LOL, You've never played a druid have you? Massive devastating spells? like what? Wall of Fire that is both more expensive and inferior in every way to Fireball? Call Lightning that does less damage than the PAM fighter? Spike Growth that costs enemies only 1 turn to simply run around it? Um.. conditions yes... sooo devastating.... using an action and a 2nd level spell for a 50:50 shot to blind an enemy for 1 round which doesn't stop them attacking or moving, and which a large number of creatures are either immune to or just ignore by using other senses.... Or maybe poison that a third of the monsters in the game are immune to? Or.... maybe we can turn the whole battlefield into a muddy morrass with Transmute Rock only this cripples our ally fighters as much as the enemy and has no effect on flying creatures or creatures with non-attack based abilities.... Or covering the whole battlefield in sleet so now our spellcasters are utterly crippled b/c they can't see the enemy....
Yeah.. so many options, I can't believe I've ended up relying on Conjure Animals in 99% of combat because it is simply more powerful and more versatile than any other two spells on the druid spell list put together...
If you don't value spellcasting, don't play a spellcaster. If your only use for spellcasters is "flood the battlefield with disposable minions and hide behind a rock", you don't value spellcasting. None of this, however, is germane to discussion of the fighter or martials other than your extremely bizarre inversion of logic where "Glaive w/Reach" and "Glaive w/o Reach" are completely different actions and combat styles but the entirety of non-summon spellcasting is somehow a morass of worthless sameyness. Like...what? What? How does that even process?
They wont come fast enough to really add enough complexity. A option every 4 levels just wont cut it. Its the same issue with relying on subclasses to solve the problem something at 3,6,10,14 just is not going to add enough complexity or mechanical balance. I mean its technically possible with sub classes or feats but nothing they have done would indicate either will be profound enough to pull it off. They have shown us leveled feats for 4th level and a expert subclass for 3 classes. They were if anything simpler than 5es and less mechanically impactful.
But hey if the battle master is changed so instead of a handful; per short rest its just once a round. Aand the maneuver die starts at 2d8 with basic bonk being the default and it grows by 2d8 at each sub class level. Wwith a new maneuver every other class level. And the maneuvers are leveled with each effect past basic bonk costing a number of d8 and you can combine as many as you want until you run out of d8s to spend, then hey cool.
Impose a myriad of various conditions on your enemies from blinded to unconscious
Cast spells to control the battlefield
And do lots of cool stuff outside of combat too
Ain’t nobody’s fault but yorn that all ya do is spam magic missile and cower.
And most of your list of what you do in melee is a rinse & repeat of:
grapple/shove
move
attack
LOL, You've never played a druid have you? Massive devastating spells? like what? Wall of Fire that is both more expensive and inferior in every way to Fireball? Call Lightning that does less damage than the PAM fighter? Spike Growth that costs enemies only 1 turn to simply run around it? Um.. conditions yes... sooo devastating.... using an action and a 2nd level spell for a 50:50 shot to blind an enemy for 1 round which doesn't stop them attacking or moving, and which a large number of creatures are either immune to or just ignore by using other senses.... Or maybe poison that a third of the monsters in the game are immune to? Or.... maybe we can turn the whole battlefield into a muddy morrass with Transmute Rock only this cripples our ally fighters as much as the enemy and has no effect on flying creatures or creatures with non-attack based abilities.... Or covering the whole battlefield in sleet so now our spellcasters are utterly crippled b/c they can't see the enemy....
Yeah.. so many options, I can't believe I've ended up relying on Conjure Animals in 99% of combat because it is simply more powerful and more versatile than any other two spells on the druid spell list put together...
Druids... just aren't supposed to be damage dealers. They're made for battlefield control so the party doesn't get overwhelmed. They have a ton of options to do that. For specializing into damage, moon druid might be what you're looking for... or just not a druid. Nature Cleric is a good option with a ton of damage potential with spirit guardians. Call lightning is great because it's conservative, not much of a spell slot cost for consistent damage. Spike growth is great for the exact reason you mentioned. It costs enemies, not just one enemy a whole turn with no save, allowing your party some breathing room. Okay I'll admit poison has some problems. Transmute rock is great as your fighters will likely succeed saves while the enemies die so then they could wail on them with s t i c k. If they do fail the save, you can break concentration. Conjure Animals and every phb summoning spell is a travesty to D&D and a nightmare for new DMs and I hope it's removed in OneD&D.
The Tasha's summoning spells are just a ton more balanced overall. I like find familiar but I think the scouting ability where you can see through the familiar's eyes should be moved to pact of the chain. It's unnecessary power to the absurd utility of casters.
Right, but we aren't asking for large amounts of complexity.
I have seen numerous people on this thread argue for adding large amounts of complexity to the base Fighter class. We and I are not synonyms; you may not have been asking for large amounts of complexity, but many other people on this thread have.
We're asking for literally any complexity at all. The fighter has absolutely nothing going for it. The base chassis gives exactly three features that have any real impact on the fighter's general gameplay: Fighting Style, Action Surge, and Extra Attack. Notice that only one of these has any level of decision-making (Fighting Style), and its a decision that sticks with you for literally the rest of the game and never improves. In contrast, a ranger gets a Favoured Enemy, Fighting Style, Extra Attack, Nature's Veil, Vanish, and Feral Senses (and I guess Foe Slayer) ON TOP OF being a half caster. Then they also get their subclass features.
The Fighter has a lot going for it. It's cool. It's strong. New players can easily play it. All of this combines to make the class the most played and probably most liked class in the game. Saying that Fighter only has three impactful features is simply inaccurate, because it has many more impactful features than that. With Fighter, you left out Second Wind, both uses of Indomitable, two more Extra Attacks, and another use of Action Surge.
With Ranger on the other hand, you literally just listed every single non-spellcasting and non-ASI feature that they have despite the fact that A) most of those features do almost nothing, and B) by leaving out ASI and feats and how Fighters have more of those two things than most other classes, you ignore one of the more important customization options that the class has.
This then adds onto the issue that, by theme and description, fighters aren't supposed to be the simple class. Fighters are supposed to have "an unparalleled mastery with weapons and armour, and a thorough knowledge of the skills of combat." Fighters in 5e don't have that. They can do very little more than any other martial class, and none of their features give them any sort of "mastery with weapons and armour" or "knowledge of the skills of combat." Even beyond the simple/complex debate, fighters should get more class features in general to allow for them to actually fulfill the fantasy of playing a master at arms.
This is simply not true. Fighters description paints them as a warrior who is good with a sword and shield. Firstly, you do not need complexity to make a class powerful and good with weapons. All you need is higher numbers. Fighters description does not say that they need to or should be complex. Instead, it just says that they should be a good and "well-rounded" warrior who is able to deal with foes.
And if you really want to play a high level fighter, you can unironically play a 10th level Swords bard, pick up Swift Quiver with magical secrets, and then play a character with about the same level of combat ability as a fighter double its level while still having access to spellcasting and bardic inspiration.
Sure. But you wouldn't have nearly as many uses of Extra Attack as a Fighter would. Neither would you have as high an AC or as much HP. In other words, this would not really be a Fighter -- it's a completely different type of Martial with only a few of the abilities or strengths that a Fighter has.
Throughout your post, you seem to be implying Fighter is weak and underpowered. However, Fighters are not underpowered, in combat at least: They have AC, high HP, and, yes, they may have simpler options, but there are people that enjoy that. That doesn't necessarily mean that they're weaker, because they aren't.
