... 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.
I like everything about 1DD background except tying ability score increases to it. People need to be able to pick their ability scores (like in Tasha's) and I think there will be a strong negative reaction if we go back to fixing them.
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 did not play any of them except grapplers with the same DM. That was 4 different DMs on those 4.
The PHB allows you to make skill checks in combat that is RAW under improvising an action and it specifically mentions "intimidating enemies" and "parley with a foe" as options (PHB page 193). I am not saying that is always usable, but it is usable a lot and if your DM just lines up enemies to be slaughtered and fight to the bitter end then he is not playing RAW. It is fine to set a high DC if you are fighting cult fanatics or a low DC if you are fighting sellswords but suggesting you should never be able to influence enemy actions in combat with skill checks is certainly not RAI. Spells things like Friends and Charm Person mechanically help with those checks and things like disguise self and minor illusion are situationally helpful as well..
As far as extra attack, people's point is that they want to do other things instead of "hit him with a stick", which is an attack. I was trying to come up with fairly powerful options, there needs to be something given back for that and extra attack makes total sense.
As a stand-alone those options are not as powerful, however when combined with other features they would be more powerful. For example using a blade cantrip and one of the defense or critical options will outrun extra attack. If you are an Eldricth Knight using it with war magic you are outrunning extra attack by a whole lot. The deadly defense option is pretty darn powerful on a high AC individual as it eleminates multiattack on a miss. I would argue with the right build either of these are going to be more powerful than extra attack even for someone who primarily attacks.
The grappler build could be combined with something like tavern brawler to both grapple and shove as part of the same bonus action. The wounding critical works great on a crit-fishing build and you can use it with two-weapon fighting, Sentinel or PAM since it is not just on an attack action.
The main thing they all do and my intent is let you display your martial prowess. This is allegedly not about making a more powerful fighter but rather a more diverse and complex fighter and if you want a more powerful fighter that hits with a stick that is still an option using the tropes mentioned originally.
As far as other options to use on your turn, I tried to think of some but they are duplicative. Instead of attacking you could use an action to cause enemy attacks to be at disadvantage, but that is already there with Dodge action, you could use an action so movement does not cause AOOs but that is already there with disengage. A subclass already get the ability to do better at jumping (Champion). What kind of alternatives do you want if you don't want spells, you don't want reaction options and you don't want ability checks?
Maybe you can give up extra attack and get ability to take disengage, dash and dodge as a single action simultaneously. Maybe you can use the help action from up to 30 feet away and give all attacks against a creature advantage for a round instead of one - would either of those scratch the itch?
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?
I wanted to address this separately as it is not germane to the other questions. You can make a very effective ranged character with an 8 dexterity using high strength, sharpshooter, darts and thrown weapon fighting. Darts are ranged weapons so they qualify for sharpshooter, they also have the finesse and thrown properties allowing you to use strength or dexterity for attack and damage.
If you take the thrown weapon fighting style you will do the same base damage as someone using a longbow, with a shorter range and without the attack roll benefit of archery. On the other side of the coin though you can use a heavy weapon very effectively (the Shaddar Kai I mentioned above used a "glaive" that was thematically repurposed to look like a spiked chain, so it was heavy and did 1d10 damage with reach). Also being able to draw a weapon for free as part of the attack action eliminates the handiness issues normally associated with thrown weapons and allows you to use ranged weapons (and sharpshooter) while having the control and AOOs associated with a 10 foot reach weapon or the 2d6 damage with a maul or greatsword. Finally ,when you are not using the +10 damage and the enemy does not have cover you have the option of going to handaxes or javelins which will do more damage than a longbow.
Is that as much DPR as a nXBE-sharpshooter build? Probably not, but it is not far behind either and requires one less feat. On a battlemaster I think it will outdo the damage from a traditional longbow sharpshooter build (due to AOOs, a better melee option and quicktoss synergy with sharpshooter and thrown weapon fighting). On small party of say 2 or 3 PCs I think you are going to get a lot more mileage out of someone who can transition easily between melee and ranged and do both well. On a party of 6 or more you probably better off speacializing in XBE.
I like everything about 1DD background except tying ability score increases to it. People need to be able to pick their ability scores (like in Tasha's) and I think there will be a strong negative reaction if we go back to fixing them.
Minor (or major) point: Ability score increases are not, in any way, tied to backgrounds. The document tries hard to make that clear, but in my feedback I said they need to try even harder (I suggested moving the example backgrounds to the DMG). People tend to see examples and think "These are the ONLY options."
But what the document says is that there are three options:
1) Build a Background from scratch. This lets you pick ability score increases, 2 skills, 1 tool, and 1 language.
2) Use a premade Background.
3) Use a premade Background and then customize it.
I thought the entire section was fantastic. Ideas for how to incorporate world building into backgrounds combined with total freedom for players.
