People who played PHB ranger and monk: "am I a joke to you"?
A Monk is fine through tier 2 on an experienced player, and they changed the PHB Ranger into a pretty darn good class with Tasha's. Tasha's Ranger, played correctly using one of the new subclasses (Gloomstalker, Fey Wanderer, Swarmkeeper) is the most powerful so-called "martial" in the game, although in some builds more of a Gish than a martial.
The biggest problems with Monks is people try to make front line combatants out of them and they use their Ki for Flurry of Blows and then promptly run out after averaging about 4 damage per ki used. To be effective Monks need to cash in on mobility and avoid being hit. They have a large movement and should use it. Shadow and Mercy are both particularly good if built and played correctly with a half feat and race that augments their features. Kensai, Open Hand and Astral Self are decent, certainly not a strong subclass but strong enough to play well and have fun.
The number one lesson playing Monks effectively is to avoid getting attacked with multiattack unless you have cover or disadvantage. Between their mobilty and ki budget this is fairly easy to do if you are willing to take AOOs and don't waste ki on FOB.
Well, they're wrong. The chassis of the fighter is pretty damn good.
It's literally three features. Four, if you count the extra extra attack.
It is actually 9 features, or 29 if you count repeated features:
1. Fighting Style
2. Second Wind
3. Action Surge (X2)
4. Martial Archetype
5. ASI (x7)
6. Martial Versatility (X7)
7. Extra Attack (X3)
8. Martial Archetype Feature (X4)
9. Indomitable (X3)
This is more features than most classes have.
Fighting Style, the feature that two other classes get and is also available to select with a feat. A subclass, the thing every other class gets. ASIs, the feature every other class gets (though fighters do get two more). Extra Attack, the bonk bonk feature that four other classes, two subclasses and an eldritch invocation get (though I guess fighter does get more than anyone else, but thats again vertical progression, not horizontal progression, just like the ASIs). The inclusion of Martial Versatility as a full class feature is weak.
Second Wind, Action Surge and Indomitable are the fighter's only truly unique features, and Indomitable is just a weaker version of the monk's Diamond Soul. Plus, three of the fighter's "features" are just more uses of one of these base features.
I like the base fighter! I think it works as a simple base! Fighters are probably my third favourite class to play, after rangers and warlocks. However, I would prefer if the fighter had more mechanical depth and complexity that allowed for a variety of playstyles without pigeonholing anyone who wants that more nuanced game into a single subclass of a single class.
Well, they're wrong. The chassis of the fighter is pretty damn good.
It's literally three features. Four, if you count the extra extra attack.
It is actually 9 features, or 29 if you count repeated features:
1. Fighting Style
2. Second Wind
3. Action Surge (X2)
4. Martial Archetype
5. ASI (x7)
6. Martial Versatility (X7)
7. Extra Attack (X3)
8. Martial Archetype Feature (X4)
9. Indomitable (X3)
This is more features than most classes have.
Fighting Style, the feature that two other classes get and is also available to select with a feat. A subclass, the thing every other class gets. ASIs, the feature every other class gets (though fighters do get two more). Extra Attack, the bonk bonk feature that four other classes, two subclasses and an eldritch invocation get (though I guess fighter does get more than anyone else, but thats again vertical progression, not horizontal progression, just like the ASIs). The inclusion of Martial Versatility as a full class feature is weak.
Second Wind, Action Surge and Indomitable are the fighter's only truly unique features, and Indomitable is just a weaker version of the monk's Diamond Soul. Plus, three of the fighter's "features" are just more uses of one of these base features.
I like the base fighter! I think it works as a simple base! Fighters are probably my third favourite class to play, after rangers and warlocks. However, I would prefer if the fighter had more mechanical depth and complexity that allowed for a variety of playstyles without pigeonholing anyone who wants that more nuanced game into a single subclass of a single class.
You said they had they had 3 features, they don't they have 9 and most of them, including subclass and extra attack, are mechanically unique to the fighter. No one says you have to play a single subclass. All the fighter classes bring unique things to the table.
I don't understand why you think you have to play one subclass. I guess I get why you don't want magic, but why can't you play a Cavalier or a Champion or a Samaurai?
IF you want battlemaster maneuvers play a battlemaster, if you want to play something else then play something else or if you want both then play something else and take the fighting style and/or feat to get the battlemaster manevuers.
I don't see this lack of choice you claim exists, as a matter of fact the whole reason they put Superior Technique into the game was so that ANY fighter can get battlemaster maneuvers. It is there for the taking and it was put there specifically to address this supposed shortfall!
I like the base fighter! I think it works as a simple base! Fighters are probably my third favourite class to play, after rangers and warlocks. However, I would prefer if the fighter had more mechanical depth and complexity that allowed for a variety of playstyles without pigeonholing anyone who wants that more nuanced game into a single subclass of a single class.
It's a good thing the game doesn't actually pigeonhole fighters, then, isn't it? Nobody's hands are tied, here. We make choices. And for those choices to matter, they must carry consequences. D&D, for the last two decades and more, has rewarded specialization.