But the main point of this whole discussion, at least what I can gather, is that "not every player has this problem" ignores the fact that many players have this problem, and "a holistic approach" has already been suggested. Making the barbarian the simple bonk bonk class is an option, though I personally think every class should have some level of complexity and decision making built into it from scratch; however, giving fighters maneuvers as a base part of the kit is already optional. If a newbie or particularly disinterested player who simply wants to bonk bonk desperately needs 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.
I already explained why this idea wouldn't work, HERE, though you may not have seen that reply.
Some people like Fighter being simple. Some people love Fighter being simple. Some people need or have needed Fighter to be simple to learn and play the game. Throughout all of your posts on this thread, I've seen nothing but your desire to take away Fighter from the people who need it. Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, but you seem to think that simplicity automatically means something is bad. Simplicity is not bad, it is just a different playing style and a different way of enjoying the game. Your whole argument is that the most beloved simple class should be taken away from the people who need it, merely because you want more options for yourself.
Now, there should be options for more complex classes, and FIghter actually does have numerous ways to make it complex. But that aside, there need to be options for everyone. Fighter has provided an excellent option for people seeking simplicity, and you can have your complexity in literally any other place. So I am legitimately wondering, why are you choosing to put it in the class that has always provided a safe haven for new players and players who like simplicity?
Arcane Archer is okay, the effects are pretty decent, but you only get two uses per short rest.
Grasping Arrow is better than any battlemaster maneuver. Not just decent but much better. There is no save and it restricts mobility and damages enemies turn after turn. You only get 2 per short rest but one you hit someone it usually lasts (and continues damaging him) until he is dead as opposed to battlemaster maneuvers which are 1 round. It also works on forced movement so things like telekenetic, thunderwave a shield master's shove all damage it and this is once a turn, not once a round. Once you hit him the whole party can get in on it and it 2d6 extra damage every single turn (or 4d6 at 18th level)
Also, real quick, to clarify, my fighter rework? I have them maneuvers and also Power Attack at 5th level (-5/+10) alongside barbarians and monks, to replace GWM and Sharpshooter.
I would be cool with that as long as it was an optional feature that you took instead of extra attack. Kind of like Ranger does with Deft Explorer or Natural Explorer take either extra attack or Power Attach but not both. With fighter you could eventually get to attack more than once with the later Extra Attack options.
Echo Knight has no limit to its manifest echo ability, which does allow for some interesting shenanigans, but this can be pretty solidly replicated by any illusion spell.
No it can't. To start with it is a bonus action to summon your echo where I think every illusion spell is an action to cast.
That point aside you can attack from the echos space and switch places with it, neither of which you can do with most/any illusions .... and any you can do it with are probably concentration and use a high level slot.
Think about the math here - Two things per short rest is 6 times a day. That means you are using one maneuver out of every 3-4 turns in combat (3-4 turns in a fight on average, 2 fights in a short rest). It is more than that if you have fewer than average number of encounters (as most groups do).
Ywo things per short rest is only 6 times a day if you get your two short rests every single day. A lot of groups don't get that, because of the serious imbalance in what you regain from a short and long rest.
But the groups that don't get that are not typically fighting 6 fights a day generally either so it balances out - less uses a day but less fights a day. If you get two uses per short rest that is typically going to be one maneuver every 3-4 turns. Considering the numbers of traveling overland days where you only have 1 fight I actually think it is substantually more than that in play most of the time.
also, again, taking both your Fighting Style - the only decision point in the entirety of the fighter class - AND a feat to do A Cool Thing twice per short sucks. At that point take pick up Fey Touched, its a single feat PLUS its a half feat PLUS it gives you two cool things per day PLUS it lets you choose one of a great selection of spells - Bless and Hex in particular will be signifcantly more impactful to any character than the one maneuver per short rest you get from Martial Adept.
I love Fey Touched and Hex on martials (not so much bless), but after tier 2 Hex is losing steam in combat fast, even if you have nothing else to concentrate on. It is still very useful out of combat for the disadvantage and extra damage is extra damage, but 1 hex spell a day can not keep up with 3 uses of menacing attack a day in tier 3+.
Lol. Lmao. In terms of nova, a Battle Master is still by far the strongest fighter. In terms of DPR, Battle Master is usually the strongest fighter, and a lot of that is because of Grappling Attack, Precision Attack, and Trip Attack, all of which boost to hit instead of damage.
Math matters
Nova comparison 8th level at Battlemaster Archer with the sharpshooter and the maneuvers you mention vs 8th Level Arcane Archer with sharpshooter, superior technique and martial adept with pushing attack and quick toss:
Note the Battlemaster does have 1 die left at 8th level, where the Arcane Archer is out of dice, but Arcane Archer could save one grasping arrow and still be ahead 111.5 to 96 and would still be ahead even without the bonus action attack.
In terms of battlefield utility, Battle Master is arguably the strongest fighter because of things like Grappling Attack and Menacing Attack (Rune Knight I'd say is a close second). And, again, Battle Master benefits more from Superior Technique and Martial Adept than any other character in the game. The Cavalier is arguably better at tanking, because of Unwavering Mark, but that's about it.
Menacing attack is extremely good. I don't think it measures up to grasping arrow overall because there is a save and because it only lasts 1 round. For that round though it is excellent.
Grappling attack can be great on some builds. It is not great on an Archer but if you are building a grappler it is undoubtedly better, but I don't think that is a fair comparison because no one is building a grappling Arcane Archer. Battlemaster is more flexible certainly and you can build a ranged character, a melee character a grappler or a hybrid/combo guy that does some ranged and some melee. Battlemaster works well for all of those, Arcane Archer only really works for a Bowman, but for a Bowman it is unmatched IMO,
HOWEVER, paladins beat them in nova,
Not on an Archer
Also, Quick Shot is unironically redundant on fighters. The Thrown Weapon Fighting style already lets you draw thrown weapons as part of the attack., and you can already make attacks with thrown weapons as a bonus action as part of Two-Weapon Fighting. And, since you can add other maneuvers to thrown weapon attacks, the damage is irrelevant. Literally the only thing Quick Shot lets you do is take another fighting style, or make An Attack with your modifier Once Per Rest, compared to an infinite number of attacks for no extra cost.
Not at all. RAW this is not true. Quick toss lets you make a bonus action attack with any thrown weapon, including darts, and it lets you do this regardless of how you use your action. Using thrown weapon fighting combined with two weapon fighting is MUCH weaker for many reasons:
1. Two Weapon Fighting only works with light melee weapons. This means you must use a light melee weapon both for the attack action and you must use a melee weapon with the bonus action. This means you can not use sharpshooter because sharpshooter only works with ranged weapons (like darts). So you lose sharpshooter on at least one of your attacks on your action and you can't use it on the bonus action attack either. With Quick Toss I can attack with a greatsword or more importantly for this discussion I can attack with my longbow and then use quick toss to fling a dart.
2. You can't draw a weapon and use it with two weapon fighting, it has to already be in your other hand when you make the attack action. Yes, Thrown Weapon Fighting lets you draw a weapon as part of the attack, but you have to have the weapon already drawn to attack with it using Two Weapon Fighting. If I throw a dagger at one enemy I can't throw a dagger at another with Two Weapon Fighting as a bonus action unless it was already in my hand when I made the first attack with my action (and I can't throw a dart at all).