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)
This is already twice as many "builds" as pretty much any other class : Artificer has 1 -> tanking + utility (armourer or battlesmith using INT for low damage melee attacks in one hand and shield in the other, maxing out INT then taking Tough and either Shield Master or Ritual Caster) Barbarian has 3 -> melee damage (Zealot), or melee tanking (Totem, Ancestral), or Grappler Bard has 1 - seducer + controller + minor healing Cleric has 2 - Spirit Guardians + Spiritual Weapon or Healer Druid has 3 - healer, controller, or summoner (all + utility) Monk has 2 - ranged (kensei) or melee skirmisher Paladin has 4 - melee damage (Greatsword + GWM), melee control/damage (PAM + Sentinel), melee tanking (sword & board + max out CHA+ Resilient + Shield Master), or Grappler. Ranger barely has 2 -> RANGED or melee with a pet Rogue has 2 - ranged or melee, Sorcerer has 2 - blaster or controller Warlock has 2 - Eldritch Blaster + utility + minor social or Hexblade Wizard has 3 - blaster or controller (both + utility) or necromancer
Re: Fighter builds here's some you missed: 1. Ranged Fighter 2. Melee Two-Handed Fighter 3. Melee Sword and Board Fighter 4. Sentinel/PAM Fighter 5. Grappling Fighter -------------------------------- 6. Mounted Fighter -> takes Ritual Caster to get Phantom Steed, Mounted Combatant, and Dual Wielder and uses a hit-and-run attack style while dual wielding lances. (Recommend comboing with Cavalier or Psi Warrior) 7. Blade-thrower Fighter -> takes Thrown Weapon Fighting + Dueling + Fey Touched + Mobile + Battlemaster (Quick Toss + Tripping attack), runs around at mid-range in combat focusing on movement to keep out of melee while throwing multiple daggers into enemies and using maneuvers to limit enemy mobility. 8. Bull Fighter -> combines Battlemaster maneuvers (pushing attack) with Crusher and Minotaur's Hammering Horns & natural weapons to send enemies flying either up into the air to fall prone or across the battlefield. Uses Thrown weapon Fighting with Light Hammers for ranged back up. 9. Blind Fighter -> takes Blindfighting + Eldritch Knight and combines with Triton racial Fog Cloud spell to create their own advantage to run around GWM slaying enemies with any Heavy Weapon. 10. The BattleMaster -> Superior Technique + Martial Adept Feat + Battlemaster + Crusher + Sword & Board + Shield Master = ultimate non-magical battlefield controller. 11. The Deciever Fighter -> Changeling + Actor Feat + Eldritch Knight + Shadow Touched and turn yourself into one of the enemies mid-combat to create utter chaos on the battle field.. 12. Point Blank -> ThriKreen, Simic Hybrid or Loxodon + Crossbow Expert + Sharpshooter + Skill Expert (or 1 level rogue dip) : combines grappling with an extra appendage with Crossbow Expert to deliver multiple Sharpshooter attacks while grappling a prone enemy for permanent advantage.
Not all others should be simple. The Barbarian alone should be simple, while Monk and Fighter get some much needed updates. Battlemaster Fighter anyone?
I like everything about 1DD background except tying ability score increases to it. People need to be able to pick their ability scores (like in Tasha's) and I think there will be a strong negative reaction if we go back to fixing them.
100% agree but not sure its relevant to fighters being complex :p
Not all others should be simple. The Barbarian alone should be simple, while Monk and Fighter get some much needed updates. Battlemaster Fighter anyone?
Disagree. The base rules should be as simple as possible, because experienced players & DMs can use the mountains of third-party content and homebrew to make the game as complex as they want it. Whereas newbies need the basic rules to be as easy and quick to have fun with.
Disagree. The base rules should be as simple as possible, because experienced players & DMs can use the mountains of third-party content and homebrew to make the game as complex as they want it. Whereas newbies need the basic rules to be as easy and quick to have fun with.
Disagree. Telling experienced players they have to invest in a bunch of unsupported third-party content or invent their own game if they want to keep playing D&D is reverse gatekeeping, and just like in the other thread I'm gonna call you on it. The rules should, to the best of Wizards admittedly limited ability, allow everyone to enjoy the game - rookie and oldhead alike. "The Base Rules" are the System Reference Document, which are even entitled "Basic Rules". PHB content is the expanded/full game, and it's for more than just bright-eyed newbies who've never played a game of D&D before.
I've said it before, I'll say it as many times as I have to. The job of an Advanced Player sitting at a table with a rookie is to teach the rookie. Conversely, it is the rookie's job to learn the game. The Advanced Player makes allowances for the rookie's newness and unfamiliarity with the game and offers their assistance with teaching, and the rookie makes a good-faith effort to cease being a rookie at their best reasonable pace. That is the only way this worksoutside of niche edge cases the core rulebooks cannot account for.
Not all others should be simple. The Barbarian alone should be simple, while Monk and Fighter get some much needed updates. Battlemaster Fighter anyone?
Disagree. The base rules should be as simple as possible, because experienced players & DMs can use the mountains of third-party content and homebrew to make the game as complex as they want it. Whereas newbies need the basic rules to be as easy and quick to have fun with.
That's called being a author, and the rule (singular) is that whatever you say happens, happens. You're a GM with no players. That is keeping it "as simple as possible".
No one would pay WotC any amount of money for a so-called rule book which only one sentence long. There needs to be work done by WotC, be it in rules, a setting, or a adventure, in order for people to be willing to hand over cash for what WotC is selling. And WotC needs to do that over & over in order to stay in business. New books means providing new rules/settings/adventures, which will by definition make things less simple, even if just by providing more options. So any calls for WotC to only sell "basic D&D", while leaving complexity to 3rd parties, is not going to happen. It would drastically cut into WotC's profit margin at the least.