How many times does it have to be said that the several classes are just a chassis? They're a solid foundation. Some classes have a lot of options from the start. Others don't, but acquire more options through their subclass. The fighter falls into that second camp. That's where the lion's share of its options come from. And that's all any of you really want. Natively, it even has more than just "bonk bonk" options. They may not be more than anyone else has, and I don't care. I'm sick and tired of people ignoring basic facts to make their flimsy arguments. That's not how argumentation works. You support and refute. None of you are refuting. You're dismissing. There's a difference.
I've noticed it doesn't matter how much others have to say. You've dug in your heels, and the options we already have still aren't enough for you. Fine, be that way, but you know what? Not every class needs a metric ton of options, and that's alright. It's perfectly fine to only be damn good at filling a niche. Except when it's not, like when the OP gave us their wishlist.
This is why I think a good idea would be to revise the fighter, and make it the martial which can truely stand up to spellcasters... a more varied, tactical class where although you could swing your weapon constantly, you could use more varied tactics, and have comparable utility to casters through superhuman feats.
This is utter nonsense. The characters we play as are not superhuman. Nobody's breaking the world record for power lifting without meeting some specific criteria. Nor is anyone shattering a 2,000 lb. wagon against a boulder; or leaping 1/8 of a mile in a single bound. There is no amount of martial ability that can even compete with something like web; let alone anything more powerful. And even if there was, how would any of us even determine the baseline? What is the bare minimum for "superhuman" and tactical options that can compete with a spellcaster? There are five full spellcasting classes─six, if you count the warlock─all of which have vastly different capabilities. Yes, even sorcerer and wizard. Despite their markedly similar spell lists, they're not as close as people think.
Look, we can't all ridicule each other without getting in trouble with the moderators. But some people need to stop asking for the moon and having the audacity to get angry with anyone who disagrees with them. Build your own rocket. Don't just tell us what you want. Show us what you have. And explain to us why this is necessary.
I'm sorry some people have unsatisfactory home games. That can happen─even to the best of us. But a lot of us don't have the problems you're professing to have. Which makes me seriously question if horizontal progression is any sort of tenable solution.
I think it would be worthwhile for both sides to realize that not everyone likes the same thing.
A big divide (or spectrum) is in the amount of system mastery they like. At one end you have casual gamers who don't want to do much more than hang out with other players, beat stuff up, and do the occasional big showy thing, all without too much thinking about what they're doing. At the other end, you have 'expert' gamers who want to be good at playing the game.
The problem with the way D&D handles this spectrum is that there are people at the casual end who want to throw fireballs, and people at the expert end who want to play warriors (there aren't a lot of people at the casual end who want to play support). Unfortunately, playing a spellcaster without at least a moderate level of system mastery will generally be a disappointing experience, and none of the martial classes have much in the way of system mastery to be gained.
Honestly, the casual gamer population is the majority, so there's definite value to catering to them, but there's a key problem: the people who actually make the game happen (DMs, players who show up reliably and pay attention to what's happening) are generally not the casuals. Which means the game has to support both populations.
This is utter nonsense. The characters we play as are not superhuman.
A mid-level PC can survive being smacked by a giant wielding a greatsword, a fireball that will incinerate a horse, or a thousand foot fall. Some will be able to do things such as outwrestling a kodiak bear. The characters we play as are superhuman, there's just variance in subtlety.
You said they had they had 3 features, they don't they have 9 and most of them, including subclass and extra attack, are mechanically unique to the fighter. No one says you have to play a single subclass. All the fighter classes bring unique things to the table.
What
I don't understand why you think you have to play one subclass. I guess I get why you don't want magic, but why can't you play a Cavalier or a Champion or a Samaurai?
Eldritch Knight is actually my favourite fighter subclass. However, what I have seen in this thread and others like it is an insistence that there is "already the Battle Master", so anyone who wants to play a fighter with any level of complexity already has their one subclass picked out for them. Of the others? Arcane Archer sucks, Banneret sucks, Cavalier is a good defender but doesn't have much complexity, Champion sucks, and Samurai is solid but extremely simple. Rune Knight and Echo Knight get kinda close to the level of complexity I want in a fighter but they both still end up being bonk bonk subclasses with a fun twist a couple times a day. None of the subclasses or playstyles in Barbarian and Monk come close to the in-the-moment interesting decision-making the Battle Master allows you to do.
IF you want battlemaster maneuvers play a battlemaster, if you want to play something else then play something else or if you want both then play something else and take the fighting style and/or feat to get the battlemaster manevuers.
That is exactly the point here. I like the Battle Master, but I prefer other subclasses. I don't want to make maneuvers a core fighter class feature because I love the Battle Master so much and think it can do no wrong. I want to add it in because it works as the perfect solution to both of the thematic issues I see in the fighter in 5e - a lack of meaningful options in combat, and a lack of mechanics to standardise the themes of the fighter. Fighters don't get to do any cool shit exclusive to them, except Action Surge. Every feature available to them is available to another class or is extremely simplistic ("should I use my bonus action to heal this turn or next" and "should i try to reroll this save I failed" aren't very interesting decision points); and the roleplay suggestions to differentiate fighters are available to literally every player.
