What do you mean by "interesting and meaningful tactical decisions" ? Because IME melee fighters already get to make those - whether you stay in melee, whether you try to set yourself or your ally up for flanking, whether you try to tank the big hits or run after the spellcaster in the back lines to nova them down before they get to start throwing fireballs... If you don't consider these interesting and meaningful tactical decisions, and you don't consider risking not hitting an enemy for the chance to impose a debilitating condition an interesting tactical decision, then What do you consider an interesting and meaningful tactical decision???
Because IME for a decision to be interesting and tactical it has to have risks and rewards, or it has to be very limited use so the decision of when to use it and when not to use it really matters. Without one of those things there is no decision to be made you simply spam the most powerful thing day in day out, regardless of how "complicated" that thing is.
... 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.
So you rigged your own Poll about "What is your favorite class" to show that Fighter is unpopular? Why would you do that?
As for your "reliable data" It only shows that lots of people have played around in the character builder and nothing more.
... What do you consider an interesting and meaningful tactical decision???
Because IME for a decision to be interesting and tactical it has to have risks and rewards, or it has to be very limited use so the decision of when to use it and when not to use it really matters. ...
"Risk and reward" is not really where meaningful decisions lay. The Power Attack option from GWM and Sharpshooter are "RIsk and Reward", and we see what those turned into - as you say, player spam them all day every day because it's "Attack" vs "Much Stronger/Better Attack w/Minor Hit Penalty." There's no real decision there, it's a case of whether you think you can land your strictly more powerful attack. Same with your list of called shots - all of those attacks are strictly better than a basic strike, and the game turns into "how do I guarantee landing 100% of my called shots all the time?" rather than a game of making meaningful decisions.
"Meaningful decisions" means the character has qualitatively (NOT just numerically) different options for what they can do, each of which has a different impact on whatever their situation is, and choosing which of those qualitatively different options is better for their current situation is an important part of moment to moment gameplay. They tried to do this with the push/trip/disarm options in the DMG, but they made each of those options very weak and almost universally inferior to simply landing a bit more damage. The battlemaster comes closer, as you get enough Superiority that choosing whether or not to use it, and choosing which of your Superiority options to use, becomes an engaging part of playing the character. Superiority can even make the default options suck less - Disarm an enemy, then using a Superiority die on a Pushing Attack to move the enemy fifteen feet away from their Evil macGuffin before moving up to re-engage the enemy, as one example. Enemies capable of being disarmed are still vanishingly rare, but at least Superiority allows the disarm to mean something and actually inconvenience the foe.
I would like for martial characters in D&D to be able to play a game where "I use my basic attack action to deal damage to the enemy" is not the only possible correct answer, but it is also not the wrong answer. A basic attack, in a system of permanent Power Strikes or Called Shot tables, is the wrong answer. You end up in the same place you started - with only one "correct" answer to all situations and extremely boring moment to moment play. It is a delicate balance to strike, but that doesn't mean it's not an important one.
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.
The Fighter is only strong in regards to martials; it is by far the strongest pure martial in the game currently, but struggles to compete with the paladin in anything except damage, and any caster completely outclasses it mechanically. I would also argue the fighter is not cool in the sense that it doesn't actually do anything. I have played and DMd for multiple fighters, and the thing I always notice is that those players have to make their own fun, either by multiclassing or experimenting with other rules (sometimes with rules locked in the DMG of all places, which I really don't like) - the main issue I see with the fighter time and again is that there aren't enough mechanics in the class to make it fun for longer than a few levels at a time as a class itself, which then means players need to put more effort in to make it as fun as other classes. I recognise a lot of people like simple fighter, but what I have seen every single time I've DMd a fighter is that the fighter's player is always the one asking for rule concessions and changes to do cool things not allowed within the fighter's base mechanics. I almost always allow them, because I'm a rule of cool DM above all else, but I just wish the fighter actually had the mechanical base to allow for that sort of thing as standard instead of having the DM arbitrate every single new thing the fighter wants to do because they got bored of taking the Attack action over and over again four levels ago (from personal experience).
Also I meant what I said - the fighter only has three impactful abilities. Second Wind is a bandage, 1d10 + level HP is about enough to reliably save you from one attack at every level of the game. It also can't be used while unconscious, which is the only time healing is ever good enough to use seriously, AND its once per short rest (in my fighter revised I gave them a second use per short rest at like 14th level or smth). It just doesn't do enough. Here's the table I base this on, btw:
Fighter Level
Average Healing from 2nd Wind
Average DPR of a monster of the same CR
1
6.5 (2-11)
9-14
2
7.5 (3-12)
15-20
3
8.5 (4-13)
21-26
4
9.5 (5-14)
27-32
5
10.5 (6-15)
33-38
6
11.5 (7-16)
39-44
7
12.5 (8-17)
45-50
8
13.5 (9-18)
51-56
9
14.5 (10-19)
57-62
10
15.5 (11-20)
63-68
11
16.5 (12-21)
69-74
12
17.5 (13-22)
75-80
13
18.5 (14-23)
81-86
14
19.5 (15-24)
87-92
15
20.5 (16-25)
93-98
16
21.5 (17-26)
99-104
17
22.5 (18-27)
105-110
18
23.5 (19-28)
111-116
19
24.5 (20-29)
117-122
20
25.5 (21-30)
123-140
A single use of Second Wind is at best going to prevent on average half a round of damage, at 1st level, and it continues to dwindle rapidly.