But you can certainly limit the games that you run to the SRD, or the PHB/DMG/MM, if you want. People have had lots of fun with just that, especially when they are new to RPGs. But there is no justification for WotC or other tables to stay within to that space if that isn't what they want. To terribly misquote several historical figures “Your right to swing your rulebook ends where the other table’s game begins.”
Re: Fighter builds here's some you missed: 1. Ranged Fighter 2. Melee Two-Handed Fighter 3. Melee Sword and Board Fighter 4. Sentinel/PAM Fighter 5. Grappling Fighter -------------------------------- 6. Mounted Fighter -> takes Ritual Caster to get Phantom Steed, Mounted Combatant, and Dual Wielder and uses a hit-and-run attack style while dual wielding lances. (Recommend comboing with Cavalier or Psi Warrior) 7. Blade-thrower Fighter -> takes Thrown Weapon Fighting + Dueling + Fey Touched + Mobile + Battlemaster (Quick Toss + Tripping attack), runs around at mid-range in combat focusing on movement to keep out of melee while throwing multiple daggers into enemies and using maneuvers to limit enemy mobility. 8. Bull Fighter -> combines Battlemaster maneuvers (pushing attack) with Crusher and Minotaur's Hammering Horns & natural weapons to send enemies flying either up into the air to fall prone or across the battlefield. Uses Thrown weapon Fighting with Light Hammers for ranged back up. 9. Blind Fighter -> takes Blindfighting + Eldritch Knight and combines with Triton racial Fog Cloud spell to create their own advantage to run around GWM slaying enemies with any Heavy Weapon. 10. The BattleMaster -> Superior Technique + Martial Adept Feat + Battlemaster + Crusher + Sword & Board + Shield Master = ultimate non-magical battlefield controller. 11. The Deciever Fighter -> Changeling + Actor Feat + Eldritch Knight + Shadow Touched and turn yourself into one of the enemies mid-combat to create utter chaos on the battle field.. 12. Point Blank -> ThriKreen, Simic Hybrid or Loxodon + Crossbow Expert + Sharpshooter + Skill Expert (or 1 level rogue dip) : combines grappling with an extra appendage with Crossbow Expert to deliver multiple Sharpshooter attacks while grappling a prone enemy for permanent advantage.
The bold one I agree with as another build - thanks.
However, you aren’t actually reading what I’m saying. I’m talking about they do in combat. Not the feats they take. It could be argued 12 is a different one, but it’s still a very repetitive playstyle. It’s the same for 1. The rest fit into any of the other categories.
I’d like to use this post to apologise for my use of feats, fighting styles and weapons in the build descriptions. It’s actually undermined my point because my post is being misunderstood. It’s what they actually do in combat (which consists of move and hit, for all of them).
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)
This is already twice as many "builds" as pretty much any other class : Artificer has 1 -> tanking + utility (armourer or battlesmith using INT for low damage melee attacks in one hand and shield in the other, maxing out INT then taking Tough and either Shield Master or Ritual Caster) Barbarian has 3 -> melee damage (Zealot), or melee tanking (Totem, Ancestral), or Grappler Bard has 1 - seducer + controller + minor healing Cleric has 2 - Spirit Guardians + Spiritual Weapon or Healer Druid has 3 - healer, controller, or summoner (all + utility) Monk has 2 - ranged (kensei) or melee skirmisher Paladin has 4 - melee damage (Greatsword + GWM), melee control/damage (PAM + Sentinel), melee tanking (sword & board + max out CHA+ Resilient + Shield Master), or Grappler. Ranger barely has 2 -> RANGED or melee with a pet Rogue has 2 - ranged or melee, Sorcerer has 2 - blaster or controller Warlock has 2 - Eldritch Blaster + utility + minor social or Hexblade Wizard has 3 - blaster or controller (both + utility) or necromancer
Artificer can also function as an effective ranged character. I agree with you on Barbarian. Bards can also be decent front liners and serious healing. Clerics can be literally anything you want, excepting maybe high-damage front liner. Druids can tank. Agree on monk. Agree on paladin. Heavily disagree on ranger. Ranger can now decently skill monkey, be very good at melee or ranged, or battlefield control. Agree on rogue. Sorcerers can do whatever, excepting frontlining. Warlock also makes a formidable ranged character, especially at lower levels. Wizards can do everything except frontline, tank and heal.
However, once again, you are missing the point of my post. A better word choice would have been that fighters (and all martials) get stuck in a combat loop. They do the same stuff over and over. Which can be fun if what they are doing is anything other than ‘I use my attack action on …’. Spellcasters actually make tactical choices every round, which is why them having only a couple of builds is much less of a problem (even though they generally have more than that). Martials (and rogues, and to some extent paladins and rangers) nearly always must attack to take advantage of their features. So a lot of the tactical decisions are taken away.
I’m not even really arguing for a complex fighter. I think what would fix this issue is a nuanced combat system (optional, obviously). It could include things like better grappling, actual differentiation between weapons, bleeding and injury, and anything else anyone could think of. That way, the ‘simple fighter’ and any other simple martial is preserved for the new players that so desperately need it while complexity is offered to those players who want it.