3. Quick toss works with any action. I can cast a spell and use quick toss, I can dodge or disengage and use quick toss. If I have Paladin or Cleric levels I can use channel divinity and then Quick Toss. You must use the attack action with a light melee weapon to use Two Weapon Fighting
4. With Quick Toss you get your ability bonus to damage. You do not get it with a bonus action two weapon fighting attack unless you have the Two Weapon Fighting fighting style
Arcane Archer is okay, the effects are pretty decent, but you only get two uses per short rest.
Grasping Arrow is better than any battlemaster maneuver. Not just decent but much better. There is no save and it restricts mobility and damages enemies turn after turn. You only get 2 per short rest but one you hit someone it usually lasts (and continues damaging him) until he is dead as opposed to battlemaster maneuvers which are 1 round. It also works on forced movement so things like telekenetic, thunderwave a shield master's shove all damage it and this is once a turn, not once a round. Once you hit him the whole party can get in on it and it 2d6 extra damage every single turn (or 4d6 at 18th level)
Also, real quick, to clarify, my fighter rework? I have them maneuvers and also Power Attack at 5th level (-5/+10) alongside barbarians and monks, to replace GWM and Sharpshooter.
I would be cool with that as long as it was an optional feature that you took instead of extra attack. Kind of like Ranger does with Deft Explorer or Natural Explorer take either extra attack or Power Attach but not both. With fighter you could eventually get to attack more than once with the later Extra Attack options.
Echo Knight has no limit to its manifest echo ability, which does allow for some interesting shenanigans, but this can be pretty solidly replicated by any illusion spell.
No it can't. To start with it is a bonus action to summon your echo where I think every illusion spell is an action to cast.
That point aside you can attack from the echos space and switch places with it, neither of which you can do with most/any illusions .... and any you can do it with are probably concentration and use a high level slot.
Think about the math here - Two things per short rest is 6 times a day. That means you are using one maneuver out of every 3-4 turns in combat (3-4 turns in a fight on average, 2 fights in a short rest). It is more than that if you have fewer than average number of encounters (as most groups do).
Ywo things per short rest is only 6 times a day if you get your two short rests every single day. A lot of groups don't get that, because of the serious imbalance in what you regain from a short and long rest.
But the groups that don't get that are not typically fighting 6 fights a day generally either so it balances out - less uses a day but less fights a day. If you get two uses per short rest that is typically going to be one maneuver every 3-4 turns. Considering the numbers of traveling overland days where you only have 1 fight I actually think it is substantually more than that in play most of the time.
also, again, taking both your Fighting Style - the only decision point in the entirety of the fighter class - AND a feat to do A Cool Thing twice per short sucks. At that point take pick up Fey Touched, its a single feat PLUS its a half feat PLUS it gives you two cool things per day PLUS it lets you choose one of a great selection of spells - Bless and Hex in particular will be signifcantly more impactful to any character than the one maneuver per short rest you get from Martial Adept.
I love Fey Touched and Hex on martials (not so much bless), but after tier 2 Hex is losing steam in combat fast, even if you have nothing else to concentrate on. It is still very useful out of combat for the disadvantage and extra damage is extra damage, but 1 hex spell a day can not keep up with 3 uses of menacing attack a day in tier 3+.
Lol. Lmao. In terms of nova, a Battle Master is still by far the strongest fighter. In terms of DPR, Battle Master is usually the strongest fighter, and a lot of that is because of Grappling Attack, Precision Attack, and Trip Attack, all of which boost to hit instead of damage.
Math matters
Nova comparison 8th level at Battlemaster Archer with the sharpshooter and the maneuvers you mention vs 8th Level Arcane Archer with sharpshooter, superior technique and martial adept with pushing attack and quick toss:
Note the Battlemaster does have 1 die left at 8th level, where the Arcane Archer is out of dice, but Arcane Archer could save one grasping arrow and still be ahead 111.5 to 96 and would still be ahead even without the bonus action attack.
In terms of battlefield utility, Battle Master is arguably the strongest fighter because of things like Grappling Attack and Menacing Attack (Rune Knight I'd say is a close second). And, again, Battle Master benefits more from Superior Technique and Martial Adept than any other character in the game. The Cavalier is arguably better at tanking, because of Unwavering Mark, but that's about it.
Menacing attack is extremely good. I don't think it measures up to grasping arrow overall because there is a save and because it only lasts 1 round. For that round though it is excellent.
Grappling attack can be great on some builds. It is not great on an Archer but if you are building a grappler it is undoubtedly better, but I don't think that is a fair comparison because no one is building a grappling Arcane Archer. Battlemaster is more flexible certainly and you can build a ranged character, a melee character a grappler or a hybrid/combo guy that does some ranged and some melee. Battlemaster works well for all of those, Arcane Archer only really works for a Bowman, but for a Bowman it is unmatched IMO,
HOWEVER, paladins beat them in nova,
Not on an Archer
Also, Quick Shot is unironically redundant on fighters. The Thrown Weapon Fighting style already lets you draw thrown weapons as part of the attack., and you can already make attacks with thrown weapons as a bonus action as part of Two-Weapon Fighting. And, since you can add other maneuvers to thrown weapon attacks, the damage is irrelevant. Literally the only thing Quick Shot lets you do is take another fighting style, or make An Attack with your modifier Once Per Rest, compared to an infinite number of attacks for no extra cost.
Not at all. RAW this is not true. Quick toss lets you make a bonus action attack with any thrown weapon, including darts, and it lets you do this regardless of how you use your action. Using thrown weapon fighting combined with two weapon fighting is MUCH weaker for many reasons:
1. Two Weapon Fighting only works with light melee weapons. This means you must use a light melee weapon both for the attack action and you must use a melee weapon with the bonus action. This means you can not use sharpshooter because sharpshooter only works with ranged weapons (like darts). So you lose sharpshooter on at least one of your attacks on your action and you can't use it on the bonus action attack either. With Quick Toss I can attack with a greatsword or more importantly for this discussion I can attack with my longbow and then use quick toss to fling a dart.
2. You can't draw a weapon and use it with two weapon fighting, it has to already be in your other hand when you make the attack action. Yes, Thrown Weapon Fighting lets you draw a weapon as part of the attack, but you have to have the weapon already drawn to attack with it using Two Weapon Fighting. If I throw a dagger at one enemy I can't throw a dagger at another with Two Weapon Fighting as a bonus action unless it was already in my hand when I made the first attack with my action (and I can't throw a dart at all).
3. Quick toss works with any action. I can cast a spell and use quick toss, I can dodge or disengage and use quick toss. If I have Paladin or Cleric levels I can use channel divinity and then Quick Toss. You must use the attack action with a light melee weapon to use Two Weapon Fighting
4. With Quick Toss you get your ability bonus to damage. You do not get it with a bonus action two weapon fighting attack unless you have the Two Weapon Fighting fighting style
1. With One dnd, it is incorrect that two-weapon fighting requires a melee weapon. The current Fighting style: two-weapon fighting feat does not have such a stipulation.
Also under current One DnD rules you do not need to have both weapons drawn you can draw or stow weapons as part of each attack. So your 1-2is obsolete under the one dnd rules.
1. With One dnd, it is incorrect that two-weapon fighting requires a melee weapon. The current Fighting style: two-weapon fighting feat does not have such a stipulation.
