity and almost always has Archery, will take XBE/Gunner and Sharpshooter and use a bow, Xbow or firearm - I think he really means that, he believes that is what all ranged fighter do. I think he means that other fighting styles are not real options and other build types are not real options. FWIW I think I have only had 1 player at my tables that have played with both SS and XBE, despite the fact that is widely regarded as the most powerful fighter build.
I used examples that deviated in terms of feats and fighting styles. If the point is to give examples of fighters that do things other than "pick an enemy and attack it", I could have used one of many Eldritch Knight builds that have a variety of spell options as well, but I considered those builds to actually fall into his "Two-Handed Melee" or "Sword and Board" bin.
Finally, if your argument is there are only ranged and melee fighters then I will agree, but I would also add that there are only 2 kinds of casters as well- control and blasting. Every wizard is going to pick a target and either damage it or disable/control it with a spell.
If you are solely classifying them by the type of the attacks they make, there are only two types of attacks melee and ranged so every fighter is going to use that and making the fighter itself more complex will not change that they are still going to use ranged or melee attacks. No changes you are going to make to the fighter class will change this then.
Finally, If that is your arguement then I will agree, but I would also add that there are only 2 kinds of casters - control and blasting. Every wizard is going to bick a target and either damage it or disable it with a spell.
Right, this is the difference in perspective I'm trying to highlight, and the comparison to casters is instructive. Most fighter options boil down to "attack them" or "use an ability to attack them harder." Occasionally you get to inflict a debuff or status condition, and then you have to wait for a short rest to do it again. And for the likes of Arcane Archers and Battle Masters, they don't get access to more powerful effects as they level up, instead scraping the bottom of the same barrel.
Meanwhile, "control" casters have a whole suit of status effects to choose from. They can use their spell selection to hinder groups of enemies, or lock down a single enemy. They can reshape the battlefield the put the enemy in a disadvantageous position. Many of these effects will last for an entire combat. "Blaster" casters are a more simple variation, but they still have choices in terms of AoE vs. single target, dealing damage instantaneous vs. over time, and often get rider effects on top of that. There's also buffing casters, who act as a force multiplier on the party by handing out advantage, numerical bonuses, or new tactical options. Depending on the class, they might not even have to pick a lane and stick to it, the way melee/ranged fighters do, because they can change up their spell loadout on a daily basis. Options and versatility, and the ability to adapt to changing conditions on a round by round basis by bringing different options online, rather than being stuck with "Keep hitting them and hope they die."
If you are solely classifying them by the type of the attacks they make, there are only two types of attacks melee and ranged so every fighter is going to use that and making the fighter itself more complex will not change that they are still going to use ranged or melee attacks. No changes you are going to make to the fighter class will change this then.
Finally, If that is your arguement then I will agree, but I would also add that there are only 2 kinds of casters - control and blasting. Every wizard is going to bick a target and either damage it or disable it with a spell.
Right, this is the difference in perspective I'm trying to highlight, and the comparison to casters is instructive. Most fighter options boil down to "attack them" or "use an ability to attack them harder." Occasionally you get to inflict a debuff or status condition, and then you have to wait for a short rest to do it again. And for the likes of Arcane Archers and Battle Masters, they don't get access to more powerful effects as they level up, instead scraping the bottom of the same barrel
Echo Knights, Rune Knights and Eldritch Knights do all get access to more powerful effects as they level up though, so I don't think this is a viable argument. Also Fighters generally recharge their abilities on a short rest (Eldritch Knights accepted), so at low level Arcane Archer and Battlemaster abilities are being used more than Casters are getting to cast their comparable effects. It is not until about 7th level that this evens out.
There is a lot you can do with feats too, and while any class can get feats, fighters get two more, meaning they can do more with those. Things like telekenetic, Eldritch Adept, Gift of the Gem Dragon and Gift of the Metallic Dragon bring very useful abilities to the table that are usable multiple times a day for most/many builds don't intrude on their action economy. Hex also typically does not hurt action economy and is a good boost to damage and useful debuff that lasts an hour and you can pick it up through magic initiate or Fey touched. Finally there are the martial feats like crusher that are spammable with every hit.
Echo Knights, Rune Knights and Eldritch Knights do all get access to more powerful effects as they level up though, so I don't think this is a viable argument. Also Fighters generally recharge their abilities on a short rest (Eldritch Knights accepted), so at low level Arcane Archer and Battlemaster abilities are being used more than Casters are getting to cast their comparable effects. It is not until about 7th level that this evens out.
There is a lot you can do with feats too, and while any class can get feats, fighters get two more, meaning they can do more with those. Things like telekenetic, Eldritch Adept, Gift of the Gem Dragon and Gift of the Metallic Dragon bring very useful abilities to the table that are usable multiple times a day for most/many builds don't intrude on their action economy. Hex also typically does not hurt action economy and is a good boost to damage and useful debuff that lasts an hour and you can pick it up through magic initiate or Fey touched. Finally there are the martial feats like crusher that are spammable with every hit.
To the point of how often the abilities get to be used: the devil is in the details, there. If your table gets the recommended two short rests per day (and we all know it's a common complaint/observation that many tables do not follow the guidelines for encounters per day), then Battle Masters, at least, start out ahead in terms of how often they can use their abilities. Arcane Archers and Rune Knights, unfortunately, start out even with spellcasters and just fall further behind. By seventh level, as you point out, spellcasters are catching up in terms of frequency while they are adding a whole raft of new options with every odd-numbered level. Rune Knights get two additional runes to pick from at 7th level, and their pool is so shallow that ultimately every Rune Knight is just picking which rune is their least favorite.
Take a step back, though, and consider that you are trumpeting the fighter subclasses that have explicitly magical abilities while there's a common complaint (even in this thread) that Fighters shouldn't get "physics-defying" or "reality-breaking" powers. The same problem applies to the feats you list, even ignoring how many of those feats are variations of "you get to push someone." Again and again, the answer to wanting the class, described as having being "superior combatants" with "a thorough knowledge of the skills of combat," to have tactical versatility is "get some magic."
Take a step back, though, and consider that you are trumpeting the fighter subclasses that have explicitly magical abilities while there's a common complaint (even in this thread) that Fighters shouldn't get "physics-defying" or "reality-breaking" powers. The same problem applies to the feats you list, even ignoring how many of those feats are variations of "you get to push someone." Again and again, the answer to wanting the class, described as having being "superior combatants" with "a thorough knowledge of the skills of combat," to have tactical versatility is "get some magic."