As far as other options to use on your turn, I tried to think of some but they are duplicative. Instead of attacking you could use an action to cause enemy attacks to be at disadvantage, but that is already there with Dodge action, you could use an action so movement does not cause AOOs but that is already there with disengage. A subclass already get the ability to do better at jumping (Champion). What kind of alternatives do you want if you don't want spells, you don't want reaction options and you don't want ability checks?
Maybe you can give up extra attack and get ability to take disengage, dash and dodge as a single action simultaneously. Maybe you can use the help action from up to 30 feet away and give all attacks against a creature advantage for a round instead of one - would either of those scratch the itch?
I’ve suggested some options for this in my previous post.
Artificer can also function as an effective ranged character. I agree with you on Barbarian. Bards can also be decent front liners and serious healing. Clerics can be literally anything you want, excepting maybe high-damage front liner. Druids can tank. Agree on monk. Agree on paladin. Heavily disagree on ranger. Ranger can now decently skill monkey, be very good at melee or ranged, or battlefield control. Agree on rogue. Sorcerers can do whatever, excepting frontlining. Warlock also makes a formidable ranged character, especially at lower levels. Wizards can do everything except frontline, tank and heal.
Artificers don't make good ranged characters - they are no better at being ranged than any other class that gets extra attack including Barbarian and Paladin [I'd argue Paladin is better at being a ranged character than an artificer is.]. Artificers only seems like good ranged characters because they are in general terrible when it comes to DPR, so the difference between melee DPR and ranged DPR for artificer builds is low. Artificer is an exploration focused class kind of like old Ranger or Rogue they mainly shine outside of combat (hence why Alchemist is as weak as old beastmaster ranger). Except for their two tanky subclasses.
Bards have AWFUL defenses so don't make good frontliners and every class and subclass feature is built on CHA so I've never ever seen a bard do anything but max their CHA with 4th and 8th level ASIs. Swords Bards don't have the staying power to be primary fontliners since if they focus on martial aspects they sacrifice their uses of BI/Flourishes meaning they get slaughtered on the front lines. Unless you're MCing so much that your Bard is barely recognizable as a Bard they aren't frontliners.
Cleric versatility is a complete joke to me now - I don't know who started this lie but it is the biggest lie I've ever seen in the D&D community. I've seen dozens and dozens of optimized builds from various channels (100% of them involve concentrating on Spirit Guardians, while using Healing Word or Spiritual Weapons as a BA and a cantrip) and always had a cleric in my campaigns, and have played 3 clerics myself of completely different subclasses / styles (supposedly) : Tempest, Trickery, and Order. Only once have I seen someone play a cleric without using Healing Word, Bless, Spiritual Weapon, or Spirit Guardians and that was a player who strongly puts flavour over mechanics and usually builds suboptimal characters.
Moon Druids can tank but none of the others can, and if you "build" a moon druid for the purpose of tanking (i.e. BearBarb multiclass) you'll end up with a horribly ineffective character after level 7 that the enemies will simply ignore. So even a Moon Druid is most likely "building" their character - i.e. choosing feats / ASIs - for one of their three other roles and just enjoying tanking as a free bonus.
Ranger is ok at battlefield control at low levels, but doesn't come close to keeping pace with any full caster. Sure a ranger will generally throw up a concentration spell the first round of combat but from then on they'll be "I Attack!" in combat. And I disagree about the melee, I've seen people try to do it in play and it's rarely better than "fine" : the lack of Constitution Saving throw proficiency makes tanking as a ranger a terrible choice, and lack of heavy armour proficiency makes going STR and using PAM or GWM terrible as well.
Sorcerers have to sacrifice a lot to be healers and still aren't very good at it. They also suck at utility because of their limited spells known, and have no access to conjuration. What's left? They can do AoE blasting, single-target blasting, and battlefield control....
I think we agree on Wizards though because : blasting, controlling, conjuring, utility, frontliner, tanking, healing, are pretty much all the possible roles in combat, and Wizards can't do half of them.
And honestly, there aren't that many different builds for Sorcerer and Wizard even if you think they can do "everything". I bet if you build a reasonably optimized 8th level sorcerer or wizard that I can guess at least 50% of their spells.
As far as other options to use on your turn, I tried to think of some but they are duplicative. Instead of attacking you could use an action to cause enemy attacks to be at disadvantage, but that is already there with Dodge action, you could use an action so movement does not cause AOOs but that is already there with disengage. A subclass already get the ability to do better at jumping (Champion). What kind of alternatives do you want if you don't want spells, you don't want reaction options and you don't want ability checks?
Maybe you can give up extra attack and get ability to take disengage, dash and dodge as a single action simultaneously. Maybe you can use the help action from up to 30 feet away and give all attacks against a creature advantage for a round instead of one - would either of those scratch the itch?
I’ve suggested some options for this in my previous post.
Two of them are ones I usggested (bleeding and grappling) and the response I got from someone else is they are not good enough because they are still attacking.