Also under current One DnD rules you do not need to have both weapons drawn you can draw or stow weapons as part of each attack. So your 1-2is obsolete under the one dnd rules.
I was comparing it to using the Thrown Weapon Fighting Style and Two Weapon Fighting, which is what was referenced in the post and which is somewhat similar in mechanics because it is a bonus action. The ONE expert playtest does not have Two Weapon Fighting at all, it has the "Light Weapon Property" which is both called something different and is different mechanically as it is another attack as part of your action instead of another attack as part of a bonus action.
The claim was it is redundant and that is not the case at all if you are talking about the Feat. Using the ONE Two-Weapon Fighting Style Feat you get no extra attacks at all, you just get your ability bonus to damage on the Light Weapon Property attack if you use light weapons. Someone with Quick Toss, if they were using Light weapons, would get another attack as a bonus action, on top of the additional attack as an action. Finally although we don't have all the Fighters Feats out, the comparison referenced a combination of Thrown Weapon Fighting Style and the Two-Weapon Fighting Style Feat. If they keep Thrown Weapon Fighting it will be wrapped up in its own Fighting Style Feat so you typically would not be using these simultaneously.
Right, but we aren't asking for large amounts of complexity.
I have seen numerous people on this thread argue for adding large amounts of complexity to the base Fighter class. We and I are not synonyms; you may not have been asking for large amounts of complexity, but many other people on this thread have.
We're asking for literally any complexity at all. The fighter has absolutely nothing going for it. The base chassis gives exactly three features that have any real impact on the fighter's general gameplay: Fighting Style, Action Surge, and Extra Attack. Notice that only one of these has any level of decision-making (Fighting Style), and its a decision that sticks with you for literally the rest of the game and never improves. In contrast, a ranger gets a Favoured Enemy, Fighting Style, Extra Attack, Nature's Veil, Vanish, and Feral Senses (and I guess Foe Slayer) ON TOP OF being a half caster. Then they also get their subclass features.
The Fighter has a lot going for it. It's cool. It's strong. New players can easily play it. All of this combines to make the class the most played and probably most liked class in the game. Saying that Fighter only has three impactful features is simply inaccurate, because it has many more impactful features than that. With Fighter, you left out Second Wind, both uses of Indomitable, two more Extra Attacks, and another use of Action Surge.
With Ranger on the other hand, you literally just listed every single non-spellcasting and non-ASI feature that they have despite the fact that A) most of those features do almost nothing, and B) by leaving out ASI and feats and how Fighters have more of those two things than most other classes, you ignore one of the more important customization options that the class has.
This then adds onto the issue that, by theme and description, fighters aren't supposed to be the simple class. Fighters are supposed to have "an unparalleled mastery with weapons and armour, and a thorough knowledge of the skills of combat." Fighters in 5e don't have that. They can do very little more than any other martial class, and none of their features give them any sort of "mastery with weapons and armour" or "knowledge of the skills of combat." Even beyond the simple/complex debate, fighters should get more class features in general to allow for them to actually fulfill the fantasy of playing a master at arms.
This is simply not true. Fighters description paints them as a warrior who is good with a sword and shield. Firstly, you do not need complexity to make a class powerful and good with weapons. All you need is higher numbers. Fighters description does not say that they need to or should be complex. Instead, it just says that they should be a good and "well-rounded" warrior who is able to deal with foes.
And if you really want to play a high level fighter, you can unironically play a 10th level Swords bard, pick up Swift Quiver with magical secrets, and then play a character with about the same level of combat ability as a fighter double its level while still having access to spellcasting and bardic inspiration.
Sure. But you wouldn't have nearly as many uses of Extra Attack as a Fighter would. Neither would you have as high an AC or as much HP. In other words, this would not really be a Fighter -- it's a completely different type of Martial with only a few of the abilities or strengths that a Fighter has.
Throughout your post, you seem to be implying Fighter is weak and underpowered. However, Fighters are not underpowered, in combat at least: They have AC, high HP, and, yes, they may have simpler options, but there are people that enjoy that. That doesn't necessarily mean that they're weaker, because they aren't.
But the main point of this whole discussion, at least what I can gather, is that "not every player has this problem" ignores the fact that many players have this problem, and "a holistic approach" has already been suggested. Making the barbarian the simple bonk bonk class is an option, though I personally think every class should have some level of complexity and decision making built into it from scratch; however, giving fighters maneuvers as a base part of the kit is already optional. If a newbie or particularly disinterested player who simply wants to bonk bonk desperately needs 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.
I already explained why this idea wouldn't work, HERE, though you may not have seen that reply.
Some people like Fighter being simple. Some people love Fighter being simple. Some people need or have needed Fighter to be simple to learn and play the game. Throughout all of your posts on this thread, I've seen nothing but your desire to take away Fighter from the people who need it. Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, but you seem to think that simplicity automatically means something is bad. Simplicity is not bad, it is just a different playing style and a different way of enjoying the game. Your whole argument is that the most beloved simple class should be taken away from the people who need it, merely because you want more options for yourself.
Now, there should be options for more complex classes, and FIghter actually does have numerous ways to make it complex. But that aside, there need to be options for everyone. Fighter has provided an excellent option for people seeking simplicity, and you can have your complexity in literally any other place. So I am legitimately wondering, why are you choosing to put it in the class that has always provided a safe haven for new players and players who like simplicity?
Bard.. are you reading all the bits talking about optional complexity, or are you ignoring them?
"Optional" complexity isn't. Either 'complexity' is valuable enough that opting into it is something of a no-brainer (i.e. Champion being hot moose urine and Battlemaster being the only complete fighter) and the Simple Fighter Crowd wants it pulled, shredded, razed to the ground, and its grave salted to ensure it never again clutters their Beautifully Simple R5e, or the 'complexity' is so lame and pointless taking it is actively disadvantaging your team ("you can already have maneuvers on every fighter by just taking Superior Technique and Martial Adept to get two whole superiority dice per day!"). Which, of course, the Simple Fighter Crowd holds up as a splendid and perfect example of how to add back in 'complexity' without taking anything away from the Simple Fighter - by making the 'complexity' so superfluous and pointless nobody would want it so they don't have to feel bad about playing the walking diarrhea pot that is the Champion Fighter.
Of course the Simple Fighter Crowd is a fan of "optional" complexity that's so actively terrible it effectively doesn't exist, because then they can point to it and say "See, you got what you need, now use it or quit playing D&D!" It's such a useful tool for them to try and force more advanced players out of the hobby with.
And to be clear, 'complexity' here isn't actual complexity. It's fun, engagement, cool options, and things which make fighter pop and give it greater depth of play.
"Optional" complexity isn't. Either 'complexity' is valuable enough that opting into it is something of a no-brainer (i.e. Champion being hot moose urine and Battlemaster being the only complete fighter) and the Simple Fighter Crowd wants it pulled, shredded, razed to the ground, and its grave salted to ensure it never again clutters their Beautifully Simple R5e, or the 'complexity' is so lame and pointless taking it is actively disadvantaging your team ("you can already have maneuvers on every fighter by just taking Superior Technique and Martial Adept to get two whole superiority dice per day!"). Which, of course, the Simple Fighter Crowd holds up as a splendid and perfect example of how to add back in 'complexity' without taking anything away from the Simple Fighter - by making the 'complexity' so superfluous and pointless nobody would want it so they don't have to feel bad about playing the walking diarrhea pot that is the Champion Fighter.