They should not get physics-defying powers as part of their class. Getting it through magic is fine. If you want that fine, if you don't want that then don't get it and be happy to just "hit and push" things.
I guess what I don't understand is why people feel the need to be able to do magic type things without using magic.
Being "superior combatants" is why they get to attack more than once, and at higher levels more than twice with an attack action it is why they get to take an extra action in combat, both of which are very powerful, especially when combined with the effects they can add on an attack. Would you be willing to give up extra attack and action surge or make them options to get these other physics-defying abilities you want to add?
Take a step back, though, and consider that you are trumpeting the fighter subclasses that have explicitly magical abilities while there's a common complaint (even in this thread) that Fighters shouldn't get "physics-defying" or "reality-breaking" powers. The same problem applies to the feats you list, even ignoring how many of those feats are variations of "you get to push someone." Again and again, the answer to wanting the class, described as having being "superior combatants" with "a thorough knowledge of the skills of combat," to have tactical versatility is "get some magic."
They should not get physics-defying powers as part of their class. Getting it through magic is fine. If you want that fine, if you don't want that then don't get it and be happy to just "hit and push" things.
I guess what I don't understand is why people feel the need to be able to do magic type things without using magic.
The fact that you can't imagine anything other than "hit and push things" without resorting to magic or the appearance thereof betrays a tragic lack of creativity. Just because you can't figure it out doesn't mean that other people shouldn't ask WotC to figure it out.
Well then why don't we just take the angry man flavor out of barbarian. We rename the class and features change descriptions and then put a table in giving the suggestions for what your "battle trace" could be, Which would include Rage but also things like the Sherlock Holmes analysis or even something like Zeke's Eye of Shining Justice from xenoblade 2.
That way the new "barbarian" could be the simple Martial class and fighter could be the complicated one. No flavor defaults for either one.
The answer is that Barbarian shouldn't be "the simple class" because, per the data I cited earlier, it's not what players who like simplicity want to play. They want to keep Fighter and not be pushed into another class. I think we should do our best to honor that very small wish. Also, the likelihood that WotC completely remodels Barbarian and Fighter is very low. At that point, they might as well just add in another class.
If that is what you think I want, then you really don't "get it". I don't "want the complexity ripped from the game and thrown in the Dumpster," all I want is for you to not rip the simplicity out of Fighter. You can literally have all the complexity you want in any other class.
What other class. There are three warrior group classes, Fighter, Barbarian, and Monk. If a player wants to play a martial character without magic they have to pick one of these three. (And that's been generous given monks Ki) You've already stated multiple times that it's unfair to force barbarian angry man flavor on to new players who might not want to be a raging Berserker. This goes both ways, you can't force advance the players into monks flavor if they want to play an advanced martial class. And obviously barbarian won't work for the same reasons it won't work for new players. And a fighter is reserved as the simple martial class then please explain where the advanced warrior group option is.
You seem to think that classes can only primarily be martials if they are in the Warrior group and don't have spells. For one, as Yurei and other users explained to me on the very second thread I made to these forums, classes with spells and other such features can still make the best martials and tanks. But if your goal is to play a base-class without any access to magic, then your choices are Rogue, Monk, Barbarian, Fighter, or Rogue. (Though you can play a Paladin without using a single spell, just slots to Divine Smite.)
So, if we're counting Paladin, you have 5 martials you can play without using spells & magic. You can literally make any one of those classes complex, except for Fighter. If you reflavord Barbarian, you could make it the complex martial if you made the changes you proposed above. Or Rogue, its' whole class concept is literally sneaky, versatile, fighty warrior. That sounds like it would work excellently as a complex class. Monk is already quite complex, but you don't have to play it if you don't want to I guess. And Paladin could be expanded and modified if you really are so opposed to a martials complexity being in the form of spells.
Failing that, a new class could always be added.
But anyways, there are already numerous complex options in the game available to you. Some are spellcasters, some are martials, and some are both. There are also numerous ways to make simpler options more complex. So, have your complexity somewhere else. As I explained above, there are numerous places for it. So why should that place be the class that is loved for being simple?
Anyways, on an unrelated note, complaining about a lack of complex options for martials doesn't help change anything or add any options whatsoever. Personally, I think I'm going to try to homebrew a complex Fighter subclass for this installment of the Competition of the Finest Brews (I'll post it on this thread when I'm done). I encourage all people on this thread who have vehemently argued for more complexity to actually make options that allow for that, instead of continuing this pointless argument that helps no one and changes nothing.
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 answer is that Barbarian shouldn't be "the simple class" because, per the data I cited earlier, it's not what players who like simplicity want to play.
Wrong focus there. It's not what players whether or not they like simplicity want to play.
The answer is that Barbarian shouldn't be "the simple class" because, per the data I cited earlier, it's not what players who like simplicity want to play.
Wrong focus there. It's not what players whether or not they like simplicity want to play.
Right, all the data really tells us is 1) How many characters of a different class/subclass exist on D&D Beyond, and 2) What the average balance of characters in a campaign is. Anything beyond that is speculation. We don't know how many of those characters are actually played vs. simply created as a thought exercise. We also can't say for sure why certain classes are more popular than others, because to my knowledge, D&D Beyond hasn't done a survey on that point.
If one were in a speculating mood, one might note that the Champion subclass for Fighter is one of the less popular of the free subclasses compared to options for other classes, down with the Evocation Wizard and the Thief Rogue, and that the next two most popular subclasses for the fighter are the Battle Master and Eldritch Knight, two of the more "complex" subclasses. We don't know what percentage of those 40% of Fighters who are Champions have not bought anything on D&D Beyond and so have no other option, but there's room to speculate that there is a desire for more complex fighters, given that 28% of Fighters are one of those two subclasses.
Being "superior combatants" is why they get to attack more than once, and at higher levels more than twice with an attack action it is why they get to take an extra action in combat, both of which are very powerful, especially when combined with the effects they can add on an attack. Would you be willing to give up extra attack and action surge or make them options to get these other physics-defying abilities you want to add?
As SagaTympana says, there are plenty more things we can add to Fighter options without having to resort to "physics-defying" abilities. A few pages ago, I suggested that a combat maneuver that inflicts Exhaustion (specifically the playtest type), could be an interesting option. You don't need to resort to magic to justify a Fighter making attacks intended to force reactions out of an opponent such that they will tire themselves out faster. You could also justify conditions like Blinded, Poisoned, Restrained, or Paralyzed through the application of mundane force in a precise fashion. And that's before we start digging into previous editions for ideas, such as 3.X's Whirlwind attack. If a 3rd level Battle Master can hit two enemies with one strike (Sweeping Attack), why shouldn't one exponentially more skilled be able to hit more than that? And as I've said previously, I don't think making Fighters trade away Extra Attack makes any more sense than making Warlocks trade away spellcasting, but I could certainly see freezing the superiority die, or having some of these maneuvers not add the die to damage, and trading away Action Surge might well be worth it to add maneuvers to the base Fighter chassis (as an optional class feature to be clear. Don't want anyone yelling about "taking away the Fighter" from people who prefer simplicity.)