A better word choice would have been that fighters (and all martials) get stuck in a combat loop. They do the same stuff over and over. Which can be fun if what they are doing is anything other than ‘I use my attack action on \
I don't think this has anything to do with the Fighter class. This is mostly about the player, perhaps about the DM and table, and to a minimal extent about the actual build and options you took.
If you think all you have to do is attack over and over again, that is not because you are a fighter, it is because all you want to do as a player is attack over and over again. There are a ton of different actions you can take in combat and one of them "improvise an action" is wide open and only really limited by the DM and your imagination.
My character (not just fighters) are doing stuff all the time, my Goblin jumping on the back of a dragon in flight and then attacking him with a dagger while she hangs on with the other hand, my halfling grabbing a rope from the Kobold Rogue and moving through a bunch of large Ogres to make a tripwire under them. Shoving an enemy off a cliff .... or grappling them, and dragging them off a cliff while the wizard casts feather fall on me (and not the enemy), Getting attacked by flying cambion 40 feet in the air and running across the wagon up the back of one of the horses, jumping off their neck as high in the air as she can get and then using misty step to close the remaining distance and grappling said Cambion so you both plummet to the ground and the party can beat on him with magic weapons. Using Disarm from DMG (not battlemaster maneuver) to take the wand from an enemy wizard, then picking it up off the ground as my object interaction so he can't cast any spells with material components, did the same to take a legendary magic item off of an enemy boss. Using Tumble to move through an enemy so you can get to the caster in the back. Calling for an enemy to surrender or alternatively try to convince them that you have a dragon ally just around the corner coming this way so they flee.
Those are all actual real examples from play on my PCs and they include 5 different DMs, they were not all effective but many of them were. They were not all fighters in these examples, but they were all martials (incl Rogues) and there is nothing preventing a fighter from doing any of these (although he will need a feat, race or subclass for misty step). Most of these things are RAW explicitly called out in the PHB or DMG. If your fighter is not doing these kinds of things in combat that is because he does not want to do these kinds of things in combat.
No, Ecmo. A fighter not pulling crazy offbeat weirdness in combat is not avoiding those things because "he does not want to do these kind of things."
He is avoiding them because THEY DO NOT WORK.
The game has always had the "Can I do a Cool Move?", "Sure, roll a Cool Move check to see if you pull of your Cool Move and either accomplish nothing or utterly break the verisimilitude of the game, or if you humiliate yourself and waste your turn instead" rule. That doesn't make it a good rule. That doesn't make a DM terrible for not letting you make a BS check to convince a band of thinking, rational creatures that you have an ancient dragon hidden around a corner to turn off a fight. That doesn't make players terrible for not wanting to gamble their valuable turn in combat on a Cool Move Check that accomplishes absolutely nothing in almost all cases.
The Cool Move Check is not sufficient and it never has been.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please do not contact or message me.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I like everything about 1DD background except tying ability score increases to it. People need to be able to pick their ability scores (like in Tasha's) and I think there will be a strong negative reaction if we go back to fixing them.
I did not play any of them except grapplers with the same DM. That was 4 different DMs on those 4.
The PHB allows you to make skill checks in combat that is RAW under improvising an action and it specifically mentions "intimidating enemies" and "parley with a foe" as options (PHB page 193). I am not saying that is always usable, but it is usable a lot and if your DM just lines up enemies to be slaughtered and fight to the bitter end then he is not playing RAW. It is fine to set a high DC if you are fighting cult fanatics or a low DC if you are fighting sellswords but suggesting you should never be able to influence enemy actions in combat with skill checks is certainly not RAI. Spells things like Friends and Charm Person mechanically help with those checks and things like disguise self and minor illusion are situationally helpful as well..
As far as extra attack, people's point is that they want to do other things instead of "hit him with a stick", which is an attack. I was trying to come up with fairly powerful options, there needs to be something given back for that and extra attack makes total sense.
As a stand-alone those options are not as powerful, however when combined with other features they would be more powerful. For example using a blade cantrip and one of the defense or critical options will outrun extra attack. If you are an Eldricth Knight using it with war magic you are outrunning extra attack by a whole lot. The deadly defense option is pretty darn powerful on a high AC individual as it eleminates multiattack on a miss. I would argue with the right build either of these are going to be more powerful than extra attack even for someone who primarily attacks.
The grappler build could be combined with something like tavern brawler to both grapple and shove as part of the same bonus action. The wounding critical works great on a crit-fishing build and you can use it with two-weapon fighting, Sentinel or PAM since it is not just on an attack action.
The main thing they all do and my intent is let you display your martial prowess. This is allegedly not about making a more powerful fighter but rather a more diverse and complex fighter and if you want a more powerful fighter that hits with a stick that is still an option using the tropes mentioned originally.
As far as other options to use on your turn, I tried to think of some but they are duplicative. Instead of attacking you could use an action to cause enemy attacks to be at disadvantage, but that is already there with Dodge action, you could use an action so movement does not cause AOOs but that is already there with disengage. A subclass already get the ability to do better at jumping (Champion). What kind of alternatives do you want if you don't want spells, you don't want reaction options and you don't want ability checks?
Maybe you can give up extra attack and get ability to take disengage, dash and dodge as a single action simultaneously. Maybe you can use the help action from up to 30 feet away and give all attacks against a creature advantage for a round instead of one - would either of those scratch the itch?