Of course the Simple Fighter Crowd is a fan of "optional" complexity that's so actively terrible it effectively doesn't exist, because then they can point to it and say "See, you got what you need, now use it or quit playing D&D!" It's such a useful tool for them to try and force more advanced players out of the hobby with.
And to be clear, 'complexity' here isn't actual complexity. It's fun, engagement, cool options, and things which make fighter pop and give it greater depth of play.
I'm confused..... So 2 SD/day is terrible, but 8 SD/day is awesome? Battlemaster only needs the unambiguously bad maneuvers removed to streamline it, no one is saying you should get rid of it completely. But we all know half the maneuvers aren't worth the paper they are printed on and should be axed. There are only ~5 maneuvers actually worth learning.
Complexity isn't complexity, it should be optional and not affect DPR, but also be totally awesome and cool.... So what is it?
Do you want something like this?
Called Shot
When you make a weapon attack you can target a specific weak area to cripple your enemy. When you do so apply a -5 penalty to your attack roll, if your attack hits you can cause one of the following secondary effects, for the effects that require a saving throw the DC is equal to 8 + your attack bonus used for the attack:
Head shot: The creature must make a Constitution saving throw or become blinded until the end of its next turn. Creatures with more than 2 eyes have advantage on the save.
Leg shot: The creature must make a Dexterity saving throw or have its movement speed halved. The creature can repeat the saving throw at the end of each turn, ending the effect on a success. Creatures that stand on more than 2 legs have advantage on the save.
Hand shot: The creature must make a Strength saving throw or drop one thing that it is holding. If the creature is using at least two hands to hold on to the thing, it has advantage on the save.
Pain Point: The creature has disadvantage on its Constitution saving throw to retain concentration on a spell or other effect.
While that's a better called shot table than many I've seen, no. I'm not asking for called shots. Called shot tables basically never work and are almost universally a Problem.
I've stated what I want - for fighters and other martial, nonmagical characters to have the opportunity to make interesting and meaningful tactical decisions in every round of combat, just like spellcasters do. People have spent close to thirty pages now, counting the other thread, strenuously objecting to the idea that fighters should have the opportunity to make meaningful tactical decisions. They have invented a thousand increasingly invalid reasons why fighters A.) should not get to make interesting and meaningful tactical decisions, or B.) theoretically already do so.
Two Superiority Dice a day is bad for the same reason two Arcane Shots a day is bad - you have too few resources to expend them on anything but a Clutch Moment, Clutch Moments are rare and often difficult to recognize, so in effect you don't have ANY access to your "limited resource" abilities unless you want to just profligately waste them to no effect. It's the same reason you cannot say "your interesting and meaningful tactical decision is deciding whether or not to use your once-per-day Cool Move!" and be taken seriously. That is not fun. That is not 'cool'. That is annoying and unpleasant, and it makes fighters worse, not better.
"Optional" complexity isn't. Either 'complexity' is valuable enough that opting into it is something of a no-brainer (i.e. Champion being hot moose urine and Battlemaster being the only complete fighter) and the Simple Fighter Crowd wants it pulled, shredded, razed to the ground, and its grave salted to ensure it never again clutters their Beautifully Simple R5e, or the 'complexity' is so lame and pointless taking it is actively disadvantaging your team ("you can already have maneuvers on every fighter by just taking Superior Technique and Martial Adept to get two whole superiority dice per day!"). Which, of course, the Simple Fighter Crowd holds up as a splendid and perfect example of how to add back in 'complexity' without taking anything away from the Simple Fighter - by making the 'complexity' so superfluous and pointless nobody would want it so they don't have to feel bad about playing the walking diarrhea pot that is the Champion Fighter.
Of course the Simple Fighter Crowd is a fan of "optional" complexity that's so actively terrible it effectively doesn't exist, because then they can point to it and say "See, you got what you need, now use it or quit playing D&D!" It's such a useful tool for them to try and force more advanced players out of the hobby with.
And to be clear, 'complexity' here isn't actual complexity. It's fun, engagement, cool options, and things which make fighter pop and give it greater depth of play.
I'm confused..... So 2 SD/day is terrible, but 8 SD/day is awesome? Battlemaster only needs the unambiguously bad maneuvers removed to streamline it, no one is saying you should get rid of it completely. But we all know half the maneuvers aren't worth the paper they are printed on and should be axed. There are only ~5 maneuvers actually worth learning.
Complexity isn't complexity, it should be optional and not affect DPR, but also be totally awesome and cool.... So what is it?
Do you want something like this?
Called Shot
When you make a weapon attack you can target a specific weak area to cripple your enemy. When you do so apply a -5 penalty to your attack roll, if your attack hits you can cause one of the following secondary effects, for the effects that require a saving throw the DC is equal to 8 + your attack bonus used for the attack:
Head shot: The creature must make a Constitution saving throw or become blinded until the end of its next turn. Creatures with more than 2 eyes have advantage on the save.
Leg shot: The creature must make a Dexterity saving throw or have its movement speed halved. The creature can repeat the saving throw at the end of each turn, ending the effect on a success. Creatures that stand on more than 2 legs have advantage on the save.
Hand shot: The creature must make a Strength saving throw or drop one thing that it is holding. If the creature is using at least two hands to hold on to the thing, it has advantage on the save.
Pain Point: The creature has disadvantage on its Constitution saving throw to retain concentration on a spell or other effect.
That’s not what I, personally, would want. I’d like an actually nuanced combat system. But that’s CLEARLY not allowed so I’ll guess I’ll just get told to dodge or quit D&D.
Look. There’s no point having this debate if my posts aren’t actually being read. And there’s also no point having this debate if the only response to my ideas is ‘simple fighter better because some people enjoy it and new players need it, use my solution or quit D&D’. Goodbye.
Bard.. are you reading all the bits talking about optional complexity, or are you ignoring them?
I did respond to everything AndreGolin said about optional complexity, however, that was more of an aside in their posts and the main message seemed to be that Fighter should be complex because that's what they want. There was only one actual proposal about optional complexity in their posts, and I addressed it HERE. However, 90% of the "fixes" I've seen presented on this thread have just been proposals to make it impossible for a massive demographic of D&D fans to play one of their favorite classes, because apparently, the much smaller demographic of players who enjoy massive amounts of complexity should be prioritized, and that complexity should be added to the most beloved simple class in the game despite the fact that it could literally go anywhere else.
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.
... and that complexity should be added to the most beloved simple class in the game despite the fact that it could literally go anywhere else.
You keep saying this, despite fiercely and firmly opposing any additional "complexity" in any other martial class, or even in places like backgrounds, feats, and the "Expert" classes that are supposed to be more engaging. Why? Why constantly throw out a "suggestion" you fundamentally oppose in every other thread? Why not just say that you don't want advanced players in your D&D?
Bard.. are you reading all the bits talking about optional complexity, or are you ignoring them?
I did respond to everything AndreGolin said about optional complexity, however, that was more of an aside in their posts and the main message seemed to be that Fighter should be complex because that's what they want. There was only one actual proposal about optional complexity in their posts, and I addressed it HERE. However, 90% of the "fixes" I've seen presented on this thread have just been proposals to make it impossible for a massive demographic of D&D fans to play one of their favorite classes, because apparently, the much smaller demographic of players who enjoy massive amounts of complexity should be prioritized, and that complexity should be added to the most beloved simple class in the game despite the fact that it could literally go anywhere else.