Would you be willing to give up extra attack and action surge or make them options to get these other physics-defying abilities you want to add?
If you don't want your fighters doing physics-defying things, why are you letting them get past third level? The ability to both survive and hurt high CR monsters is a physics defying ability.
... I encourage all people on this thread who have vehemently argued for more complexity to actually make options that allow for that, instead of continuing this pointless argument that helps no one and changes nothing.
Issue: if we do, you will be in that thread arguing just as vehemently that those options are unnecessary, unhelpful, and a bad idea. Just like you argued it in the Backgrounds thread, in the Feats thread, and in half a dozen other places. Everywhere I turn in this board right now, you're there arguing against the inclusion of deeper, more engaging, more advanced options wherever they may come up.
We may as well continue arguing here then, eh? Why mocve elsewhere just to have the same fight?
Well then why don't we just take the angry man flavor out of barbarian. We rename the class and features change descriptions and then put a table in giving the suggestions for what your "battle trace" could be, Which would include Rage but also things like the Sherlock Holmes analysis or even something like Zeke's Eye of Shining Justice from xenoblade 2.
That way the new "barbarian" could be the simple Martial class and fighter could be the complicated one. No flavor defaults for either one.
The answer is that Barbarian shouldn't be "the simple class" because, per the data I cited earlier, it's not what players who like simplicity want to play. They want to keep Fighter and not be pushed into another class. I think we should do our best to honor that very small wish. Also, the likelihood that WotC completely remodels Barbarian and Fighter is very low. At that point, they might as well just add in another class.
If that is what you think I want, then you really don't "get it". I don't "want the complexity ripped from the game and thrown in the Dumpster," all I want is for you to not rip the simplicity out of Fighter. You can literally have all the complexity you want in any other class.
What other class. There are three warrior group classes, Fighter, Barbarian, and Monk. If a player wants to play a martial character without magic they have to pick one of these three. (And that's been generous given monks Ki) You've already stated multiple times that it's unfair to force barbarian angry man flavor on to new players who might not want to be a raging Berserker. This goes both ways, you can't force advance the players into monks flavor if they want to play an advanced martial class. And obviously barbarian won't work for the same reasons it won't work for new players. And a fighter is reserved as the simple martial class then please explain where the advanced warrior group option is.
You seem to think that classes can only primarily be martials if they are in the Warrior group and don't have spells. For one, as Yurei and other users explained to me on the very second thread I made to these forums, classes with spells and other such features can still make the best martials and tanks. But if your goal is to play a base-class without any access to magic, then your choices are Rogue, Monk, Barbarian, Fighter, or Rogue. (Though you can play a Paladin without using a single spell, just slots to Divine Smite.)
So, if we're counting Paladin, you have 5 martials you can play without using spells & magic. You can literally make any one of those classes complex, except for Fighter. If you reflavord Barbarian, you could make it the complex martial if you made the changes you proposed above. Or Rogue, its' whole class concept is literally sneaky, versatile, fighty warrior. That sounds like it would work excellently as a complex class. Monk is already quite complex, but you don't have to play it if you don't want to I guess. And Paladin could be expanded and modified if you really are so opposed to a martials complexity being in the form of spells.
Failing that, a new class could always be added.
But anyways, there are already numerous complex options in the game available to you. Some are spellcasters, some are martials, and some are both. There are also numerous ways to make simpler options more complex. So, have your complexity somewhere else. As I explained above, there are numerous places for it. So why should that place be the class that is loved for being simple?
Anyways, on an unrelated note, complaining about a lack of complex options for martials doesn't help change anything or add any options whatsoever. Personally, I think I'm going to try to homebrew a complex Fighter subclass for this installment of the Competition of the Finest Brews (I'll post it on this thread when I'm done).
I encourage all people on this thread who have vehemently argued for more complexity to actually make options that allow for that, instead of continuing this pointless argument that helps no one and changes nothing.
Ok I sat down and tried to think about how I could make options fir fighters that are not magic. I came up with a few. These would be optional like the stuff in Tasha's, so not all tables would have to offer it and they would replace the current extra attack at level 5, 11 and 20.
Superior Combatant (Optional) Level 5, 11 and 20. This replaces Extra Attack. Every time you would get extra attack from the fighter class you have the option of getting one more attack as part of your attack action or taking one of these superior combatant abilities. If you take superior combatant you can not benefit from extra attack from another class.
1. Advanced Pugilist: Your training in Judo makes you an expert at controlling and immobilizing others. When you successfully grapple an opponent on your turn you can also attempt to shove them prone. Make a second contested athletics check. If you are successful the opponent is both grappled and prone. Alternatively when you successfully shove an opponent prone, you can make a second athletics check to attempt a grapple as well. Additionally if someone fails a grapple or shove against you, you can use your reaction to either shove or grapple them (your choice) with automatic success.
2. Disruptive Defense: You have trained to take advantage of enemy mistakes and disable them. When someone within 5 feet of you misses you with an attack you can use your reaction to incapacitate that attacker for the remainder of the current turn. Additionally you can attempt to make them drop what they are holding if they fail a strength or dexterity save (their choice) against a DC of 8+PB+strength.
3. Star Wars Jedi Defense: You can bat away ranged attacks into enemies. When you are holding a weapon and someone makes a ranged attack against you and misses, you can use your reaction to attempt to deflect the attack into someone else. Make a ranged attack against someone within 30 feet. If the attack hits it does 1d8+strength damage of the type caused by the attack.
4. Wounding critical: When you score a critical hit you cause a bleeding wound. The opponent the opponent takes an additional 1d8 damage and will bleed out if not fixed. The opponent is wounded and takes an additional1d8 damage every round at the start of your turn and has disadvantage on attacks and saves. The bleeding individual or someone else can end the effect using an action to stop the bleeding. The bleeding also stops if the victim takes 1 or more hit points of healing.
5. Quick action: You keep your head about you in combat and are never rattled. When you use your action to attempt a tool or ability check in combat you can attempt two tool or ability checks as part of that action. You can use the second check to reattempt the first check if it was a failure. You also have advantage on initiative.