On top of that, Indomitable is only really useful on Strength and Constitution saving throws (because using it on a mental save is basically being given the opportunity to fail a saving throw twice), one of which basically never happens and the other of which is really good for avoiding damage, and that's about it. Indomitable IMO would've been better if it just worked like Legendary Resistance - failed a saving throw? No you didn't. Like the monk's Diamond Soul, just instead of expending ki points you get it for free once, then twice, then thrice per day.
I didn't mention the additional uses of Extra Attack and Action Surge because I was talking about general gameplay - what features are you likely to use in any given session? Extra Attack, Action Surge. Fighting Style comes up a lot because its a decent enough passive that most fighters build their playstyle around it (and some, like Archery, are borderline necessary for sharpshooter builds).
On the other hand, with the ranger? Nature's Veil is awesome, Feral Senses is great (but comes online waaaay too late), and being a half-caster automatically makes it stronger overall than the fighter. I did make a mistake though, I meant to say Favoured Foe instead of Favoured Enemy - you are right, Favoured Enemy does absolutely nothing, but Favoured Foe actually works pretty decently.
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.
Fighter Class base description: Fighters "all share an unparalleled mastery with weapons and armor, and a thorough knowledge of the skills of combat."
Well-Rounded Specialists: "Fighters learn the basics of all combat styles. Every fighter can swing an axe, fence with a rapier, wield a longsword or a greatsword, use a bow, and even trap foes in a net with some degree of skill. Likewise, a fighter is adept with shields and every form of armor. Beyond that basic degree of familiarity, each fighter specializes in a certain style of combat. Some concentrate on archery, some on fighting with two weapons at once, and some on augmenting their martial skills with magic. This combination of broad general ability and extensive specialization makes fighters superior combatants on battlefields and in dungeons alike."
Creating a Fighter, PHB: "As you build your fighter, think about two related elements of your character’s background: Where did you get your combat training, and what set you apart from the mundane warriors around you?"
I never at any point said the fighter's description said it should be complex. I say they should fulfill the fantasy of playing a master at arms, which the official descriptions clearly support. What in the fighter's class suggests it has an unparalleled mastery with weapons and armour? Access to the Fighting Style feature, which two other classes also get by default and literally any class can get as a feat? Or perhaps Extra Attack, which literally every class in the game except the sorcerer can access as part? What in the fighter's class mechanically sets it apart from mundane warriors - the five total features it gets beyond ASIs and subclass features? There is nowhere in the description that paints them as "a warrior who is good with a sword and shield" any more than it does any other fighter archetype. Actually, let's check that description again...
Fighter Class base description: "A human in clanging plate armor holds her shield before her as she runs toward the massed goblins. An elf behind her, clad in studded leather armor, peppers the goblins with arrows loosed from his exquisite bow. The half-orc nearby shouts orders, helping the two combatants coordinate their assault to the best advantage. A dwarf in chain mail interposes his shield between the ogre’s club and his companion, knocking the deadly blow aside. His companion, a half-elf in scale armor, swings two scimitars in a blinding whirl as she circles the ogre, looking for a blind spot in its defenses. A gladiator fights for sport in an arena, a master with his trident and net, skilled at toppling foes and moving them around for the crowd’s delight — and his own tactical advantage. His opponent’s sword flares with blue light an instant before she sends lightning flashing forth to smite him."
Literally none of these describe a sword and shield fighter. Fighter 1: plate armour, shield. Fighter 2: studded leather, bow. Fighter 3: no equipment mentioned. Fighter 4: chain mail, shield. Fighter 5: scale, two scimitars. Fighter 6: trident, net. Fighter 7: sword, magic. No sword and shield fighter in sight.
Secondly, you're right! You don't need complexity to make a class powerful and good with weapons! You're absolutely right. However, the fighter class is - in my opinion - lacking both in mechanics that match the theme and any level of interesting gameplay beyond bonk bonk, on top of not being powerful enough to stand up to any caster beyond like level 3. That is why I want to add complexity to the fighter.
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.