Bard.. are you reading all the bits talking about optional complexity, or are you ignoring them?
I did respond to everything AndreGolin said about optional complexity, however, that was more of an aside in their posts and the main message seemed to be that Fighter should be complex because that's what they want. There was only one actual proposal about optional complexity in their posts, and I addressed it HERE. However, 90% of the "fixes" I've seen presented on this thread have just been proposals to make it impossible for a massive demographic of D&D fans to play one of their favorite classes, because apparently, the much smaller demographic of players who enjoy massive amounts of complexity should be prioritized, and that complexity should be added to the most beloved simple class in the game despite the fact that it could literally go anywhere else.
How stupid do you think people are? I ask because 90% of the fixes suggested in this thread aren’t really that complicated.
Bard.. are you reading all the bits talking about optional complexity, or are you ignoring them?
I did respond to everything AndreGolin said about optional complexity, however, that was more of an aside in their posts and the main message seemed to be that Fighter should be complex because that's what they want. There was only one actual proposal about optional complexity in their posts, and I addressed it HERE. However, 90% of the "fixes" I've seen presented on this thread have just been proposals to make it impossible for a massive demographic of D&D fans to play one of their favorite classes, because apparently, the much smaller demographic of players who enjoy massive amounts of complexity should be prioritized, and that complexity should be added to the most beloved simple class in the game despite the fact that it could literally go anywhere else.
How stupid do you think people are? I ask because 90% of the fixes suggested in this thread aren’t really that complicated.
Not to mention that every poll that has been posted shows that the number of people against adding complexity to martial classes is the actual minority and the polls that I have seen asking about favorite classes has Fighter very close to the bottom of the list.
Just because people have made Fighters on DnDBeyond doesn't mean that they were played or that those that were played were enjoyed.
... and that complexity should be added to the most beloved simple class in the game despite the fact that it could literally go anywhere else.
You keep saying this, despite fiercely and firmly opposing any additional "complexity" in any other martial class, or even in places like backgrounds, feats, and the "Expert" classes that are supposed to be more engaging. Why? Why constantly throw out a "suggestion" you fundamentally oppose in every other thread? Why not just say that you don't want advanced players in your D&D?
What on Earth are you even talking about? I have literally actively advocated for more complex options in numerous other threads. I want all types of players do play D&D, both new and advanced. You don't need to describe underlying and hidden secret motivations for my beliefs, because I am saying exactly what I mean. And most of what you say I've argued for is downright inaccurate, because I didn't say or ever argue against basically everything you said I "fiercly and firmly" opposed.
Bard.. are you reading all the bits talking about optional complexity, or are you ignoring them?
<Snip>
So no, then. Thanks for clarifying.
Yes actually. I read all of AndreGolins posts and responded to every part about optional complexity I saw. I literally just linked you to a post where I talked about it, so I don't exactly see how I can be "ignoring" the matter.
Bard.. are you reading all the bits talking about optional complexity, or are you ignoring them?
I did respond to everything AndreGolin said about optional complexity, however, that was more of an aside in their posts and the main message seemed to be that Fighter should be complex because that's what they want. There was only one actual proposal about optional complexity in their posts, and I addressed it HERE. However, 90% of the "fixes" I've seen presented on this thread have just been proposals to make it impossible for a massive demographic of D&D fans to play one of their favorite classes, because apparently, the much smaller demographic of players who enjoy massive amounts of complexity should be prioritized, and that complexity should be added to the most beloved simple class in the game despite the fact that it could literally go anywhere else.
How stupid do you think people are? I ask because 90% of the fixes suggested in this thread aren’t really that complicated.
90% is probably a slight exaggeration, however, the vast majority of fixes I've seen really just haven't been fixes: many of those "fixes" have just been saying that out of all the classes in the game, Fighter should be the complex class, because apparently that fixes the problem of "not enough complexity" in D&D.
Not to mention that every poll that has been posted shows that the number of people against adding complexity to martial classes is the actual minority and the polls that I have seen asking about favorite classes has Fighter very close to the bottom of the list.
Just because people have made Fighters on DnDBeyond doesn't mean that they were played or that those that were played were enjoyed.
We've been through this: "every poll" we've seen A) is easily riggable, B) has been stated in a massively biased way C) had no more than 75 people when compared to the other, much more reliable data with millions of people. Oh, and D) it is on a forums that new players (the vast majority of people who would want a simple option) don't frequent.
If you don't value spellcasting, don't play a spellcaster. If your only use for spellcasters is "flood the battlefield with disposable minions and hide behind a rock", you don't value spellcasting. None of this, however, is germane to discussion of the fighter or martials other than your extremely bizarre inversion of logic where "Glaive w/Reach" and "Glaive w/o Reach" are completely different actions and combat styles but the entirety of non-summon spellcasting is somehow a morass of worthless sameyness. Like...what? What? How does that even process?
Please do not contact or message me.
Since people are discussing on this thread here about martials and simplicity/complexity I'd like to leave this here:
https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/dungeons-dragons-discussion/unearthed-arcana/157294-oned-ds-leveled-and-class-group-based-feats-are-a#c2
I think they might try to solve these issues with feats
They wont come fast enough to really add enough complexity. A option every 4 levels just wont cut it. Its the same issue with relying on subclasses to solve the problem something at 3,6,10,14 just is not going to add enough complexity or mechanical balance. I mean its technically possible with sub classes or feats but nothing they have done would indicate either will be profound enough to pull it off. They have shown us leveled feats for 4th level and a expert subclass for 3 classes. They were if anything simpler than 5es and less mechanically impactful.
But hey if the battle master is changed so instead of a handful; per short rest its just once a round. Aand the maneuver die starts at 2d8 with basic bonk being the default and it grows by 2d8 at each sub class level. Wwith a new maneuver every other class level. And the maneuvers are leveled with each effect past basic bonk costing a number of d8 and you can combine as many as you want until you run out of d8s to spend, then hey cool.
Druids... just aren't supposed to be damage dealers. They're made for battlefield control so the party doesn't get overwhelmed. They have a ton of options to do that. For specializing into damage, moon druid might be what you're looking for... or just not a druid. Nature Cleric is a good option with a ton of damage potential with spirit guardians. Call lightning is great because it's conservative, not much of a spell slot cost for consistent damage. Spike growth is great for the exact reason you mentioned. It costs enemies, not just one enemy a whole turn with no save, allowing your party some breathing room. Okay I'll admit poison has some problems. Transmute rock is great as your fighters will likely succeed saves while the enemies die so then they could wail on them with s t i c k. If they do fail the save, you can break concentration.
Conjure Animals and every phb summoning spell is a travesty to D&D and a nightmare for new DMs and I hope it's removed in OneD&D.
The Tasha's summoning spells are just a ton more balanced overall. I like find familiar but I think the scouting ability where you can see through the familiar's eyes should be moved to pact of the chain. It's unnecessary power to the absurd utility of casters.
I have seen numerous people on this thread argue for adding large amounts of complexity to the base Fighter class. We and I are not synonyms; you may not have been asking for large amounts of complexity, but many other people on this thread have.