That doesn’t mean there is 110 builds. The builds I was referencing were (+1, as I’ve thought of another unique one) 1. Ranged Fighter (will nearly always take the archery fighting style, crossbow expert/gunner, sharpshooter, use a heavy crossbow or longbow in games without firearms, and focus dexterity, and take other feats which allow for mobility, better initiative or more damage) 2. Melee Two-Handed Fighter (prioritises strength and constitution, almost always will take the defence or great weapon fighting style, great weapon master, and use a greatsword/greataxe and take other feats which aid defence) 3. Melee Sword and Board Fighter (prioritises strength or dexterity and constitution, will almost always take dueling or defence, wear medium or heavy armour) 4. Sentinel/PAM Fighter (prioritises strength and constitution, will almost always take defence or great weapon fighting, wield a glaive, halberd, or pike, and take other feats which aid defence and/or battlefield control) 5. Grappling Fighter (prioritises strength and constitution, will almost always take the unarmed fighting style, grappler feat, and feats that aid grappling and/or defence)
That is not true. I have personally have played all of the following which are not on your list:
1. I played a rolled stat V. Human Battlemaster fighter with high strength and high dexterity who had both GWM and Sharpshooter. She had a 18 strength and 18 Dexterity at level 6, criminal background and a high stealth. For fighting style she had protection. She had a 12 constitution. If I had to do it over again I would have taken a strength ASI instead of GWM.
2. I played a V.Human Arcane Archer with superior technique fighting style and the martial adept feat. She was the favorite fighter I have ever played. She was on point buy and finished with an 8 strength, 16 Dexterity, 20 Intelligence and 10 constitution at the end of the campaign (15th level). She also had Observant, Shadow Touched (Cause Fear), Fey Touched (Hex) and Telepathic feats.
3. I played a Glasya Tiefling Arcane Archer again with superior technique fighting style and the martial adept feat and sharpshooter (which worked with darts and quick toss from her fighting style). She also had magic initiate feat with charm person, Friends and Green Flame Blade and took the actor feat at 12th level. She had a 17 Charisma, 16 Dexterity, 14 Intelligence at start. She took the actor feat at 12th level. She could deal a ton of damage on an opening alpha round with Action Surge getting 4 attacks (later 6) with her bow, one with grasping arrow and one with menacing attack, and then throw a sharpshooter dart with quick toss. if all those landed (which they usually didn't) that was 4d8+1d4+4d6+65 damage (average 99.5 damage at 6th level, 134.5 at 12th level) with additional effects including one enemy who is slowed and takes more damage when he moves and another that is frightened and she still had another arcane shot to use in the future. Again she had a 10 constitution.
4. I played a Shaddar Kai battlemaster with sharpshooter, thrown weapon fighting and a 20 strength who primarily used silvered darts (and had the quick toss maneuver). She also had a 10 constitution.
5. There are broadly two different variations on Grappler I have seen and neither of them use the grappler feat. The first, which is more common, uses unarmed fighting style and the Tavern Brawler feat (I have played this one). The second uses battlemaster, skill expert feat and Grappling Strike maneuver. The grappler feat is not a good feat for a grappler fighter. For a Rogue Grapple build I could see it (although still weak) but it offers nothing at all that I can see for a fighter.
I also rarely see any fighters take great weapon fighting any more. Usually it is defense or blind fighting although personally I take superior technique.
Now I have seen a lot of builds close to your examples, but I hardly think they are ubiquitous as you claim and I have seen many players deviate from these.
And what, exactly, did these builds do in combat? The subclass is irrelevant. So is the race, except in a few edge cases for both race and subclass. You’ve just thrown character concepts at me and attempted to disagree.
I forgot blind fighting - my bad. I was including thrown weapons in the ranged category, also. Also, did you see the use of ‘almost’? This isn’t absolutes. There will obviously be anomalies. But those anomalies will still do almost the same things in combat.
1. Is on my list. It’s simply a combination of two builds, the two-handed melee and ranged fighter, that can switch between both their combat styles (Attacking continuously in melee and attacking continuously at range and occasionally hiding).
2. Is on my list. It’s the ranged fighter. Attacks continuously at range. 1 debuff to keep an enemy at range. One to deal extra damage while attacking continuously.
3. Is on my list. It’s again, the ranged fighter. Attacks continuously, at range. Has a higher-damage melee attack in order to get out of sticky situations.
4. Is on my list. It’s again, the ranged fighter. Attacks continuously at range.
5. It’s nothing to do with feats or fighting styles or etc. I chose grappler as an ‘often used’ as I often use it for the advantage on attacks against enemies you have grappled combined with the longer reach of the bugbear, for example. It grapples and then either moves or attacks in combat, and then repeats.
You’ve just given me character concepts. Not builds. Which I talked about earlier.
Please give me your examples. There could be another unique fighter build I’m unaware of.
That doesn’t mean there is 110 builds. The builds I was referencing were (+1, as I’ve thought of another unique one) 1. Ranged Fighter (will nearly always take the archery fighting style, crossbow expert/gunner, sharpshooter, use a heavy crossbow or longbow in games without firearms, and focus dexterity, and take other feats which allow for mobility, better initiative or more damage) 2. Melee Two-Handed Fighter (prioritises strength and constitution, almost always will take the defence or great weapon fighting style, great weapon master, and use a greatsword/greataxe and take other feats which aid defence) 3. Melee Sword and Board Fighter (prioritises strength or dexterity and constitution, will almost always take dueling or defence, wear medium or heavy armour) 4. Sentinel/PAM Fighter (prioritises strength and constitution, will almost always take defence or great weapon fighting, wield a glaive, halberd, or pike, and take other feats which aid defence and/or battlefield control) 5. Grappling Fighter (prioritises strength and constitution, will almost always take the unarmed fighting style, grappler feat, and feats that aid grappling and/or defence)
That is not true. I have personally have played all of the following which are not on your list:
1. I played a rolled stat V. Human Battlemaster fighter with high strength and high dexterity who had both GWM and Sharpshooter. She had a 18 strength and 18 Dexterity at level 6, criminal background and a high stealth. For fighting style she had protection. She had a 12 constitution. If I had to do it over again I would have taken a strength ASI instead of GWM.
2. I played a V.Human Arcane Archer with superior technique fighting style and the martial adept feat. She was the favorite fighter I have ever played. She was on point buy and finished with an 8 strength, 16 Dexterity, 20 Intelligence and 10 constitution at the end of the campaign (15th level). She also had Observant, Shadow Touched (Cause Fear), Fey Touched (Hex) and Telepathic feats.