I don't see this lack of choice you claim exists, as a matter of fact the whole reason they put Superior Technique into the game was so that ANY fighter can get battlemaster maneuvers. It is there for the taking and it was put there specifically to address this supposed shortfall!
Martial Adept and Superior Technique are ironically only really useful for Battle Masters. They give one and two maneuvers respectively :o and one superiority die each :o so for the cost of your fighting style and a feat, you can do two cool things per short rest :o However, for Battle Masters, the additional maneuvers known and extra superiority dice really come in handy for padding out your uses. Literally any other fighter will get next to no use out of either of these options.
It's a good thing the game doesn't actually pigeonhole fighters, then, isn't it? Nobody's hands are tied, here. We make choices. And for those choices to matter, they must carry consequences. D&D, for the last two decades and more, has rewarded specialization.
How many times does it have to be said that the several classes are just a chassis? They're a solid foundation. Some classes have a lot of options from the start. Others don't, but acquire more options through their subclass. The fighter falls into that second camp. That's where the lion's share of its options come from. And that's all any of you really want. Natively, it even has more than just "bonk bonk" options. They may not be more than anyone else has, and I don't care. I'm sick and tired of people ignoring basic facts to make their flimsy arguments. That's not how argumentation works. You support and refute. None of you are refuting. You're dismissing. There's a difference.
Most of the classes are a solid foundation, I agree, but that doesn't mean I don't think they could improve. The only class in the game that I don't think needs any changes is the Paladin. It so happens that I think the fighter is a very solid base that could also do with some improvement.
Also, literally this entire thread has been people saying over and over that, when they want to play a mechanically complex martial character, they are immediately pigeonholed into playing a Battle Master because literally no other martial archetype or playstyle offers the same level of customisation and decision-making. That's what the roast dinner metaphor was about - adding complexity while allowing for newbies and simple fighters to take the easy option out makes everyone happy, while restricting fighters into the Simple Martial archetype only makes one group happy.
This is why I think a good idea would be to revise the fighter, and make it the martial which can truely stand up to spellcasters... a more varied, tactical class where although you could swing your weapon constantly, you could use more varied tactics, and have comparable utility to casters through superhuman feats.
This is utter nonsense. The characters we play as are not superhuman. Nobody's breaking the world record for power lifting without meeting some specific criteria. Nor is anyone shattering a 2,000 lb. wagon against a boulder; or leaping 1/8 of a mile in a single bound. There is no amount of martial ability that can even compete with something like web; let alone anything more powerful. And even if there was, how would any of us even determine the baseline? What is the bare minimum for "superhuman" and tactical options that can compete with a spellcaster? There are five full spellcasting classes─six, if you count the warlock─all of which have vastly different capabilities. Yes, even sorcerer and wizard. Despite their markedly similar spell lists, they're not as close as people think.
A 1st level character - any 1st level character - is already acknowledged as a cut above other mortals. If the Commoner NPC is anything to go by, the weakest adventurer is stronger than the average person. By 5th level, the PCs are going up against elementals forged from pure chaos, land sharks with a bite that can bisect horses, minor devils from the hells, and casters with access to spells like Fireball and Major Image. By 10th level, they're fighting dragons and giants, with spells that can banish people to different planes of existence. At 17th level, sorcerers and wizards become gods. So in what way are these characters not superhuman? And why aren't the fighters allowed to be the same level of superhuman? Or even at least some level? Again, sorcerers and wizards gain access to Wish at 17th level, allowing them to completely rewrite the entire course of both the setting and the campaign on a whim, and the fighter gets another use of some of its features. Why aren't fighters allowed to be superhuman like the wizards?
Look, we can't all ridicule each other without getting in trouble with the moderators. But some people need to stop asking for the moon and having the audacity to get angry with anyone who disagrees with them. Build your own rocket. Don't just tell us what you want. Show us what you have. And explain to us why this is necessary.
I'm sorry some people have unsatisfactory home games. That can happen─even to the best of us. But a lot of us don't have the problems you're professing to have. Which makes me seriously question if horizontal progression is any sort of tenable solution.
I have built my own rocket. I've created my own revision of the entire PHB, with maneuvers as a core aspect of the fighter class. It works well at my table. However, I love D&D and have a lot of free time. I don't think WotC telling every single DM to just homebrew all the shit out of the system they made is viable, in the same way that game developers releasing a game in beta and telling modders to fix the bugs if they want to enjoy the game is viable. This is why people on this thread are wondering if WotC themselves could increase the base customisation of fighters. And on showing you what we have, did you take a look at my idea for a damage-only maneuver option for the simple fighter aficionados? Here's the important stuff from my original message:
If a newbie or particularly disinterested player who simply wants to bonk bonk wants to play a fighter, they can just,,, not use the maneuvers. We can even introduce a newbie-pick option that just lets them add a superiority die of damage to one attack for free, with none of the rider effects. It allows the complexity and decision-making many fighters want to have available to them, while allowing for other fighters who want a simple stress-free bonk bonk life to keep that life - and this bit is important - without reducing their damage or capacity in combat. There should be an incentive to go for the complex options - the rider effects - but they shouldn't allow complex fighters to compeltely outshine the simple fighters, especially in terms of damage (what a lot of simple fighters are often after, big numbers) just because they wanted a simpler game.