As I mentioned earlier, fighters are not powerful. They are the most powerful martial, but within the context of the game, especially beyond level 5, they are weak and underpowered compared to the full casters, as is every other class that isn't a full caster. I mentioned here:
I really like maneuvers, because it kind of closes the gap between martials and casters when it comes to unique combinations, decisions, and playstyles. However, it is nowhere near as strong as literally taking a couple levels of Any Spellcasting Class. Anything a Battle Master can do, a caster can do better. At least they have their sustained DPR, right? At least they can take down that ancient dragon, like St George or Perseus or any other number of myths? Ah, wait, not the wizard wished the dragon out of existence, or True Polymorphed it into a frog and locked it in a cage at the bottom of the ocean for it to die, or Forcecaged it for an hour without concentration while the party sat just out of its breath range and sniped it, or,,, not to mention that, with any level of armour training (mountain dwarf, an armour feat, even a single level dip in fighter lmao) and Shield, almost any caster can have a better AC than any martial; since Constitution is important for concentration, most spellcasters have a high Con too. Fundamentally, the problem with D&D is that, regardless of what you pick, regardless of what race/class combo you go with, however many magic items you give, a party of four spellcasters will be able to do any and everything a party of martials can do, better, easier, and for longer. You need a tank? Paladin or Druid. Skill monkey? Bard. Healer? Cleric, though its not as if any martial has the capacity to heal anyway. Problem solver? Wizard. Damage dealer? Paladin again. I want to add maneuvers to fighters because I believe it will somewhat close the thematic gap between martials and casters (as I've explained elsewhere) but when it comes to balance it is still just another stopgap measure.
To paraphrase; in the current release of the game, no matter what a fighter can do, a full caster can do it better. No matter how hard a fighter tries, nothing it can do will ever equal being able to cast Silvery Barbs or Invisibility or Hypnotic Pattern or Banishment or Wall of Force or Disintegrate or Forcecage or Maze or Meteor Swarm at the level a caster gets access to that spell. And that's not even mentioning Simulacrum and Wish.
In addition, and Treantmonk has talked about this a lot, the ability for spellcasters to easily acquire plate armour and combine it with a shield for a base AC of 20 without at all reducing their power, especially when the Shield spell is added in, means that any spellcaster who remotely tries to get a nice AC will outmatch a fighter, especially since all of the most damaging playstyles available for fighters don't work with a shield - sharpshooter/crossbow expert, polearm master with glaive, greatsword with GWM. The myth of the squishy caster was dispelled a long time ago in 5e.
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.
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?
I did actually miss that reply, that's my bad! Let's check it out!
But we aren't talking about WotC's rules, or what the DM is throwing at us, not really. We're talking about players not doing interesting things with their characters. And since they're the consistent end-point, we should be working backwards from the player. Because not every player has this problem. And neither does every DM. We need a holistic approach. If we're going to offer up suggestions to WotC, then we need to know all points of failure.
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.
Or you could just put that complexity in any other martial class instead of adding in a billion options to confuse new players and hope they find the simple one. Not only that, but one Superiority die of extra damage to one attack is by no means nearly as powerful as Superiority. I will agree with you though that if complexity has to be added to Fighter, then optional additional complexity is the best way to go.
Oh boy. So your answer to my "hey, I understand this is a really contentious issue right now, but I am interesting in solving it in a way that makes everyone happy. Consider this idea!" is "nah but consider this, go **** yourself." You clearly aren't interested in actually finding a solution to this issue the community is having. What I see is one side - the ones advocating for complexity - suggesting ideas and considering balance issues, and another side - the ones advocating for simplicity - going "nyeh" and shitting on every single idea passed to them.
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.
I think we must be having different conversations. "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" and "you seem to think that simplicity automatically means something is bad." "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." What are you talking about. Who are you talking to. Is there someone else named AndreGolin in this thread?
I have never said that I want to "take away Fighter from the people who need it." I have expressed my desire to see a fighter base class with some more mechanical complexity because I believe that is what the fighter is missing; I have, however, made it very clear multiple times in this thread that this is my opinion, so I'm not sure why you're painting me out to be some fun-destroying supervillain scheming to rob the poor bonk bonks of their precious TTRPG class and replace it with my own sick and twisted desires.
Neither have I ever said that "simplicity automatically means something is bad." I have, however, again, made it very clear multiple times that IN MY OPINION I believe the fighter is lacking in complexity.
If this part of your message was not sarcastic: seriously, unironically, legitimately, with no ounce of disdain or mockery, for your own health, please go outside.
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.
That’s funny, because they look to me that, out of the three martial classes, we want the Fighter to be the most complex of those three. We expect it to still be less complex than Wizards or Warlocks or Bards (oh my).
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)
Grasping Arrow is fantastic, definitely better than maneuvers, absolutely agree. Banishing Arrow and Seeking Arrow I'd argue come somewhat close, but the rest aren't fantastic, especially with your low DC unless you go full MAD. So you use Grasping Arrow, get a really cool shot in, and it works well! Good damage, good CC, and the target has to use their action for a chance to escape. Good stuff!
You get two uses. You get to be useful to your party to your combat twice per rest. The rest of the time you're just bonk bonking (shoot shooting ig), whereas, if the fighter had any complexity, it would be able to be useful to the party every turn - like a spellcaster! A spellcaster is useful pretty much every turn. Martials get to do damage every turn, which certainly has its uses, but pales in comparison to chucking down a Spike Growth (which becomes available at the same level as Grasping Arrow and is vastly more effective) or, gods forbid, a Forcecage.
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.
You're right, my bad, I haven't read the feature in a while.
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+.