3. I played a Glasya Tiefling Arcane Archer again with superior technique fighting style and the martial adept feat and sharpshooter (which worked with darts and quick toss from her fighting style). She also had magic initiate feat with charm person, Friends and Green Flame Blade and took the actor feat at 12th level. She had a 17 Charisma, 16 Dexterity, 14 Intelligence at start. She took the actor feat at 12th level. She could deal a ton of damage on an opening alpha round with Action Surge getting 4 attacks (later 6) with her bow, one with grasping arrow and one with menacing attack, and then throw a sharpshooter dart with quick toss. if all those landed (which they usually didn't) that was 4d8+1d4+4d6+65 damage (average 99.5 damage at 6th level, 134.5 at 12th level) with additional effects including one enemy who is slowed and takes more damage when he moves and another that is frightened and she still had another arcane shot to use in the future. Again she had a 10 constitution.
4. I played a Shaddar Kai battlemaster with sharpshooter, thrown weapon fighting and a 20 strength who primarily used silvered darts (and had the quick toss maneuver). She also had a 10 constitution.
5. There are broadly two different variations on Grappler I have seen and neither of them use the grappler feat. The first, which is more common, uses unarmed fighting style and the Tavern Brawler feat (I have played this one). The second uses battlemaster, skill expert feat and Grappling Strike maneuver. The grappler feat is not a good feat for a grappler fighter. For a Rogue Grapple build I could see it (although still weak) but it offers nothing at all that I can see for a fighter.
I also rarely see any fighters take great weapon fighting any more. Usually it is defense or blind fighting although personally I take superior technique.
Now I have seen a lot of builds close to your examples, but I hardly think they are ubiquitous as you claim and I have seen many players deviate from these.
And what, exactly, did these builds do in combat? The subclass is irrelevant. So is the race, except in a few edge cases for both race and subclass. You’ve just thrown character concepts at me and attempted to disagree.
I forgot blind fighting - my bad. I was including thrown weapons in the ranged category, also. Also, did you see the use of ‘almost’? This isn’t absolutes. There will obviously be anomalies. But those anomalies will still do almost the same things in combat.
1. Is on my list. It’s simply a combination of two builds, the two-handed melee and ranged fighter, that can switch between both their combat styles (Attacking continuously in melee and attacking continuously at range and occasionally hiding).
2. Is on my list. It’s the ranged fighter. Attacks continuously at range. 1 debuff to keep an enemy at range. One to deal extra damage while attacking continuously.
3. Is on my list. It’s again, the ranged fighter. Attacks continuously, at range. Has a higher-damage melee attack in order to get out of sticky situations.
4. Is on my list. It’s again, the ranged fighter. Attacks continuously at range.
5. It’s nothing to do with feats or fighting styles or etc. I chose grappler as an ‘often used’ as I often use it for the advantage on attacks against enemies you have grappled combined with the longer reach of the bugbear, for example. It grapples and then either moves or attacks in combat, and then repeats.
You’ve just given me character concepts. Not builds. Which I talked about earlier.
#3 does NOT attack continuously. She has a 20 Charisma and used intimidate and deception quite a bit in combat and also had a few spells (admiteddly some of them through race). Also GFB is not really higher damage than using extra attack except in some very specific situations. The only time I think I used it was against Trolls to stop them from regenerating.
If this is your position then every class only has 2 or 3 builds. Wizards either cast control spells or they cast damaging spells only 2 possible builds. Rogues are either ranged attackers, melee attackers or tricksters, only 3 possible builds .....
If this is your position you used way too many words that have no relevance in your description of builds and while you used "almost" sometimes you did not use it most of the time. You should have just said there are 3 kinds of fighters - ranged fighters, melee fighters and grapplers and then I would have agreed with you. Your post though implied that you thought there was little or no variation within these three or different "concepts" for them if you will.
Subclass is a class feature, it gives you specific abilities at levels 3, 7 10, 15 and 18 in the fighter class. I don't get why you don't think subclass should not be considered part of the fighter chassis.
What else exactly do you want fighters to do in combat other than use weapons or grapple? You say variations that still do these things are not "different builds", so if a character that primarily attacks or grapples is off the table, what would be a different build in a class that is defined as a martial?
I also put some stuff in the previous post, options to replace extra attack. Would any of these be what you are looking for (although most of them are still focused on grappling or using weapons).
Sorry, but it's hard enough believing there are 110 possible builds as is. The fact that, of your five examples (purely anecdotal, by the way), two are arcane archers and two are battle masters. That's not a great spread, and it's easy to see why people are picking at that.
Subclasses aren't as irrelevant as Redpelt says─that's where the lion's share of the fighter's diversity comes from─but the fighter isn't quite as versatile as you think. The "basic framework" is the class itself; which is admittedly a strong chassis.
Do you think maybe this argument you're having, where you list five fighters that all use the same abilities in the same ways and reads, to others, as five variations on the same character even though in your experience they were all completely wildly different characters speaks to the idea that different people have different takes on the game, different ways they play, and different needs from the system?
Your DM sounds exceptionally generous, allowing you to constantly make social checks in the middle of a fight and accomplish anything worth accomplishing. You have many different fighters with very low physical scores and high mental scores that are poor attackers but good talkers, which is certainly one way to make a "Different" fighter. It's just not one that produces a good fighter. A good character, sure. Not gonna tell someone their character is bad. I will say a high level ranged weapon fighter with a max of 14 Dexterity is not good at attacking its enemies though, and if you're not going to have a strong focus on attacking your enemies why are you a fighter?
Also curious why you seem fixed on erasing Extra Attack in your suggested changes. Your proposed abilities don't remotely measure up to Extra Attack, and most of them were passive, reactionary abilities. That's not what anyone in this thread wants. Proponents of a deeper, more engaging fighter want an increase in real, viable options they can choose between when their turn comes up, not trading the ability to attack for the ability to hinder enemy ranged shots, the ability to make tool checks in a fight, or the like.
... I encourage all people on this thread who have vehemently argued for more complexity to actually make options that allow for that, instead of continuing this pointless argument that helps no one and changes nothing.
Issue: if we do, you will be in that thread arguing just as vehemently that those options are unnecessary, unhelpful, and a bad idea. Just like you argued it in the Backgrounds thread, in the Feats thread, and in half a dozen other places. Everywhere I turn in this board right now, you're there arguing against the inclusion of deeper, more engaging, more advanced options wherever they may come up.