This idea isn't even completely out of the blue: the OneD&D playtest has already done something very similar, with the ASI feat. Before, ASIs were core, and feats were an optional thing (like the battle master subclass) that you could take if you wanted to spice up your character. Now, because they realised how popular feats were, WotC decided to make feats the core feature (gave all fighters maneuvers) to allow for complex characters, and then introduced the ASI feat (the pure damage maneuver) for the people who don't want to mess with that level of complexity.
Finally, this thread was started by people interested in making these changes and were then prevented from discussing those potential changes by people interested only in maintaining simple fighter supremacy. If anyone should be telling anyone what they want, it isn't the people who created this thread with the intention of discussing options.
It’s what they actually do in combat (which consists of move and hit, for all of them).
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.
But many (arguably most) players don't use 50 different spells in combat. I DM on a PbP server with 60 different players of different skill levels and experiences. I'm currently DMing an encounter with all spellcasters of different classes and levels: a druid, 2 wizards, 2 bards, a Ranger, a Warlock, an Artificer. We're on round 5, this is a list of every spell that's been cast: Shatter, Shatter, Shatter, Ice Storm, Ice Storm, Zephyr Strike, Zephyr Strike, Healing Word, Healing Word, Healing Word, Mass Cure Wounds, Cure Wounds, Faerie Fire, Call Lightning, Misty Step, Thunderwave, Silent Image, Firebolt, Sacred Flame, Sacred Flame, Shocking Grasp, Mind Sliver, Mind Sliver
vs here's the number of different versions of the Attacks: Longbow Longbow + Dread Ambusher Longbow + Sneak Attack + Favoured Foe Longbow + Sneak Attack Longbow + Sneak Attack + Zephyr Strike Longbow + Genie Wrath Rapier + Sneak Attack Glaive with reach Glaive without reach
vs other actions taken: Disengage Dash Readied action Unicorn Totem BI Protector Cannon Steady Aim Summon Pact Weapon Wails of the Grave
So even with my party that is predominantly spellcasters (though some MCs) there have been only 15 different spells cast vs 17 other types of actions taken.
It’s what they actually do in combat (which consists of move and hit, for all of them).
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.
But many (arguably most) players don't use 50 different spells in combat. I DM on a PbP server with 60 different players of different skill levels and experiences. I'm currently DMing an encounter with all spellcasters of different classes and levels: a druid, 2 wizards, 2 bards, a Ranger, a Warlock, an Artificer. We're on round 5, this is a list of every spell that's been cast: Shatter, Shatter, Shatter, Ice Storm, Ice Storm, Zephyr Strike, Zephyr Strike, Healing Word, Healing Word, Healing Word, Mass Cure Wounds, Cure Wounds, Faerie Fire, Call Lightning, Misty Step, Thunderwave, Silent Image, Firebolt, Sacred Flame, Sacred Flame, Shocking Grasp, Mind Sliver, Mind Sliver
vs here's the number of different versions of the Attacks: Longbow Longbow + Dread Ambusher Longbow + Sneak Attack + Favoured Foe Longbow + Sneak Attack Longbow + Sneak Attack + Zephyr Strike Longbow + Genie Wrath Rapier + Sneak Attack Glaive with reach Glaive without reach
vs other actions taken: Disengage Dash Readied action Unicorn Totem BI Protector Cannon Steady Aim Summon Pact Weapon Wails of the Grave
So even with my party that is predominantly spellcasters (though some MCs) there have been only 15 different spells cast vs 17 other types of actions taken.
Sorry, you can drop all of those longbow attacks down to a single thing with various added benefits. And even if you don’t, almost half your list is different spells, and of those “15 different spells,” they were cast 23 times compared to the “17 other types of actions taken” all combined.
Didja ever stop and wonder why most of the PCs in that group are all spellcasters?
There is a fundamental difference between the views of people who believe that Attack, Attack + Salt, Attack + Pepper, and Attack + Salt AND Pepper are four dramatically different and wildly divergent actions, and the views of people who do not believe that adding salt and/or pepper turns a steak dinner into a fish dinner instead.