I wanted to address this separately as it is not germane to the other questions. You can make a very effective ranged character with an 8 dexterity using high strength, sharpshooter, darts and thrown weapon fighting. Darts are ranged weapons so they qualify for sharpshooter, they also have the finesse and thrown properties allowing you to use strength or dexterity for attack and damage.
If you take the thrown weapon fighting style you will do the same base damage as someone using a longbow, with a shorter range and without the attack roll benefit of archery. On the other side of the coin though you can use a heavy weapon very effectively (the Shaddar Kai I mentioned above used a "glaive" that was thematically repurposed to look like a spiked chain, so it was heavy and did 1d10 damage with reach). Also being able to draw a weapon for free as part of the attack action eliminates the handiness issues normally associated with thrown weapons and allows you to use ranged weapons (and sharpshooter) while having the control and AOOs associated with a 10 foot reach weapon or the 2d6 damage with a maul or greatsword. Finally ,when you are not using the +10 damage and the enemy does not have cover you have the option of going to handaxes or javelins which will do more damage than a longbow.
Is that as much DPR as a nXBE-sharpshooter build? Probably not, but it is not far behind either and requires one less feat. On a battlemaster I think it will outdo the damage from a traditional longbow sharpshooter build (due to AOOs, a better melee option and quicktoss synergy with sharpshooter and thrown weapon fighting). On small party of say 2 or 3 PCs I think you are going to get a lot more mileage out of someone who can transition easily between melee and ranged and do both well. On a party of 6 or more you probably better off speacializing in XBE.
Minor (or major) point: Ability score increases are not, in any way, tied to backgrounds. The document tries hard to make that clear, but in my feedback I said they need to try even harder (I suggested moving the example backgrounds to the DMG). People tend to see examples and think "These are the ONLY options."
But what the document says is that there are three options:
1) Build a Background from scratch. This lets you pick ability score increases, 2 skills, 1 tool, and 1 language.
2) Use a premade Background.
3) Use a premade Background and then customize it.
I thought the entire section was fantastic. Ideas for how to incorporate world building into backgrounds combined with total freedom for players.
This is already twice as many "builds" as pretty much any other class :
Artificer has 1 -> tanking + utility (armourer or battlesmith using INT for low damage melee attacks in one hand and shield in the other, maxing out INT then taking Tough and either Shield Master or Ritual Caster)
Barbarian has 3 -> melee damage (Zealot), or melee tanking (Totem, Ancestral), or Grappler
Bard has 1 - seducer + controller + minor healing
Cleric has 2 - Spirit Guardians + Spiritual Weapon or Healer
Druid has 3 - healer, controller, or summoner (all + utility)
Monk has 2 - ranged (kensei) or melee skirmisher
Paladin has 4 - melee damage (Greatsword + GWM), melee control/damage (PAM + Sentinel), melee tanking (sword & board + max out CHA+ Resilient + Shield Master), or Grappler.
Ranger barely has 2 -> RANGED or melee with a pet
Rogue has 2 - ranged or melee,
Sorcerer has 2 - blaster or controller
Warlock has 2 - Eldritch Blaster + utility + minor social or Hexblade
Wizard has 3 - blaster or controller (both + utility) or necromancer
Re: Fighter builds here's some you missed:
1. Ranged Fighter
2. Melee Two-Handed Fighter
3. Melee Sword and Board Fighter
4. Sentinel/PAM Fighter
5. Grappling Fighter
--------------------------------
6. Mounted Fighter -> takes Ritual Caster to get Phantom Steed, Mounted Combatant, and Dual Wielder and uses a hit-and-run attack style while dual wielding lances. (Recommend comboing with Cavalier or Psi Warrior)
7. Blade-thrower Fighter -> takes Thrown Weapon Fighting + Dueling + Fey Touched + Mobile + Battlemaster (Quick Toss + Tripping attack), runs around at mid-range in combat focusing on movement to keep out of melee while throwing multiple daggers into enemies and using maneuvers to limit enemy mobility.
8. Bull Fighter -> combines Battlemaster maneuvers (pushing attack) with Crusher and Minotaur's Hammering Horns & natural weapons to send enemies flying either up into the air to fall prone or across the battlefield. Uses Thrown weapon Fighting with Light Hammers for ranged back up.
9. Blind Fighter -> takes Blindfighting + Eldritch Knight and combines with Triton racial Fog Cloud spell to create their own advantage to run around GWM slaying enemies with any Heavy Weapon.
10. The BattleMaster -> Superior Technique + Martial Adept Feat + Battlemaster + Crusher + Sword & Board + Shield Master = ultimate non-magical battlefield controller.
11. The Deciever Fighter -> Changeling + Actor Feat + Eldritch Knight + Shadow Touched and turn yourself into one of the enemies mid-combat to create utter chaos on the battle field..
12. Point Blank -> ThriKreen, Simic Hybrid or Loxodon + Crossbow Expert + Sharpshooter + Skill Expert (or 1 level rogue dip) : combines grappling with an extra appendage with Crossbow Expert to deliver multiple Sharpshooter attacks while grappling a prone enemy for permanent advantage.
Not all others should be simple. The Barbarian alone should be simple, while Monk and Fighter get some much needed updates. Battlemaster Fighter anyone?