We may as well continue arguing here then, eh? Why mocve elsewhere just to have the same fight?
I never suggested moving this argument elsewhere, all I suggested was a last ditch effort to turn this shouting match into something to actually help people.
So using Redpelt's classifications, we have:
1. A ranged fighter/two-hander hybrid enabled by lucky rolled stats.
2. A ranged fighter
3. Another ranged fighter
4. Yet another ranged fighter
5. A discussion of variations on the grappler theme
The difference here is that you think swapping out a couple feats or a fighting style makes for a fighter distinct enough to classify as a completely different build, whereas I look at these and see a bunch of characters likely using the same actions more often than not. How often did your builds 2, 3, and 4, do something besides pick an enemy and make a ranged attack at it in combat? After #3 fired off all nearly all its abilities on an alpha strike, what did it do until you got a chance for a short rest?
Adding something like 1d4 or ½PB to every melee hit wouldn’t be OP.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
If you are solely classifying them by the type of the attacks they make; there are only two types of attacks melee and ranged so every fighter is going to use that and making the fighter itself more complex will not change that they are still going to use ranged or melee attacks. No changes you are going to make to the fighter class will alter this, you would need to change the combat mechanics themselves to give your weapons-users more options than a ranged attack or a melee attack.
Regarding those examples, he mentioned specific things his builds have and the examples I gave do not have those specific thing (to be clear have played other fighters that did):
#1 Hybrid is not on his list at all. It is a hybrid, a hybrid which is not a character he mentioned. I will also add that while the character had good rolls, this type build is also available on point buy by putting a 16 in both Dex and Strength. In a game where you can buy magic items or get the DM to drop specific magic items you can even put an 8 in strength and do this with gauntlets of ogre power, I don't play those games often but based on posts here, many do.
#2 did not take ANY of the feats or fighting styles he said "will nearly always take" and also did not "focus on dexterity" I took no ASIs or even half feats in Dexterity. She maxed intelligence though half feats instead. She also used magic in combat, particularly Hex and cause fear, and cause fear takes an action. Cause Fear was usually used with action surge letting her control one enemy (once a day) before she went on to "pick an enemy and attack"
#3 was more of a face and trickster and controller build than a Ranged fighter. She actually used intimidate quite a bit in combat, so she was not "always picking and enemy and making a ranged attack". She had a devastating nova attack, but had other options for the grind of combat. Again she did not focus on Dexterity or use Archery Fighting Style, did not focus on monility or initiative feats.
#4 Did not use a crossbow, longbow or firearm like in his example. Focused on Strength, not Dexterity. Did not take feats enabling mobility or initiative (although blessing of the Rave Queen does give mobility as a race). She took thrown weapon fighting instead of archery, she also engaged in melee quite often, so she was not "picking an enemy and making a ranged attack".
I would disagree with your premise, I don't think the real problem is lack of variety. I think the problem is many, think there are only a few viable options. When Redpelt says ranged Fighters focus on dexterity and almost always has Archery, will take XBE/Gunner and Sharpshooter and use a bow, Xbow or firearm - I think he really means that, he believes that is what all ranged fighter do. I think he means that other fighting styles are not real options and other build types are not real options. FWIW I think I have only had 1 player at my tables that have played with both SS and XBE, despite the fact that is widely regarded as the most powerful fighter build.
I used examples that deviated in terms of feats and fighting styles. If the point is to give examples of fighters that do things other than "pick an enemy and attack it", I could have used one of many Eldritch Knight builds that have a variety of spell options as well, but I considered those builds to actually fall into his "Two-Handed Melee" or "Sword and Board" bin.
Finally, if your argument is there are only ranged and melee fighters then I will agree, but I would also add that there are only 2 kinds of casters as well- control and blasting. Every wizard is going to pick a target and either damage it or disable/control it with a spell.
Right, this is the difference in perspective I'm trying to highlight, and the comparison to casters is instructive. Most fighter options boil down to "attack them" or "use an ability to attack them harder." Occasionally you get to inflict a debuff or status condition, and then you have to wait for a short rest to do it again. And for the likes of Arcane Archers and Battle Masters, they don't get access to more powerful effects as they level up, instead scraping the bottom of the same barrel.
Meanwhile, "control" casters have a whole suit of status effects to choose from. They can use their spell selection to hinder groups of enemies, or lock down a single enemy. They can reshape the battlefield the put the enemy in a disadvantageous position. Many of these effects will last for an entire combat. "Blaster" casters are a more simple variation, but they still have choices in terms of AoE vs. single target, dealing damage instantaneous vs. over time, and often get rider effects on top of that. There's also buffing casters, who act as a force multiplier on the party by handing out advantage, numerical bonuses, or new tactical options. Depending on the class, they might not even have to pick a lane and stick to it, the way melee/ranged fighters do, because they can change up their spell loadout on a daily basis. Options and versatility, and the ability to adapt to changing conditions on a round by round basis by bringing different options online, rather than being stuck with "Keep hitting them and hope they die."
Echo Knights, Rune Knights and Eldritch Knights do all get access to more powerful effects as they level up though, so I don't think this is a viable argument. Also Fighters generally recharge their abilities on a short rest (Eldritch Knights accepted), so at low level Arcane Archer and Battlemaster abilities are being used more than Casters are getting to cast their comparable effects. It is not until about 7th level that this evens out.
There is a lot you can do with feats too, and while any class can get feats, fighters get two more, meaning they can do more with those. Things like telekenetic, Eldritch Adept, Gift of the Gem Dragon and Gift of the Metallic Dragon bring very useful abilities to the table that are usable multiple times a day for most/many builds don't intrude on their action economy. Hex also typically does not hurt action economy and is a good boost to damage and useful debuff that lasts an hour and you can pick it up through magic initiate or Fey touched. Finally there are the martial feats like crusher that are spammable with every hit.
To the point of how often the abilities get to be used: the devil is in the details, there. If your table gets the recommended two short rests per day (and we all know it's a common complaint/observation that many tables do not follow the guidelines for encounters per day), then Battle Masters, at least, start out ahead in terms of how often they can use their abilities. Arcane Archers and Rune Knights, unfortunately, start out even with spellcasters and just fall further behind. By seventh level, as you point out, spellcasters are catching up in terms of frequency while they are adding a whole raft of new options with every odd-numbered level. Rune Knights get two additional runes to pick from at 7th level, and their pool is so shallow that ultimately every Rune Knight is just picking which rune is their least favorite.