The Fighter has a lot going for it. It's cool. It's strong. New players can easily play it. All of this combines to make the class the most played and probably most liked class in the game. Saying that Fighter only has three impactful features is simply inaccurate, because it has many more impactful features than that. With Fighter, you left out Second Wind, both uses of Indomitable, two more Extra Attacks, and another use of Action Surge.
With Ranger on the other hand, you literally just listed every single non-spellcasting and non-ASI feature that they have despite the fact that A) most of those features do almost nothing, and B) by leaving out ASI and feats and how Fighters have more of those two things than most other classes, you ignore one of the more important customization options that the class has.
This is simply not true. Fighters description paints them as a warrior who is good with a sword and shield. Firstly, you do not need complexity to make a class powerful and good with weapons. All you need is higher numbers. Fighters description does not say that they need to or should be complex. Instead, it just says that they should be a good and "well-rounded" warrior who is able to deal with foes.
Sure. But you wouldn't have nearly as many uses of Extra Attack as a Fighter would. Neither would you have as high an AC or as much HP. In other words, this would not really be a Fighter -- it's a completely different type of Martial with only a few of the abilities or strengths that a Fighter has.
Throughout your post, you seem to be implying Fighter is weak and underpowered. However, Fighters are not underpowered, in combat at least: They have AC, high HP, and, yes, they may have simpler options, but there are people that enjoy that. That doesn't necessarily mean that they're weaker, because they aren't.
I already explained why this idea wouldn't work, HERE, though you may not have seen that reply.
Some people like Fighter being simple. Some people love Fighter being simple. Some people need or have needed Fighter to be simple to learn and play the game. Throughout all of your posts on this thread, I've seen nothing but your desire to take away Fighter from the people who need it. Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, but you seem to think that simplicity automatically means something is bad. Simplicity is not bad, it is just a different playing style and a different way of enjoying the game. Your whole argument is that the most beloved simple class should be taken away from the people who need it, merely because you want more options for yourself.
Now, there should be options for more complex classes, and FIghter actually does have numerous ways to make it complex. But that aside, there need to be options for everyone. Fighter has provided an excellent option for people seeking simplicity, and you can have your complexity in literally any other place. So I am legitimately wondering, why are you choosing to put it in the class that has always provided a safe haven for new players and players who like simplicity?
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.Grasping Arrow is better than any battlemaster maneuver. Not just decent but much better. There is no save and it restricts mobility and damages enemies turn after turn. You only get 2 per short rest but one you hit someone it usually lasts (and continues damaging him) until he is dead as opposed to battlemaster maneuvers which are 1 round. It also works on forced movement so things like telekenetic, thunderwave a shield master's shove all damage it and this is once a turn, not once a round. Once you hit him the whole party can get in on it and it 2d6 extra damage every single turn (or 4d6 at 18th level)
I would be cool with that as long as it was an optional feature that you took instead of extra attack. Kind of like Ranger does with Deft Explorer or Natural Explorer take either extra attack or Power Attach but not both. With fighter you could eventually get to attack more than once with the later Extra Attack options.
No it can't. To start with it is a bonus action to summon your echo where I think every illusion spell is an action to cast.
That point aside you can attack from the echos space and switch places with it, neither of which you can do with most/any illusions .... and any you can do it with are probably concentration and use a high level slot.
But the groups that don't get that are not typically fighting 6 fights a day generally either so it balances out - less uses a day but less fights a day. If you get two uses per short rest that is typically going to be one maneuver every 3-4 turns. Considering the numbers of traveling overland days where you only have 1 fight I actually think it is substantually more than that in play most of the time.
I love Fey Touched and Hex on martials (not so much bless), but after tier 2 Hex is losing steam in combat fast, even if you have nothing else to concentrate on. It is still very useful out of combat for the disadvantage and extra damage is extra damage, but 1 hex spell a day can not keep up with 3 uses of menacing attack a day in tier 3+.
Math matters
Nova comparison 8th level at Battlemaster Archer with the sharpshooter and the maneuvers you mention vs 8th Level Arcane Archer with sharpshooter, superior technique and martial adept with pushing attack and quick toss:
Battlemaster:
Action: 2d8 weapon+2d8 maneuver+30=48
Action surge: 2d8 weapon+2d8 maneuver +30=48
Total Damage: 96
Arcane Archer vs single target:
Action: 2d8 weapon+4d6 grasping arrow +1d6 pushing attack+2d6 grasping arrow movement+30 = 63.5
Action Surge: 2d8 weapon+30 = 39
Bonus action: 1d4 dart +1d6 quick toss +10 = 16
Total Damage = 118.5
Note the Battlemaster does have 1 die left at 8th level, where the Arcane Archer is out of dice, but Arcane Archer could save one grasping arrow and still be ahead 111.5 to 96 and would still be ahead even without the bonus action attack.
Menacing attack is extremely good. I don't think it measures up to grasping arrow overall because there is a save and because it only lasts 1 round. For that round though it is excellent.
Grappling attack can be great on some builds. It is not great on an Archer but if you are building a grappler it is undoubtedly better, but I don't think that is a fair comparison because no one is building a grappling Arcane Archer. Battlemaster is more flexible certainly and you can build a ranged character, a melee character a grappler or a hybrid/combo guy that does some ranged and some melee. Battlemaster works well for all of those, Arcane Archer only really works for a Bowman, but for a Bowman it is unmatched IMO,
Not on an Archer
Not at all. RAW this is not true. Quick toss lets you make a bonus action attack with any thrown weapon, including darts, and it lets you do this regardless of how you use your action. Using thrown weapon fighting combined with two weapon fighting is MUCH weaker for many reasons:
1. Two Weapon Fighting only works with light melee weapons. This means you must use a light melee weapon both for the attack action and you must use a melee weapon with the bonus action. This means you can not use sharpshooter because sharpshooter only works with ranged weapons (like darts). So you lose sharpshooter on at least one of your attacks on your action and you can't use it on the bonus action attack either. With Quick Toss I can attack with a greatsword or more importantly for this discussion I can attack with my longbow and then use quick toss to fling a dart.
2. You can't draw a weapon and use it with two weapon fighting, it has to already be in your other hand when you make the attack action. Yes, Thrown Weapon Fighting lets you draw a weapon as part of the attack, but you have to have the weapon already drawn to attack with it using Two Weapon Fighting. If I throw a dagger at one enemy I can't throw a dagger at another with Two Weapon Fighting as a bonus action unless it was already in my hand when I made the first attack with my action (and I can't throw a dart at all).
3. Quick toss works with any action. I can cast a spell and use quick toss, I can dodge or disengage and use quick toss. If I have Paladin or Cleric levels I can use channel divinity and then Quick Toss. You must use the attack action with a light melee weapon to use Two Weapon Fighting
4. With Quick Toss you get your ability bonus to damage. You do not get it with a bonus action two weapon fighting attack unless you have the Two Weapon Fighting fighting style
1. With One dnd, it is incorrect that two-weapon fighting requires a melee weapon. The current Fighting style: two-weapon fighting feat does not have such a stipulation.
Also under current One DnD rules you do not need to have both weapons drawn you can draw or stow weapons as part of each attack. So your 1-2is obsolete under the one dnd rules.
I was comparing it to using the Thrown Weapon Fighting Style and Two Weapon Fighting, which is what was referenced in the post and which is somewhat similar in mechanics because it is a bonus action. The ONE expert playtest does not have Two Weapon Fighting at all, it has the "Light Weapon Property" which is both called something different and is different mechanically as it is another attack as part of your action instead of another attack as part of a bonus action.