Frequent Eladrin || They/Them, but accept all pronouns
Luz Noceda would like to remind you that you're worth loving!
100% agree but not sure its relevant to fighters being complex :p
Frequent Eladrin || They/Them, but accept all pronouns
Luz Noceda would like to remind you that you're worth loving!
Disagree. The base rules should be as simple as possible, because experienced players & DMs can use the mountains of third-party content and homebrew to make the game as complex as they want it. Whereas newbies need the basic rules to be as easy and quick to have fun with.
Disagree. Telling experienced players they have to invest in a bunch of unsupported third-party content or invent their own game if they want to keep playing D&D is reverse gatekeeping, and just like in the other thread I'm gonna call you on it. The rules should, to the best of Wizards admittedly limited ability, allow everyone to enjoy the game - rookie and oldhead alike. "The Base Rules" are the System Reference Document, which are even entitled "Basic Rules". PHB content is the expanded/full game, and it's for more than just bright-eyed newbies who've never played a game of D&D before.
I've said it before, I'll say it as many times as I have to. The job of an Advanced Player sitting at a table with a rookie is to teach the rookie. Conversely, it is the rookie's job to learn the game. The Advanced Player makes allowances for the rookie's newness and unfamiliarity with the game and offers their assistance with teaching, and the rookie makes a good-faith effort to cease being a rookie at their best reasonable pace. That is the only way this worksoutside of niche edge cases the core rulebooks cannot account for.
Please do not contact or message me.
That's called being a author, and the rule (singular) is that whatever you say happens, happens. You're a GM with no players. That is keeping it "as simple as possible".
No one would pay WotC any amount of money for a so-called rule book which only one sentence long. There needs to be work done by WotC, be it in rules, a setting, or a adventure, in order for people to be willing to hand over cash for what WotC is selling. And WotC needs to do that over & over in order to stay in business. New books means providing new rules/settings/adventures, which will by definition make things less simple, even if just by providing more options. So any calls for WotC to only sell "basic D&D", while leaving complexity to 3rd parties, is not going to happen. It would drastically cut into WotC's profit margin at the least.
But you can certainly limit the games that you run to the SRD, or the PHB/DMG/MM, if you want. People have had lots of fun with just that, especially when they are new to RPGs. But there is no justification for WotC or other tables to stay within to that space if that isn't what they want. To terribly misquote several historical figures “Your right to swing your rulebook ends where the other table’s game begins.”
The bold one I agree with as another build - thanks.
However, you aren’t actually reading what I’m saying. I’m talking about they do in combat. Not the feats they take. It could be argued 12 is a different one, but it’s still a very repetitive playstyle. It’s the same for 1. The rest fit into any of the other categories.
I’d like to use this post to apologise for my use of feats, fighting styles and weapons in the build descriptions. It’s actually undermined my point because my post is being misunderstood. It’s what they actually do in combat (which consists of move and hit, for all of them).
I can’t remember what’s supposed to go here.
Artificer can also function as an effective ranged character.
I agree with you on Barbarian.
Bards can also be decent front liners and serious healing.
Clerics can be literally anything you want, excepting maybe high-damage front liner.
Druids can tank.
Agree on monk.
Agree on paladin.
Heavily disagree on ranger. Ranger can now decently skill monkey, be very good at melee or ranged, or battlefield control.
Agree on rogue.
Sorcerers can do whatever, excepting frontlining.
Warlock also makes a formidable ranged character, especially at lower levels.
Wizards can do everything except frontline, tank and heal.
However, once again, you are missing the point of my post. A better word choice would have been that fighters (and all martials) get stuck in a combat loop. They do the same stuff over and over. Which can be fun if what they are doing is anything other than ‘I use my attack action on …’. Spellcasters actually make tactical choices every round, which is why them having only a couple of builds is much less of a problem (even though they generally have more than that). Martials (and rogues, and to some extent paladins and rangers) nearly always must attack to take advantage of their features. So a lot of the tactical decisions are taken away.
I’m not even really arguing for a complex fighter. I think what would fix this issue is a nuanced combat system (optional, obviously). It could include things like better grappling, actual differentiation between weapons, bleeding and injury, and anything else anyone could think of. That way, the ‘simple fighter’ and any other simple martial is preserved for the new players that so desperately need it while complexity is offered to those players who want it.
I can’t remember what’s supposed to go here.
I’ve suggested some options for this in my previous post.
I can’t remember what’s supposed to go here.
Artificers don't make good ranged characters - they are no better at being ranged than any other class that gets extra attack including Barbarian and Paladin [I'd argue Paladin is better at being a ranged character than an artificer is.]. Artificers only seems like good ranged characters because they are in general terrible when it comes to DPR, so the difference between melee DPR and ranged DPR for artificer builds is low. Artificer is an exploration focused class kind of like old Ranger or Rogue they mainly shine outside of combat (hence why Alchemist is as weak as old beastmaster ranger). Except for their two tanky subclasses.
Bards have AWFUL defenses so don't make good frontliners and every class and subclass feature is built on CHA so I've never ever seen a bard do anything but max their CHA with 4th and 8th level ASIs. Swords Bards don't have the staying power to be primary fontliners since if they focus on martial aspects they sacrifice their uses of BI/Flourishes meaning they get slaughtered on the front lines. Unless you're MCing so much that your Bard is barely recognizable as a Bard they aren't frontliners.