Take a step back, though, and consider that you are trumpeting the fighter subclasses that have explicitly magical abilities while there's a common complaint (even in this thread) that Fighters shouldn't get "physics-defying" or "reality-breaking" powers. The same problem applies to the feats you list, even ignoring how many of those feats are variations of "you get to push someone." Again and again, the answer to wanting the class, described as having being "superior combatants" with "a thorough knowledge of the skills of combat," to have tactical versatility is "get some magic."
They should not get physics-defying powers as part of their class. Getting it through magic is fine. If you want that fine, if you don't want that then don't get it and be happy to just "hit and push" things.
I guess what I don't understand is why people feel the need to be able to do magic type things without using magic.
Being "superior combatants" is why they get to attack more than once, and at higher levels more than twice with an attack action it is why they get to take an extra action in combat, both of which are very powerful, especially when combined with the effects they can add on an attack. Would you be willing to give up extra attack and action surge or make them options to get these other physics-defying abilities you want to add?
The fact that you can't imagine anything other than "hit and push things" without resorting to magic or the appearance thereof betrays a tragic lack of creativity. Just because you can't figure it out doesn't mean that other people shouldn't ask WotC to figure it out.
The answer is that Barbarian shouldn't be "the simple class" because, per the data I cited earlier, it's not what players who like simplicity want to play. They want to keep Fighter and not be pushed into another class. I think we should do our best to honor that very small wish. Also, the likelihood that WotC completely remodels Barbarian and Fighter is very low. At that point, they might as well just add in another class.
You seem to think that classes can only primarily be martials if they are in the Warrior group and don't have spells. For one, as Yurei and other users explained to me on the very second thread I made to these forums, classes with spells and other such features can still make the best martials and tanks. But if your goal is to play a base-class without any access to magic, then your choices are Rogue, Monk, Barbarian, Fighter, or Rogue. (Though you can play a Paladin without using a single spell, just slots to Divine Smite.)
So, if we're counting Paladin, you have 5 martials you can play without using spells & magic. You can literally make any one of those classes complex, except for Fighter. If you reflavord Barbarian, you could make it the complex martial if you made the changes you proposed above. Or Rogue, its' whole class concept is literally sneaky, versatile, fighty warrior. That sounds like it would work excellently as a complex class. Monk is already quite complex, but you don't have to play it if you don't want to I guess. And Paladin could be expanded and modified if you really are so opposed to a martials complexity being in the form of spells.
Failing that, a new class could always be added.
But anyways, there are already numerous complex options in the game available to you. Some are spellcasters, some are martials, and some are both. There are also numerous ways to make simpler options more complex. So, have your complexity somewhere else. As I explained above, there are numerous places for it. So why should that place be the class that is loved for being simple?
Anyways, on an unrelated note, complaining about a lack of complex options for martials doesn't help change anything or add any options whatsoever. Personally, I think I'm going to try to homebrew a complex Fighter subclass for this installment of the Competition of the Finest Brews (I'll post it on this thread when I'm done). I encourage all people on this thread who have vehemently argued for more complexity to actually make options that allow for that, instead of continuing this pointless argument that helps no one and changes nothing.
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.Wrong focus there. It's not what players whether or not they like simplicity want to play.
Right, all the data really tells us is 1) How many characters of a different class/subclass exist on D&D Beyond, and 2) What the average balance of characters in a campaign is. Anything beyond that is speculation. We don't know how many of those characters are actually played vs. simply created as a thought exercise. We also can't say for sure why certain classes are more popular than others, because to my knowledge, D&D Beyond hasn't done a survey on that point.
If one were in a speculating mood, one might note that the Champion subclass for Fighter is one of the less popular of the free subclasses compared to options for other classes, down with the Evocation Wizard and the Thief Rogue, and that the next two most popular subclasses for the fighter are the Battle Master and Eldritch Knight, two of the more "complex" subclasses. We don't know what percentage of those 40% of Fighters who are Champions have not bought anything on D&D Beyond and so have no other option, but there's room to speculate that there is a desire for more complex fighters, given that 28% of Fighters are one of those two subclasses.
As SagaTympana says, there are plenty more things we can add to Fighter options without having to resort to "physics-defying" abilities. A few pages ago, I suggested that a combat maneuver that inflicts Exhaustion (specifically the playtest type), could be an interesting option. You don't need to resort to magic to justify a Fighter making attacks intended to force reactions out of an opponent such that they will tire themselves out faster. You could also justify conditions like Blinded, Poisoned, Restrained, or Paralyzed through the application of mundane force in a precise fashion. And that's before we start digging into previous editions for ideas, such as 3.X's Whirlwind attack. If a 3rd level Battle Master can hit two enemies with one strike (Sweeping Attack), why shouldn't one exponentially more skilled be able to hit more than that? And as I've said previously, I don't think making Fighters trade away Extra Attack makes any more sense than making Warlocks trade away spellcasting, but I could certainly see freezing the superiority die, or having some of these maneuvers not add the die to damage, and trading away Action Surge might well be worth it to add maneuvers to the base Fighter chassis (as an optional class feature to be clear. Don't want anyone yelling about "taking away the Fighter" from people who prefer simplicity.)
If you don't want your fighters doing physics-defying things, why are you letting them get past third level? The ability to both survive and hurt high CR monsters is a physics defying ability.
Issue: if we do, you will be in that thread arguing just as vehemently that those options are unnecessary, unhelpful, and a bad idea. Just like you argued it in the Backgrounds thread, in the Feats thread, and in half a dozen other places. Everywhere I turn in this board right now, you're there arguing against the inclusion of deeper, more engaging, more advanced options wherever they may come up.
We may as well continue arguing here then, eh? Why mocve elsewhere just to have the same fight?
Please do not contact or message me.
I already did, but someone who has argued vehemently against it countered with a better idea: (https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/dungeons-dragons-discussion/unearthed-arcana/156342-for-one-d-d-i-want-the-fighter-to-be-the-complex?comment=207).
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Ok I sat down and tried to think about how I could make options fir fighters that are not magic. I came up with a few. These would be optional like the stuff in Tasha's, so not all tables would have to offer it and they would replace the current extra attack at level 5, 11 and 20.
Superior Combatant (Optional) Level 5, 11 and 20. This replaces Extra Attack. Every time you would get extra attack from the fighter class you have the option of getting one more attack as part of your attack action or taking one of these superior combatant abilities. If you take superior combatant you can not benefit from extra attack from another class.