Glaive with reach give you a hit-and-run playstyle whereas glaive without reach means you're trapped in melee and taking hits. These are not the same. And if you want a run down of Fighters, here are all the different things a level 8 Rune Knight did in my last arena combat: 1) Dash 2) Enlarge themselves 3) Deflect an enemy's attack 4) Summon fire chains to trap an enemy 5) Grappled a Dragon to hold it to the ground. 6) GWM maul attacks 7) non-GWM maul attacks 8) one-handed battleaxe attacks 9) Two-weapon fighting using Battle Axes 10) Attack of opportunity + Sentinel 11) Used Second Wind 12) Used Action Surge 13) Sentinel special reaction attack
Here are the number of different things the level 8 Creation Bard did: 1) Vicious Mockery 2) Healing Word 3) Hypnotic Pattern 4) Command 6) Dissonant Whispers 7) Create Dancing Item 8) Command Dancing Item to attack 9) Use Dancing Item to carry the Rune Knight
Yes they are. A glaive is a glaive is a glaive. The player making use of the glaive's properties is not playing two entirely different fighter builds and using two entirely different actions. They're just making use of one of the vanishingly rare options R5e gives them to add a little salt to their Attack Action.
Glaive with reach give you a hit-and-run playstyle whereas glaive without reach means you're trapped in melee and taking hits. These are not the same.
First off the Glaive without reach can still hit-and-run, they just risk an OA. Big whoop. And the Glaive with reach can still just stand there. And either way you’re still just smacking something with a Glaive.
So a Rogue and a Fighter have the exact same play style to you? Then how do you define different spells as different playstyles? One spell that deals damage is not significantly different from another spell that deals damage, one spell that takes away an enemy action is not significantly different from another spell that takes away an enemy action. Most spellcasters just stand still at the back and spam the same 2-3 spells over and over again, how does that make them more complex than a barbarian that moves around making 2-3 different types of attacks?
I've played a Moondruid - Wizard MC for 2 years now in a campaign and honestly playing her as a spellcaster is much much less interesting than wildshaping and playing her as a martial. As a spellcaster she does the following in every combat: (1) cast Conjure Animals (2) cast Magic Missile + command animals (3) cast a long-range healing spell. + command animals While standing behind cover.
While Wildshaping she does the following: (1) Grapple & drag enemies away from vulnerable allies (1.5) Shove enemies into persistent spell effects or into traps (1.75) Grapple/Shove flying enemies prone to knock them out of the sky (2) Attack (3) Move to create flanking for allies (4) Move to provoke AoO so allies can escape (5) Dash through enemies to get to their vulnerable back lines
I can agree that archers are the most boring characters in existence, but melee martial characters are so much fun that there are dozens of builds to allow people who like casters to also play as a melee martial when they want to.
What’s really childish is the reactionary arguments made by people supposing to protect new players from optional features that would in no way impact them if they didn’t want them too, while not one ‘new player’ has posted on the thread to say ‘I need/ed a simple fighter to learn D&D’.
Wait, what? I literally posted several times saying that I needed exactly that to learn D&D. Many of my players have had similar experiences, but you are unlikely to see anyone who is new to a game posting to a discussion forum for something they just learned and don't fully understand. In short, there are many new players like me who needed Fighter, but you are unlikely to see any of them here. To be honest though, I do find it a bit frustrating that you said no one on this thread needed Fighter to help them adjust to the game when I literally explained, several times, that I needed exactly that when I was a new player. Also, not everyone may feel comfortable saying "I struggled/am struggling with learning the rules of the game and this helped me/is helping me overcome that challenge." Telling people they have to share something that they feel sensitive about and that they are "childish" if they don't do so is both impolite and hurtful.
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.
Glaive with reach give you a hit-and-run playstyle whereas glaive without reach means you're trapped in melee and taking hits. These are not the same.
First off the Glaive without reach can still hit-and-run, they just risk an OA. Big whoop. And the Glaive with reach can still just stand there. And either way you’re still just smacking something with a Glaive.
An OA should mean potentially losing 1/3 of your total HP, if you are playing an actual challenging combat. I mean if you don't care about losing 1/3 of your total HP or not then how do you care about combat at all? Cast Hypnotic Pattern to hypnotize 1/4 of the enemies? Big whoop. Who cares? they would only have done 10 damage anyway, Why did you bother wasting a 3rd level spell slot on that?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
A Monk is fine through tier 2 on an experienced player, and they changed the PHB Ranger into a pretty darn good class with Tasha's. Tasha's Ranger, played correctly using one of the new subclasses (Gloomstalker, Fey Wanderer, Swarmkeeper) is the most powerful so-called "martial" in the game, although in some builds more of a Gish than a martial.
The biggest problems with Monks is people try to make front line combatants out of them and they use their Ki for Flurry of Blows and then promptly run out after averaging about 4 damage per ki used. To be effective Monks need to cash in on mobility and avoid being hit. They have a large movement and should use it. Shadow and Mercy are both particularly good if built and played correctly with a half feat and race that augments their features. Kensai, Open Hand and Astral Self are decent, certainly not a strong subclass but strong enough to play well and have fun.
The number one lesson playing Monks effectively is to avoid getting attacked with multiattack unless you have cover or disadvantage. Between their mobilty and ki budget this is fairly easy to do if you are willing to take AOOs and don't waste ki on FOB.