Cleric versatility is a complete joke to me now - I don't know who started this lie but it is the biggest lie I've ever seen in the D&D community. I've seen dozens and dozens of optimized builds from various channels (100% of them involve concentrating on Spirit Guardians, while using Healing Word or Spiritual Weapons as a BA and a cantrip) and always had a cleric in my campaigns, and have played 3 clerics myself of completely different subclasses / styles (supposedly) : Tempest, Trickery, and Order. Only once have I seen someone play a cleric without using Healing Word, Bless, Spiritual Weapon, or Spirit Guardians and that was a player who strongly puts flavour over mechanics and usually builds suboptimal characters.
Moon Druids can tank but none of the others can, and if you "build" a moon druid for the purpose of tanking (i.e. BearBarb multiclass) you'll end up with a horribly ineffective character after level 7 that the enemies will simply ignore. So even a Moon Druid is most likely "building" their character - i.e. choosing feats / ASIs - for one of their three other roles and just enjoying tanking as a free bonus.
Ranger is ok at battlefield control at low levels, but doesn't come close to keeping pace with any full caster. Sure a ranger will generally throw up a concentration spell the first round of combat but from then on they'll be "I Attack!" in combat. And I disagree about the melee, I've seen people try to do it in play and it's rarely better than "fine" : the lack of Constitution Saving throw proficiency makes tanking as a ranger a terrible choice, and lack of heavy armour proficiency makes going STR and using PAM or GWM terrible as well.
Sorcerers have to sacrifice a lot to be healers and still aren't very good at it. They also suck at utility because of their limited spells known, and have no access to conjuration. What's left? They can do AoE blasting, single-target blasting, and battlefield control....
I think we agree on Wizards though because :
blasting, controlling, conjuring, utility, frontliner, tanking, healing, are pretty much all the possible roles in combat, and Wizards can't do half of them.
And honestly, there aren't that many different builds for Sorcerer and Wizard even if you think they can do "everything". I bet if you build a reasonably optimized 8th level sorcerer or wizard that I can guess at least 50% of their spells.
Then Spellcasters are SOOO boring because all they do is move and cast a spell for all of them....
If fighters had as many different ways of hitting as spellcasters do of casting a spell, I guarantee this thread would be very different.
Two of them are ones I usggested (bleeding and grappling) and the response I got from someone else is they are not good enough because they are still attacking.
I don't think this has anything to do with the Fighter class. This is mostly about the player, perhaps about the DM and table, and to a minimal extent about the actual build and options you took.
If you think all you have to do is attack over and over again, that is not because you are a fighter, it is because all you want to do as a player is attack over and over again. There are a ton of different actions you can take in combat and one of them "improvise an action" is wide open and only really limited by the DM and your imagination.
My character (not just fighters) are doing stuff all the time, my Goblin jumping on the back of a dragon in flight and then attacking him with a dagger while she hangs on with the other hand, my halfling grabbing a rope from the Kobold Rogue and moving through a bunch of large Ogres to make a tripwire under them. Shoving an enemy off a cliff .... or grappling them, and dragging them off a cliff while the wizard casts feather fall on me (and not the enemy), Getting attacked by flying cambion 40 feet in the air and running across the wagon up the back of one of the horses, jumping off their neck as high in the air as she can get and then using misty step to close the remaining distance and grappling said Cambion so you both plummet to the ground and the party can beat on him with magic weapons. Using Disarm from DMG (not battlemaster maneuver) to take the wand from an enemy wizard, then picking it up off the ground as my object interaction so he can't cast any spells with material components, did the same to take a legendary magic item off of an enemy boss. Using Tumble to move through an enemy so you can get to the caster in the back. Calling for an enemy to surrender or alternatively try to convince them that you have a dragon ally just around the corner coming this way so they flee.
Those are all actual real examples from play on my PCs and they include 5 different DMs, they were not all effective but many of them were. They were not all fighters in these examples, but they were all martials (incl Rogues) and there is nothing preventing a fighter from doing any of these (although he will need a feat, race or subclass for misty step). Most of these things are RAW explicitly called out in the PHB or DMG. If your fighter is not doing these kinds of things in combat that is because he does not want to do these kinds of things in combat.
No, Ecmo. A fighter not pulling crazy offbeat weirdness in combat is not avoiding those things because "he does not want to do these kind of things."
He is avoiding them because THEY DO NOT WORK.
The game has always had the "Can I do a Cool Move?", "Sure, roll a Cool Move check to see if you pull of your Cool Move and either accomplish nothing or utterly break the verisimilitude of the game, or if you humiliate yourself and waste your turn instead" rule. That doesn't make it a good rule. That doesn't make a DM terrible for not letting you make a BS check to convince a band of thinking, rational creatures that you have an ancient dragon hidden around a corner to turn off a fight. That doesn't make players terrible for not wanting to gamble their valuable turn in combat on a Cool Move Check that accomplishes absolutely nothing in almost all cases.
The Cool Move Check is not sufficient and it never has been.
Please do not contact or message me.