The claim was it is redundant and that is not the case at all if you are talking about the Feat. Using the ONE Two-Weapon Fighting Style Feat you get no extra attacks at all, you just get your ability bonus to damage on the Light Weapon Property attack if you use light weapons. Someone with Quick Toss, if they were using Light weapons, would get another attack as a bonus action, on top of the additional attack as an action. Finally although we don't have all the Fighters Feats out, the comparison referenced a combination of Thrown Weapon Fighting Style and the Two-Weapon Fighting Style Feat. If they keep Thrown Weapon Fighting it will be wrapped up in its own Fighting Style Feat so you typically would not be using these simultaneously.
Bard.. are you reading all the bits talking about optional complexity, or are you ignoring them?
I can’t remember what’s supposed to go here.
"Optional" complexity isn't. Either 'complexity' is valuable enough that opting into it is something of a no-brainer (i.e. Champion being hot moose urine and Battlemaster being the only complete fighter) and the Simple Fighter Crowd wants it pulled, shredded, razed to the ground, and its grave salted to ensure it never again clutters their Beautifully Simple R5e, or the 'complexity' is so lame and pointless taking it is actively disadvantaging your team ("you can already have maneuvers on every fighter by just taking Superior Technique and Martial Adept to get two whole superiority dice per day!"). Which, of course, the Simple Fighter Crowd holds up as a splendid and perfect example of how to add back in 'complexity' without taking anything away from the Simple Fighter - by making the 'complexity' so superfluous and pointless nobody would want it so they don't have to feel bad about playing the walking diarrhea pot that is the Champion Fighter.
Of course the Simple Fighter Crowd is a fan of "optional" complexity that's so actively terrible it effectively doesn't exist, because then they can point to it and say "See, you got what you need, now use it or quit playing D&D!" It's such a useful tool for them to try and force more advanced players out of the hobby with.
And to be clear, 'complexity' here isn't actual complexity. It's fun, engagement, cool options, and things which make fighter pop and give it greater depth of play.
Please do not contact or message me.
I'm confused..... So 2 SD/day is terrible, but 8 SD/day is awesome? Battlemaster only needs the unambiguously bad maneuvers removed to streamline it, no one is saying you should get rid of it completely. But we all know half the maneuvers aren't worth the paper they are printed on and should be axed. There are only ~5 maneuvers actually worth learning.
Complexity isn't complexity, it should be optional and not affect DPR, but also be totally awesome and cool.... So what is it?
Do you want something like this?
Called Shot
When you make a weapon attack you can target a specific weak area to cripple your enemy. When you do so apply a -5 penalty to your attack roll, if your attack hits you can cause one of the following secondary effects, for the effects that require a saving throw the DC is equal to 8 + your attack bonus used for the attack:
Head shot: The creature must make a Constitution saving throw or become blinded until the end of its next turn. Creatures with more than 2 eyes have advantage on the save.
Leg shot: The creature must make a Dexterity saving throw or have its movement speed halved. The creature can repeat the saving throw at the end of each turn, ending the effect on a success. Creatures that stand on more than 2 legs have advantage on the save.
Hand shot: The creature must make a Strength saving throw or drop one thing that it is holding. If the creature is using at least two hands to hold on to the thing, it has advantage on the save.
Pain Point: The creature has disadvantage on its Constitution saving throw to retain concentration on a spell or other effect.
While that's a better called shot table than many I've seen, no. I'm not asking for called shots. Called shot tables basically never work and are almost universally a Problem.
I've stated what I want - for fighters and other martial, nonmagical characters to have the opportunity to make interesting and meaningful tactical decisions in every round of combat, just like spellcasters do. People have spent close to thirty pages now, counting the other thread, strenuously objecting to the idea that fighters should have the opportunity to make meaningful tactical decisions. They have invented a thousand increasingly invalid reasons why fighters A.) should not get to make interesting and meaningful tactical decisions, or B.) theoretically already do so.
Two Superiority Dice a day is bad for the same reason two Arcane Shots a day is bad - you have too few resources to expend them on anything but a Clutch Moment, Clutch Moments are rare and often difficult to recognize, so in effect you don't have ANY access to your "limited resource" abilities unless you want to just profligately waste them to no effect. It's the same reason you cannot say "your interesting and meaningful tactical decision is deciding whether or not to use your once-per-day Cool Move!" and be taken seriously. That is not fun. That is not 'cool'. That is annoying and unpleasant, and it makes fighters worse, not better.
Please do not contact or message me.
That’s not what I, personally, would want.
I’d like an actually nuanced combat system.
But that’s CLEARLY not allowed so I’ll guess I’ll just get told to dodge or quit D&D.
Look. There’s no point having this debate if my posts aren’t actually being read. And there’s also no point having this debate if the only response to my ideas is ‘simple fighter better because some people enjoy it and new players need it, use my solution or quit D&D’. Goodbye.
I can’t remember what’s supposed to go here.
I did respond to everything AndreGolin said about optional complexity, however, that was more of an aside in their posts and the main message seemed to be that Fighter should be complex because that's what they want. There was only one actual proposal about optional complexity in their posts, and I addressed it HERE. However, 90% of the "fixes" I've seen presented on this thread have just been proposals to make it impossible for a massive demographic of D&D fans to play one of their favorite classes, because apparently, the much smaller demographic of players who enjoy massive amounts of complexity should be prioritized, and that complexity should be added to the most beloved simple class in the game despite the fact that it could literally go anywhere else.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.You keep saying this, despite fiercely and firmly opposing any additional "complexity" in any other martial class, or even in places like backgrounds, feats, and the "Expert" classes that are supposed to be more engaging. Why? Why constantly throw out a "suggestion" you fundamentally oppose in every other thread? Why not just say that you don't want advanced players in your D&D?
Please do not contact or message me.
So no, then. Thanks for clarifying.
I can’t remember what’s supposed to go here.
How stupid do you think people are? I ask because 90% of the fixes suggested in this thread aren’t really that complicated.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Not to mention that every poll that has been posted shows that the number of people against adding complexity to martial classes is the actual minority and the polls that I have seen asking about favorite classes has Fighter very close to the bottom of the list.
Just because people have made Fighters on DnDBeyond doesn't mean that they were played or that those that were played were enjoyed.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
What on Earth are you even talking about? I have literally actively advocated for more complex options in numerous other threads. I want all types of players do play D&D, both new and advanced. You don't need to describe underlying and hidden secret motivations for my beliefs, because I am saying exactly what I mean. And most of what you say I've argued for is downright inaccurate, because I didn't say or ever argue against basically everything you said I "fiercly and firmly" opposed.
Yes actually. I read all of AndreGolins posts and responded to every part about optional complexity I saw. I literally just linked you to a post where I talked about it, so I don't exactly see how I can be "ignoring" the matter.
90% is probably a slight exaggeration, however, the vast majority of fixes I've seen really just haven't been fixes: many of those "fixes" have just been saying that out of all the classes in the game, Fighter should be the complex class, because apparently that fixes the problem of "not enough complexity" in D&D.
We've been through this: "every poll" we've seen A) is easily riggable, B) has been stated in a massively biased way C) had no more than 75 people when compared to the other, much more reliable data with millions of people. Oh, and D) it is on a forums that new players (the vast majority of people who would want a simple option) don't frequent.
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.