Fighting Style, the feature that two other classes get and is also available to select with a feat. A subclass, the thing every other class gets. ASIs, the feature every other class gets (though fighters do get two more). Extra Attack, the bonk bonk feature that four other classes, two subclasses and an eldritch invocation get (though I guess fighter does get more than anyone else, but thats again vertical progression, not horizontal progression, just like the ASIs). The inclusion of Martial Versatility as a full class feature is weak.
Second Wind, Action Surge and Indomitable are the fighter's only truly unique features, and Indomitable is just a weaker version of the monk's Diamond Soul. Plus, three of the fighter's "features" are just more uses of one of these base features.
I like the base fighter! I think it works as a simple base! Fighters are probably my third favourite class to play, after rangers and warlocks. However, I would prefer if the fighter had more mechanical depth and complexity that allowed for a variety of playstyles without pigeonholing anyone who wants that more nuanced game into a single subclass of a single class.
You said they had they had 3 features, they don't they have 9 and most of them, including subclass and extra attack, are mechanically unique to the fighter. No one says you have to play a single subclass. All the fighter classes bring unique things to the table.
I don't understand why you think you have to play one subclass. I guess I get why you don't want magic, but why can't you play a Cavalier or a Champion or a Samaurai?
IF you want battlemaster maneuvers play a battlemaster, if you want to play something else then play something else or if you want both then play something else and take the fighting style and/or feat to get the battlemaster manevuers.
I don't see this lack of choice you claim exists, as a matter of fact the whole reason they put Superior Technique into the game was so that ANY fighter can get battlemaster maneuvers. It is there for the taking and it was put there specifically to address this supposed shortfall!
It's a good thing the game doesn't actually pigeonhole fighters, then, isn't it? Nobody's hands are tied, here. We make choices. And for those choices to matter, they must carry consequences. D&D, for the last two decades and more, has rewarded specialization.
How many times does it have to be said that the several classes are just a chassis? They're a solid foundation. Some classes have a lot of options from the start. Others don't, but acquire more options through their subclass. The fighter falls into that second camp. That's where the lion's share of its options come from. And that's all any of you really want. Natively, it even has more than just "bonk bonk" options. They may not be more than anyone else has, and I don't care. I'm sick and tired of people ignoring basic facts to make their flimsy arguments. That's not how argumentation works. You support and refute. None of you are refuting. You're dismissing. There's a difference.
I've noticed it doesn't matter how much others have to say. You've dug in your heels, and the options we already have still aren't enough for you. Fine, be that way, but you know what? Not every class needs a metric ton of options, and that's alright. It's perfectly fine to only be damn good at filling a niche. Except when it's not, like when the OP gave us their wishlist.
This is utter nonsense. The characters we play as are not superhuman. Nobody's breaking the world record for power lifting without meeting some specific criteria. Nor is anyone shattering a 2,000 lb. wagon against a boulder; or leaping 1/8 of a mile in a single bound. There is no amount of martial ability that can even compete with something like web; let alone anything more powerful. And even if there was, how would any of us even determine the baseline? What is the bare minimum for "superhuman" and tactical options that can compete with a spellcaster? There are five full spellcasting classes─six, if you count the warlock─all of which have vastly different capabilities. Yes, even sorcerer and wizard. Despite their markedly similar spell lists, they're not as close as people think.
Look, we can't all ridicule each other without getting in trouble with the moderators. But some people need to stop asking for the moon and having the audacity to get angry with anyone who disagrees with them. Build your own rocket. Don't just tell us what you want. Show us what you have. And explain to us why this is necessary.
I'm sorry some people have unsatisfactory home games. That can happen─even to the best of us. But a lot of us don't have the problems you're professing to have. Which makes me seriously question if horizontal progression is any sort of tenable solution.
I think it would be worthwhile for both sides to realize that not everyone likes the same thing.
A big divide (or spectrum) is in the amount of system mastery they like. At one end you have casual gamers who don't want to do much more than hang out with other players, beat stuff up, and do the occasional big showy thing, all without too much thinking about what they're doing. At the other end, you have 'expert' gamers who want to be good at playing the game.
The problem with the way D&D handles this spectrum is that there are people at the casual end who want to throw fireballs, and people at the expert end who want to play warriors (there aren't a lot of people at the casual end who want to play support). Unfortunately, playing a spellcaster without at least a moderate level of system mastery will generally be a disappointing experience, and none of the martial classes have much in the way of system mastery to be gained.
Honestly, the casual gamer population is the majority, so there's definite value to catering to them, but there's a key problem: the people who actually make the game happen (DMs, players who show up reliably and pay attention to what's happening) are generally not the casuals. Which means the game has to support both populations.
A mid-level PC can survive being smacked by a giant wielding a greatsword, a fireball that will incinerate a horse, or a thousand foot fall. Some will be able to do things such as outwrestling a kodiak bear. The characters we play as are superhuman, there's just variance in subtlety.