The issue with two uses per short rest, and the reason why I prefer more uses per day than fewer uses per rest, is that I can decide exactly when to nova (insofar as Arcane Archers can nova, since their Arcane Shot is 1/turn). With only two uses, I either: use none, use one, use two; but with, say, five uses? I have much more flexibility in when and how I use my features, instead of being gated to a couple times per rest. My favourite method of regaining features (for any feature) so far is many uses (PB?) per long rest, plus regain one use per short rest; or, if the feature isn't as combat defining (maneuvers), PB uses per short rest, regain one when you roll initiative, right out the gate - no waiting to 15th level like with Arcane Archers - so that you can use everything when you need to know while still knowing that you won't be completely empty if another random fight starts up before you've had the chance to rest.
Also, if you've not tried Bless on a martial, I'd recommend it. Martials kind of by necessity will have high Constitutions, and most have proficiency in Con saves, making them perfect for concentrating on a spell as universally effective as Bless. Because of bounded accuracy, a +1d4 to attack rolls and saving throws is HUGE at every tier of the game.
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.
They did the math, they did the monster math.
Edited to make it clear I am not disagreeing with your conclusion (my bad if it did, I'm terrible with tone): I am not personally a fan of white room maths, especially if you're not considering to hit bonuses and average AC per level/CR etc, BUT those numbers are pretty damning, so I'll do some monster maths of my own in a bit to see if I can get some of my own data to support/verify yours.
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. Fair, I always forget the dart exists.
2. Fair. If anyone wants to make a serious build out of throwing weapons, they'll take the fighting style, at which point Quick Toss is redundant, BUT yes if their main focus is something else (archery of the arcane variety, for example), Quick Toss makes up for that.
3. That is true, but for a fighter is extremely uncommon to come up since most of what a fighter does is take the Attack action anyway. I wouldn't include multiclassing in this discussion because multiclassing immediately throws balance out the window, and only really shows that Quick Toss is arguably better for most spellcasters than for a fighter.
4. This is really negligible, 5 damage once per short rest is just a nothing burger. I hate the fact that two-weapon fighting doesn't let you add your ability modifier, but arguing that Quick Toss is better than two-weapon fighting because it lets you add +5 once per short rest is not enough IMO.
And that really comes to the crux of the issue. Absolutely Quick Toss has its uses. However, what it effectively boils down to is the ability to, once per short rest, deal a potential 1d4 + 1d8 + 15 piercing. Assuming the 65% chance to hit (which should stay about the same throughout all of play due to bounded accuracy), that's an average damage of 9.15 (increases to 9.6 at 10th level and 10.05 at 15th level, with superiority die increases). Ironically, it comes out to 8.15 if you don't use sharpshooter, and using a handaxe (no sharpshooter) gives 8.85 average damage.
In conclusion: you get to, once per short rest, as a bonus action, do an average of 10 damage at 15th level. Meanwhile the wizard has created a thousand simulacra and has taken over the world by themselves. It sounds fun and interesting to use, and it is absolutely stronger than I gave it credit for (I thought it was literally just a trap choice) and you have definitely convinced me otherwise, but I still don't think 9 damage as a bonus action once per short rest really compares to a permanent +1 bonus to AC or +2 bonus to ranged attack rolls, if you're taking it through Superior Technique. I wouldn't call it mechanically powerful, and I definitely wouldn't say it gives the fighter the level of meaningful decision-making every round (to make it on par with literally any spellcaster) which remains the main issue people in this thread have with the fighter class.
Tbh I actually quite like that, I'm a big fan of getting one or a few uses of a feature back whenever you roll initiative (but maybe that's because I'm the only person in existence who liked playing 4e)
Rather than run in the same circles for another 100 posts, maybe we can agree on a few basic things. And then we can work on actual solutions. Can everyone agree that these basic things are true?:
- Some people enjoy playing the fighter currently.
- Some people think it needs more (options, rules, power, anything) for them to enjoy playing it.
- Simplicity is enjoyable for some people.
- Complexity is enjoyable for some people.
- No one is wrong for having the opinions they do.
- Everyone should be respected.
- No one should be locked out of a class to make someone else happy.
- DnD is for everyone, and we should want to welcome as many players as possible.
If we can move past debating who's opinion is somehow more worthy, then maybe we can move the discussion into something that could yield real results.
It's been 8 days since I made this appeal. And everyone is still arguing in the same circles. Not for 100 more posts as I predicted, but for almost 300 more now. And I can count the number of actually productive suggestions on my fingers.
Everyone keeps misrepresenting each other's opinions, putting words into each other's mouths, playing reductionists as it suits them, and overall just trying to prove that they're 'right' in a debate with no right side. Most people checked out long ago because this, and the constant vitriol. In this vain attempt to yell the loudest and have the 'most right' opinion on whether the fighter is fun already (a completely subjective topic), everyone has gotten nowhere.
Not even the current rules are being presented correctly. Things like Arcane Archer and the feat to get battle master maneuvers work twice per short rest, not per day. The game was designed with an average of two short rests a day, which triples their number of uses. If your table doesn't play that way, that's a problem with the short rest mechanic, not the fighter.