1. Advanced Pugilist: Your training in Judo makes you an expert at controlling and immobilizing others. When you successfully grapple an opponent on your turn you can also attempt to shove them prone. Make a second contested athletics check. If you are successful the opponent is both grappled and prone. Alternatively when you successfully shove an opponent prone, you can make a second athletics check to attempt a grapple as well. Additionally if someone fails a grapple or shove against you, you can use your reaction to either shove or grapple them (your choice) with automatic success.
2. Disruptive Defense: You have trained to take advantage of enemy mistakes and disable them. When someone within 5 feet of you misses you with an attack you can use your reaction to incapacitate that attacker for the remainder of the current turn. Additionally you can attempt to make them drop what they are holding if they fail a strength or dexterity save (their choice) against a DC of 8+PB+strength.
3. Star Wars Jedi Defense: You can bat away ranged attacks into enemies. When you are holding a weapon and someone makes a ranged attack against you and misses, you can use your reaction to attempt to deflect the attack into someone else. Make a ranged attack against someone within 30 feet. If the attack hits it does 1d8+strength damage of the type caused by the attack.
4. Wounding critical: When you score a critical hit you cause a bleeding wound. The opponent the opponent takes an additional 1d8 damage and will bleed out if not fixed. The opponent is wounded and takes an additional1d8 damage every round at the start of your turn and has disadvantage on attacks and saves. The bleeding individual or someone else can end the effect using an action to stop the bleeding. The bleeding also stops if the victim takes 1 or more hit points of healing.
5. Quick action: You keep your head about you in combat and are never rattled. When you use your action to attempt a tool or ability check in combat you can attempt two tool or ability checks as part of that action. You can use the second check to reattempt the first check if it was a failure. You also have advantage on initiative.
And what, exactly, did these builds do in combat? The subclass is irrelevant. So is the race, except in a few edge cases for both race and subclass. You’ve just thrown character concepts at me and attempted to disagree.
I forgot blind fighting - my bad. I was including thrown weapons in the ranged category, also. Also, did you see the use of ‘almost’? This isn’t absolutes. There will obviously be anomalies. But those anomalies will still do almost the same things in combat.
1. Is on my list. It’s simply a combination of two builds, the two-handed melee and ranged fighter, that can switch between both their combat styles (Attacking continuously in melee and attacking continuously at range and occasionally hiding).
2. Is on my list. It’s the ranged fighter. Attacks continuously at range. 1 debuff to keep an enemy at range. One to deal extra damage while attacking continuously.
3. Is on my list. It’s again, the ranged fighter. Attacks continuously, at range. Has a higher-damage melee attack in order to get out of sticky situations.
4. Is on my list. It’s again, the ranged fighter. Attacks continuously at range.
5. It’s nothing to do with feats or fighting styles or etc. I chose grappler as an ‘often used’ as I often use it for the advantage on attacks against enemies you have grappled combined with the longer reach of the bugbear, for example. It grapples and then either moves or attacks in combat, and then repeats.
You’ve just given me character concepts. Not builds. Which I talked about earlier.
Please give me your examples. There could be another unique fighter build I’m unaware of.
I can’t remember what’s supposed to go here.
#3 does NOT attack continuously. She has a 20 Charisma and used intimidate and deception quite a bit in combat and also had a few spells (admiteddly some of them through race). Also GFB is not really higher damage than using extra attack except in some very specific situations. The only time I think I used it was against Trolls to stop them from regenerating.
If this is your position then every class only has 2 or 3 builds. Wizards either cast control spells or they cast damaging spells only 2 possible builds. Rogues are either ranged attackers, melee attackers or tricksters, only 3 possible builds .....
If this is your position you used way too many words that have no relevance in your description of builds and while you used "almost" sometimes you did not use it most of the time. You should have just said there are 3 kinds of fighters - ranged fighters, melee fighters and grapplers and then I would have agreed with you. Your post though implied that you thought there was little or no variation within these three or different "concepts" for them if you will.
Subclass is a class feature, it gives you specific abilities at levels 3, 7 10, 15 and 18 in the fighter class. I don't get why you don't think subclass should not be considered part of the fighter chassis.
What else exactly do you want fighters to do in combat other than use weapons or grapple? You say variations that still do these things are not "different builds", so if a character that primarily attacks or grapples is off the table, what would be a different build in a class that is defined as a martial?
I also put some stuff in the previous post, options to replace extra attack. Would any of these be what you are looking for (although most of them are still focused on grappling or using weapons).
Sorry, but it's hard enough believing there are 110 possible builds as is. The fact that, of your five examples (purely anecdotal, by the way), two are arcane archers and two are battle masters. That's not a great spread, and it's easy to see why people are picking at that.
Subclasses aren't as irrelevant as Redpelt says─that's where the lion's share of the fighter's diversity comes from─but the fighter isn't quite as versatile as you think. The "basic framework" is the class itself; which is admittedly a strong chassis.
Ecmo.
Do you think maybe this argument you're having, where you list five fighters that all use the same abilities in the same ways and reads, to others, as five variations on the same character even though in your experience they were all completely wildly different characters speaks to the idea that different people have different takes on the game, different ways they play, and different needs from the system?
Your DM sounds exceptionally generous, allowing you to constantly make social checks in the middle of a fight and accomplish anything worth accomplishing. You have many different fighters with very low physical scores and high mental scores that are poor attackers but good talkers, which is certainly one way to make a "Different" fighter. It's just not one that produces a good fighter. A good character, sure. Not gonna tell someone their character is bad. I will say a high level ranged weapon fighter with a max of 14 Dexterity is not good at attacking its enemies though, and if you're not going to have a strong focus on attacking your enemies why are you a fighter?
Also curious why you seem fixed on erasing Extra Attack in your suggested changes. Your proposed abilities don't remotely measure up to Extra Attack, and most of them were passive, reactionary abilities. That's not what anyone in this thread wants. Proponents of a deeper, more engaging fighter want an increase in real, viable options they can choose between when their turn comes up, not trading the ability to attack for the ability to hinder enemy ranged shots, the ability to make tool checks in a fight, or the like.
Please do not contact or message me.
...Wait, what? I literally love 1DD's background system and have routinely argued in favor of the additional complexity they've brought to the game. The one time I said anything about the background complexity is that if you were to change the system to allow people to have different amounts of languages, skills, and tool proficiencies, it might be too confusing for some players. On the feats thread, all I did was agree with you that Mage Slayer was better in 1DD than 5e, and I also agreed with you that Wizards didn't need the Lightly Armored feat to survive.
I never suggested moving this argument elsewhere, all I suggested was a last ditch effort to turn this shouting match into something to actually help people.
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.