What
Eldritch Knight is actually my favourite fighter subclass. However, what I have seen in this thread and others like it is an insistence that there is "already the Battle Master", so anyone who wants to play a fighter with any level of complexity already has their one subclass picked out for them. Of the others? Arcane Archer sucks, Banneret sucks, Cavalier is a good defender but doesn't have much complexity, Champion sucks, and Samurai is solid but extremely simple. Rune Knight and Echo Knight get kinda close to the level of complexity I want in a fighter but they both still end up being bonk bonk subclasses with a fun twist a couple times a day. None of the subclasses or playstyles in Barbarian and Monk come close to the in-the-moment interesting decision-making the Battle Master allows you to do.
That is exactly the point here. I like the Battle Master, but I prefer other subclasses. I don't want to make maneuvers a core fighter class feature because I love the Battle Master so much and think it can do no wrong. I want to add it in because it works as the perfect solution to both of the thematic issues I see in the fighter in 5e - a lack of meaningful options in combat, and a lack of mechanics to standardise the themes of the fighter. Fighters don't get to do any cool shit exclusive to them, except Action Surge. Every feature available to them is available to another class or is extremely simplistic ("should I use my bonus action to heal this turn or next" and "should i try to reroll this save I failed" aren't very interesting decision points); and the roleplay suggestions to differentiate fighters are available to literally every player.
Martial Adept and Superior Technique are ironically only really useful for Battle Masters. They give one and two maneuvers respectively :o and one superiority die each :o so for the cost of your fighting style and a feat, you can do two cool things per short rest :o However, for Battle Masters, the additional maneuvers known and extra superiority dice really come in handy for padding out your uses. Literally any other fighter will get next to no use out of either of these options.
Most of the classes are a solid foundation, I agree, but that doesn't mean I don't think they could improve. The only class in the game that I don't think needs any changes is the Paladin. It so happens that I think the fighter is a very solid base that could also do with some improvement.
Also, literally this entire thread has been people saying over and over that, when they want to play a mechanically complex martial character, they are immediately pigeonholed into playing a Battle Master because literally no other martial archetype or playstyle offers the same level of customisation and decision-making. That's what the roast dinner metaphor was about - adding complexity while allowing for newbies and simple fighters to take the easy option out makes everyone happy, while restricting fighters into the Simple Martial archetype only makes one group happy.
A 1st level character - any 1st level character - is already acknowledged as a cut above other mortals. If the Commoner NPC is anything to go by, the weakest adventurer is stronger than the average person. By 5th level, the PCs are going up against elementals forged from pure chaos, land sharks with a bite that can bisect horses, minor devils from the hells, and casters with access to spells like Fireball and Major Image. By 10th level, they're fighting dragons and giants, with spells that can banish people to different planes of existence. At 17th level, sorcerers and wizards become gods. So in what way are these characters not superhuman? And why aren't the fighters allowed to be the same level of superhuman? Or even at least some level? Again, sorcerers and wizards gain access to Wish at 17th level, allowing them to completely rewrite the entire course of both the setting and the campaign on a whim, and the fighter gets another use of some of its features. Why aren't fighters allowed to be superhuman like the wizards?
I have built my own rocket. I've created my own revision of the entire PHB, with maneuvers as a core aspect of the fighter class. It works well at my table. However, I love D&D and have a lot of free time. I don't think WotC telling every single DM to just homebrew all the shit out of the system they made is viable, in the same way that game developers releasing a game in beta and telling modders to fix the bugs if they want to enjoy the game is viable. This is why people on this thread are wondering if WotC themselves could increase the base customisation of fighters. And on showing you what we have, did you take a look at my idea for a damage-only maneuver option for the simple fighter aficionados? Here's the important stuff from my original message:
Finally, this thread was started by people interested in making these changes and were then prevented from discussing those potential changes by people interested only in maintaining simple fighter supremacy. If anyone should be telling anyone what they want, it isn't the people who created this thread with the intention of discussing options.
But many (arguably most) players don't use 50 different spells in combat. I DM on a PbP server with 60 different players of different skill levels and experiences. I'm currently DMing an encounter with all spellcasters of different classes and levels: a druid, 2 wizards, 2 bards, a Ranger, a Warlock, an Artificer. We're on round 5, this is a list of every spell that's been cast:
Shatter, Shatter, Shatter,
Ice Storm, Ice Storm,
Zephyr Strike, Zephyr Strike,
Healing Word, Healing Word, Healing Word,
Mass Cure Wounds,
Cure Wounds,
Faerie Fire,
Call Lightning,
Misty Step,
Thunderwave,
Silent Image,
Firebolt,
Sacred Flame, Sacred Flame,
Shocking Grasp,
Mind Sliver, Mind Sliver
vs here's the number of different versions of the Attacks:
Longbow
Longbow + Dread Ambusher
Longbow + Sneak Attack + Favoured Foe
Longbow + Sneak Attack
Longbow + Sneak Attack + Zephyr Strike
Longbow + Genie Wrath
Rapier + Sneak Attack
Glaive with reach
Glaive without reach
vs other actions taken:
Disengage
Dash
Readied action
Unicorn Totem
BI
Protector Cannon
Steady Aim
Summon Pact Weapon
Wails of the Grave
So even with my party that is predominantly spellcasters (though some MCs) there have been only 15 different spells cast vs 17 other types of actions taken.