I even wrote a whole post about Simplicity vs Complexity in hopes of getting everyone in these different threads at least speaking the same language. And it's only in some rare few posts here that anyone comes close to defining what they actually mean when they say what they want. All of the rest of the posts are wasting electrons trying to nitpick each other's examples, and discarding any suggestions that don't already fit their preconceived notions of what the answer should look like.
The whole actual problem seems to boil down to the fact that Fighters look different to different people.
They do have some Implicit complexity already. They have real advantages that other classes don't. It's just not plainly written. It's not in detailed features. Their high HP, access to all armor and weapons for free, and preference for certain stats are an advantage. They can perform actions that anyone can, but they are often better at it and can do it more frequently. Sure, wizards can get some of the same feats, but fighters get more of them. A wizard can cast Knock a couple times a dungeon. But a Fighter can smash down 100 doors without any slots to track. All of these are hidden advantages. Extra Attack and Action Surge aren't flashy, but the right fighter can mow down as many enemies as a fireball if that's what they want to do. And they can do it all day long. Some people see this as the Fighter's strengths, and are fine with it. When they hear 'complex' they think Mechanical complexity, overworked and wordy rules, and too many things to learn to play the game. They see maneuvers as just junk to track that could be handled more elegantly to the same effect.
Other people want the Fighter's advantages to be Explicit. They want it written on the paper. They want to have options clearly stated inside the class package. Options that rival wizards (to various degrees depending on the individual.) When they say the want the Fighter to be 'complex,' they mean more options and cool things listed on their character sheet. They see maneuvers as being a step in the right direction because it's the closest WotC has come to giving that.
That's basically it.
So if anyone wants to actually find a solution, we just need to respect each other, move on from trying to be seen as having the most valuable opinion, and keep these things in mind:
1 - More Explicit martial combat options are desired.
2 - They can't involve high Mechanical complexity for the base class.
If you anyone come up with ideas that meet both of these requirements, then nearly everyone will be happy. Except the ones who are just here to fight. They'll read this and ignore it, pick apart one piece of it, or try to find a way to use it to prove they were the most right all along.
You're all right. And you always were. Because you were speaking from your own experiences. You were just speaking different languages. This whole debate could be moot when the Warriors UA comes out. But if I'm way off the mark, and misunderstanding what people actually want from the fighter, I'll be happy to admit that I'm wrong, and look for another solution. In the meantime, I'm going to be searching for answers that might work for everyone.
You're asking me to admit that over-simplicity is better than any form of "complexity", that my opinion is wrong and my experiences are invalid, and that the way to further productivity is to acknowledge that I am not the Target Audience for D&D and I should move on. When I tried to share some perspective in your thread about describing complexity, you told me to remove my post - which I did.
I am sorry that I am unwilling to admit that the Simple Fighter Crowd are better people than I am and that I should not be attempting to continue playing this game. I've stepped down my posts in this and many other threads, but sometimes I feel a need to call things out. I find the entire subject deeply upsetting because the Simple Fighter Crowd is being given direct control over my game and my table via the 1DD surveys wherein they continue to argue that all forms of depth, engagement, and fulfilling gameplay should be stripped from all of D&D, and yet people keep telling me not to argue that point.
I'm sorry, I cannot do that. I will continue to defend the ideal that advanced players deserve to be able to play D&D too, no matter how hard Agilemind, BoringBard, Ecmo, Xalthu, Kotath, or any of the others try to drown the ideal out and force us out of the game. I paid for the books too, dead gods damn it. I'm allowed to request more from my game and my cash than "Implicit Rules" that do not mean or accomplish anything at all and a bunch of stripped-down Tactical Tic-Tac-Toe 'classes' with precisely three "features" each.
You're asking me to admit that over-simplicity is better than any form of "complexity", that my opinion is wrong and my experiences are invalid, and that the way to further productivity is to acknowledge that I am not the Target Audience for D&D and I should move on. When I tried to share some perspective in your thread about describing complexity, you told me to remove my post - which I did.
I am sorry that I am unwilling to admit that the Simple Fighter Crowd are better people than I am and that I should not be attempting to continue playing this game. I've stepped down my posts in this and many other threads, but sometimes I feel a need to call things out. I find the entire subject deeply upsetting because the Simple Fighter Crowd is being given direct control over my game and my table via the 1DD surveys wherein they continue to argue that all forms of depth, engagement, and fulfilling gameplay should be stripped from all of D&D, and yet people keep telling me not to argue that point.
I'm sorry, I cannot do that. I will continue to defend the ideal that advanced players deserve to be able to play D&D too, no matter how hard Agilemind, BoringBard, Ecmo, Xalthu, Kotath, or any of the others try to drown the ideal out and force us out of the game. I paid for the books too, dead gods damn it. I'm allowed to request more from my game and my cash than "Implicit Rules" that do not mean or accomplish anything at all and a bunch of stripped-down Tactical Tic-Tac-Toe 'classes' with precisely three "features" each.
Am I truly so wrong?