Sorry, you can drop all of those longbow attacks down to a single thing with various added benefits. And even if you don’t, almost half your list is different spells, and of those “15 different spells,” they were cast 23 times compared to the “17 other types of actions taken” all combined.
Didja ever stop and wonder why most of the PCs in that group are all spellcasters?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
There is a fundamental difference between the views of people who believe that Attack, Attack + Salt, Attack + Pepper, and Attack + Salt AND Pepper are four dramatically different and wildly divergent actions, and the views of people who do not believe that adding salt and/or pepper turns a steak dinner into a fish dinner instead.
Please do not contact or message me.
Also gonna point out that "glaive w/reach" and "glaive w/o reach" is the sort of nitpicking even inveterate nitpickers would call out as nitpicking.
Please do not contact or message me.
Okay, first, let's cut this list down to the stuff that fighters can do, since that's what my post was about and that's what this thread was about:
Oh. Huh. Thanks for making my point for me I guess?
Oh God, I didn’t even see that, my eyes skipped right past it with all the longbows in a row. 🙄
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Psst…. FIFY👆 Don’t worry, I got yer back. 😉
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Glaive with reach give you a hit-and-run playstyle whereas glaive without reach means you're trapped in melee and taking hits. These are not the same. And if you want a run down of Fighters, here are all the different things a level 8 Rune Knight did in my last arena combat:
1) Dash
2) Enlarge themselves
3) Deflect an enemy's attack
4) Summon fire chains to trap an enemy
5) Grappled a Dragon to hold it to the ground.
6) GWM maul attacks
7) non-GWM maul attacks
8) one-handed battleaxe attacks
9) Two-weapon fighting using Battle Axes
10) Attack of opportunity + Sentinel
11) Used Second Wind
12) Used Action Surge
13) Sentinel special reaction attack
Here are the number of different things the level 8 Creation Bard did:
1) Vicious Mockery
2) Healing Word
3) Hypnotic Pattern
4) Command
6) Dissonant Whispers
7) Create Dancing Item
8) Command Dancing Item to attack
9) Use Dancing Item to carry the Rune Knight
Yes they are. A glaive is a glaive is a glaive. The player making use of the glaive's properties is not playing two entirely different fighter builds and using two entirely different actions. They're just making use of one of the vanishingly rare options R5e gives them to add a little salt to their Attack Action.
Please do not contact or message me.
First off the Glaive without reach can still hit-and-run, they just risk an OA. Big whoop. And the Glaive with reach can still just stand there. And either way you’re still just smacking something with a Glaive.
So a Rogue and a Fighter have the exact same play style to you? Then how do you define different spells as different playstyles? One spell that deals damage is not significantly different from another spell that deals damage, one spell that takes away an enemy action is not significantly different from another spell that takes away an enemy action. Most spellcasters just stand still at the back and spam the same 2-3 spells over and over again, how does that make them more complex than a barbarian that moves around making 2-3 different types of attacks?
I've played a Moondruid - Wizard MC for 2 years now in a campaign and honestly playing her as a spellcaster is much much less interesting than wildshaping and playing her as a martial. As a spellcaster she does the following in every combat:
(1) cast Conjure Animals
(2) cast Magic Missile + command animals
(3) cast a long-range healing spell. + command animals
While standing behind cover.
While Wildshaping she does the following:
(1) Grapple & drag enemies away from vulnerable allies
(1.5) Shove enemies into persistent spell effects or into traps
(1.75) Grapple/Shove flying enemies prone to knock them out of the sky
(2) Attack
(3) Move to create flanking for allies
(4) Move to provoke AoO so allies can escape
(5) Dash through enemies to get to their vulnerable back lines
I can agree that archers are the most boring characters in existence, but melee martial characters are so much fun that there are dozens of builds to allow people who like casters to also play as a melee martial when they want to.
Wait, what? I literally posted several times saying that I needed exactly that to learn D&D. Many of my players have had similar experiences, but you are unlikely to see anyone who is new to a game posting to a discussion forum for something they just learned and don't fully understand. In short, there are many new players like me who needed Fighter, but you are unlikely to see any of them here. To be honest though, I do find it a bit frustrating that you said no one on this thread needed Fighter to help them adjust to the game when I literally explained, several times, that I needed exactly that when I was a new player. Also, not everyone may feel comfortable saying "I struggled/am struggling with learning the rules of the game and this helped me/is helping me overcome that challenge." Telling people they have to share something that they feel sensitive about and that they are "childish" if they don't do so is both impolite and hurtful.
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.Because there are players who like that level of complexity. I personally wouldn't find it interesting, but I know players who would.
An OA should mean potentially losing 1/3 of your total HP, if you are playing an actual challenging combat. I mean if you don't care about losing 1/3 of your total HP or not then how do you care about combat at all? Cast Hypnotic Pattern to hypnotize 1/4 of the enemies? Big whoop. Who cares? they would only have done 10 damage anyway, Why did you bother wasting a 3rd level spell slot on that?