I'm sorry, but I'm a bit dumbfounded. I'm not trying to say any of that at all. I explicitly said the exact opposite. I didn't say that simplicity is better than complexity, or the other way around. I said that no one is talking about the same thing when they call something complex. Everyone is talking about different types of complexity. And replacing complexity of one kind for another. I didn't say your opinions were invalid. I said everyone's opinions were valid. And I have never said that anyone should move on to another game. I've repeatedly said that no one should be asked to leave, and that DnD is for everyone.
I also honestly had no idea that I asked you to remove your post on my other thread. If is was something I said in my response, then that was not my intent all. I was glad you posted. I won't get into details since no one can see either of ours now, but I was trying to say you brought up a good point about Implicit vs Explicit rules that I felt was at the core of some of these discussions. It wasn't necessarily the way I would have personally made the point, but I did hear your point and tried to encourage that part of the discussion.
If it was some button in the forum I accidentally pressed to signal you to remove it, then that was genuinely a mistake.
Either way I'm very sorry that you felt I wanted it removed.
But no, I'm absolutely not saying your opinion is wrong, or you should stop playing, or complexity is inherently bad or good. I was very much saying the opposite. I was saying everyone should be able to play the game and have fun, that all opinions are valid, and that solutions can exist to please everyone.
A single use of Second Wind is at best going to prevent on average half a round of damage, at 1st level, and it continues to dwindle rapidly.
I mean, I know you are trying to argue that Second Wind is bad, but your table kind of just proved my point. Being able to heal half an attack's damage at low level while making good use of your action economy is helpful at worst and crucial at best. At higher levels, you have more uses of Second Wind (which your table did not account for). Not only that, but monsters attacks are broken into a multiattack routine, so the likelihood that you take the full 100 damage on your turn is basically zero, because not only would you have to be targeted by all the monsters attacks (which would be a sign of poor DMing), but all of those attacks would have to hit as well.
As you yourself admitted, many of the Ranger's important abilities come at levels that are too late to be of much use. So while having lots of nice abilities may be cool, it's not nearly as cool if your campaign doesn't last long enough to use them. On the other hand, Fighter gets most of their important abilities at low levels, and the power and amount of uses of those abilities scales as well.
On top of that, Indomitable is only really useful on Strength and Constitution saving throws (because using it on a mental save is basically being given the opportunity to fail a saving throw twice), one of which basically never happens and the other of which is really good for avoiding damage, and that's about it. Indomitable IMO would've been better if it just worked like Legendary Resistance - failed a saving throw? No you didn't. Like the monk's Diamond Soul, just instead of expending ki points you get it for free once, then twice, then thrice per day.
Firstly, Strength and Con saves are frequent occurrences in the game. Not only that, but Indomitable is not "useless" against other types of saves, it just doesn't work as well. In other words, Indomitable is a massively important and overall quite powerful Fighter feature, leaving it out from your list is leaving out a key detail. I do really like your proposal of making Indomitable like Legendary Resistance though.
Anyways, as you admitted, this conversation doesn't relate to the overlying topic of the thread (martial complexity) whatsoever.
I never at any point said the fighter's description said it should be complex. I say they should fulfill the fantasy of playing a master at arms, which the official descriptions clearly support.
Fair enough, I concede that the description says they should be a "master at arms". However, I still think the current Fighter is exactly that. Anyways, as you literally just said yourself, this too does not relate to martial complexity whatsoever.
Oh boy. So your answer to my "hey, I understand this is a really contentious issue right now, but I am interesting in solving it in a way that makes everyone happy. Consider this idea!" is "nah but consider this, go **** yourself." You clearly aren't interested in actually finding a solution to this issue the community is having. What I see is one side - the ones advocating for complexity - suggesting ideas and considering balance issues, and another side - the ones advocating for simplicity - going "nyeh" and shitting on every single idea passed to them.
Firstly, none of us will be able to "solve" this issue. The best we can do is make homebrew solutions.
Secondly, who you are even talking to and where on all of Faerun, the Nine Hells and beyond did anyone ever tell you to "**** yourself." All I told you is that I don't that one specific idea works, but apparently, disagreeing with one idea means that you are "shitting" on them. Also, I proposed numerous suggestions to help fix this. The vast majority of them were ignored.
I think we must be having different conversations. "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" and "you seem to think that simplicity automatically means something is bad." "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." What are you talking about. Who are you talking to. Is there someone else named AndreGolin in this thread?
I have never said that I want to "take away Fighter from the people who need it." I have expressed my desire to see a fighter base class with some more mechanical complexity because I believe that is what the fighter is missing; I have, however, made it very clear multiple times in this thread that this is my opinion, so I'm not sure why you're painting me out to be some fun-destroying supervillain scheming to rob the poor bonk bonks of their precious TTRPG class and replace it with my own sick and twisted desires.
Neither have I ever said that "simplicity automatically means something is bad." I have, however, again, made it very clear multiple times that IN MY OPINION I believe the fighter is lacking in complexity.
Perhaps I am confusing what you and other posters with the exact same blank avatar screen are saying. However, I have seen you make multiple suggestions to add complicated (or at least what would be complicated to a new player) mechanics such as Superiority to the base-Fighter class. And honestly, I don't think that's fair to the massive amount of people that want/need/love "simple" Fighter as it is.
People who like simplicity need options, too. Making Fighter a complex class only takes away the already limited pool of some options from the players who enjoy them. I get that your opinion is that Fighter is "lacking in complexity", but according to my personal experience and according to data that is overall quite reliable (it is certainly much more reliable than a few small polls on DDB) many want an option that is lacking in complexity. Because they enjoy simplicity.
You may think something to be bad, but many, many other people like that thing. And arguing that that option should be taken away from them and made complex because you enjoy complexity ignores the simple reality that other people may enjoy different things and that they too, need options. Nothing you've said explains why Fighter should be the complex class when it can literally be any other class.
So yes, (unless I am misunderstanding you) it may be your opinion that those people should have the simple option they love turned complex. But personally at least, I think that is a very problematic opinion to have.
... And honestly, I don't think that's fair to the massive amount of people that want/need/love "simple" Fighter as it is. ...
What about the "massive amount of people" who want/need/love MORE FROM THEIR GAME, Bard? You've spent the entirety of several threads now castigating them, shaming them, insisting that they're Wrong Bad People and that giving them any measure of play space would Ruin D&D Forever.
Have you not been monitoring the forums? "Better Martial Combat" has been one of the most frequently requested large-scale fixes to R5e for the last several years. Hundreds of Dungeon Master's Guild products attempt to make martial combat less mind-numbingly boring. Most of the most common and ubiquitous homebrew out there is attempts to patch the humdrum tedium of Basic Bonk. People have been hoping and praying and begging for Better Melee Combat since the game dropped. And yet here you are, four hundred posts later, still telling people that the only thing that matters is that as many classes as possible be stripped of as much "complexity" as possible and as many other areas of the game are made to follow suit because New Players Need Simple, and it's absolutely intolerable that anything which might daunt a New Player in any way for any length of time be allowed to remain in the game.
I liked aspects of 4e Many of which would be unpopular. My biggest inspiration would be 3.5 ToB type classes which are also unpopular.
The issue is that there are so many different ideas of what a martial should be. Anime/Guy at Gym/Conan ect. Which are hard to separate into subclasses and all fight over the fighter chassis. Which than leaves it not really fitting anyones ideas.
I'm going to try to list some examples of how you could increase the Explicit tactical options of a Fighter, in varying degrees of Mechanical complexity. They are not fully fleshed out. I'm just trying to see where people fall in what they are actually looking for.
So to be clear, the goal here is to create options for a Fighter to take in each turn of combat. They would have Explicit rules explaining how they are done. But they will not all require the same levels of Mechanical complexity or visibility. Because options don't require complex mechanics to offer interesting choices. They just might not all be immediately apparent as advantages at first glance. These examples will have nothing to do with how 'superhuman' the powers are. Just how much work is required to learn them and use them in play.
A) Least Mechanical Complexity -
Change nothing about the Fighter. Create options by making more explicit actions available to everyone in weapon combat. Add more interesting rules for weapon and armor properties. Create more advanced feats and fighting styles with more tactical choices. The fighter will benefit from all of these as the class with the most access to them, and the best stats for them.
B) Optional Mechanical Complexity -
Give the Fighters choices when they create their characters and level up. Some are simple flat bonuses. Some are more complicated like battle master maneuvers. The player gets to make each character as mechanically complex as they desire.
C) Moderate Mechanical Complexity -
Give every Fighter certain Stunts that only they can perform. These can be battle master maneuvers, or something else entirely The more dice/slots/points they have to track, and the more advanced levels of Stunts choices available, the more Mechanical complexity is involved. This is a broad category.
D) Highest Mechanical Complexity -
Make the Fighter work like the Wizard. Have many levels of Stunts, with dozens of options at each level. Use some version of slots, dice, points, or uses to track them all. Each Stunt requires detail descriptions filling an entire section of the book.
All of these examples can provide a much higher level of tactical options in a battle. Some just require more Mechanical rules to learn, choose, and track than others. Do any of these stand out to anyone as the direction they would like to take? Are there other broad categories of mechanical complexity I didn't cover?
Elements of A, B, and C are all highly desirable. I do think an idea spawned by D would be good though, and that's breaking Superiority off of Battlemaster and making it its own thing. Have a section in the PHB for it, something like "Some classes, subclasses, or abilities may grant you access to Superiority. Superiority is a special pool of dice you can use to empower your attacks or occasionally enhance your abilities in other ways. If you have Superiority, you can..." and then describe the system without making reference to it being exclusive to Battlemaster. Make Superiority a class-neutral mechanic that can be tied into other classes, subclasses, feats, or even items, to broaden it out and make it much more useful and impactful.
I absolutely hate that the weapon in your hands means absolutely nothing and has dick-all bupkis nada impact on how you play and fight. Somebody with a shortsword and a large shield should be an entirely different style than somebody with a rapier and a buckler but in D&D? Nah. Those two are absolutely 100% identical in every single way. Hammers and other bludgeons should not be the exact same god damned thing as slashing armaments, but they are. It's dumb, and it makes combat deeply boring and aggravating.
I would argue that pausing combat to pull out the manual to figure out the intricacies of how you are holding your weapons and what style you are using so the DM can figure out how your shortsword damage impacts an enemy differently than the Rapier and Longbow your buddies are using would make combat even more boring than it currently is.
A warhammer should not be essentially identical to a rapier. Dexterity should not be superior to strength.
They are not identical. You can do 1d10 with a warhammer by using it with 2 hands. A Warhammer is also a lot better mechanically as far as combat goes, especially in tier 1. A number of common low level enemies are either resistant to piercing and slashing or alternatively they have vulnerability to bludgeoning. This includes skeletons of all types, which are probably the most common undead encountered in tier 1 and early tier 2. Once you get well into tier 2 that advantage goes away.
I play with optimizers, so each attack by a monster has ~30% chance to hit [b/c of min-maxing AC to 23-25 at mid-tiers] \
An optimizer should have a better AC than that mid tiers. A Bladesinger, Sword and board heavy armor caster or artificer should be able to drive that down to about 10%. You should be at either 25 AC with disadvantage or 27-28 without disadvantage.
A 6th level sword and Board Hexadin for example should be at 28 (plate, shield, protection, shield spell, shield of faith). A single-class Bladesinger should be at 25 with disadvantage or 27 without disadvantage (mage armor, dex, intelligence, shield spell and disadvantage through blur or PEG or +2 AC through Haste)
An optimizer should have a better AC than that mid tiers. A Bladesinger, Sword and board heavy armor caster or artificer should be able to drive that down to about 10%. You should be at either 25 AC with disadvantage or 27-28 without disadvantage.
A 6th level sword and Board Hexadin for example should be at 28 (plate, shield, protection, shield spell, shield of faith). A single-class Bladesinger should be at 25 with disadvantage or 27 without disadvantage (mage armor, dex, intelligence, shield spell and disadvantage through blur or PEG or +2 AC through Haste)
None of the spells you mention is reliably up -- you might have better uses for the action, bonus action, reaction, or spell slot. If you can consistently cast spells before combat the DM is being really generous -- it does happen, but it shouldn't be assumed true by default.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
What do you mean by "interesting and meaningful tactical decisions" ? Because IME melee fighters already get to make those - whether you stay in melee, whether you try to set yourself or your ally up for flanking, whether you try to tank the big hits or run after the spellcaster in the back lines to nova them down before they get to start throwing fireballs... If you don't consider these interesting and meaningful tactical decisions, and you don't consider risking not hitting an enemy for the chance to impose a debilitating condition an interesting tactical decision, then What do you consider an interesting and meaningful tactical decision???
Because IME for a decision to be interesting and tactical it has to have risks and rewards, or it has to be very limited use so the decision of when to use it and when not to use it really matters. Without one of those things there is no decision to be made you simply spam the most powerful thing day in day out, regardless of how "complicated" that thing is.
So you rigged your own Poll about "What is your favorite class" to show that Fighter is unpopular? Why would you do that?
As for your "reliable data" It only shows that lots of people have played around in the character builder and nothing more.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
"Risk and reward" is not really where meaningful decisions lay. The Power Attack option from GWM and Sharpshooter are "RIsk and Reward", and we see what those turned into - as you say, player spam them all day every day because it's "Attack" vs "Much Stronger/Better Attack w/Minor Hit Penalty." There's no real decision there, it's a case of whether you think you can land your strictly more powerful attack. Same with your list of called shots - all of those attacks are strictly better than a basic strike, and the game turns into "how do I guarantee landing 100% of my called shots all the time?" rather than a game of making meaningful decisions.
"Meaningful decisions" means the character has qualitatively (NOT just numerically) different options for what they can do, each of which has a different impact on whatever their situation is, and choosing which of those qualitatively different options is better for their current situation is an important part of moment to moment gameplay. They tried to do this with the push/trip/disarm options in the DMG, but they made each of those options very weak and almost universally inferior to simply landing a bit more damage. The battlemaster comes closer, as you get enough Superiority that choosing whether or not to use it, and choosing which of your Superiority options to use, becomes an engaging part of playing the character. Superiority can even make the default options suck less - Disarm an enemy, then using a Superiority die on a Pushing Attack to move the enemy fifteen feet away from their Evil macGuffin before moving up to re-engage the enemy, as one example. Enemies capable of being disarmed are still vanishingly rare, but at least Superiority allows the disarm to mean something and actually inconvenience the foe.
I would like for martial characters in D&D to be able to play a game where "I use my basic attack action to deal damage to the enemy" is not the only possible correct answer, but it is also not the wrong answer. A basic attack, in a system of permanent Power Strikes or Called Shot tables, is the wrong answer. You end up in the same place you started - with only one "correct" answer to all situations and extremely boring moment to moment play. It is a delicate balance to strike, but that doesn't mean it's not an important one.
Please do not contact or message me.
The Fighter is only strong in regards to martials; it is by far the strongest pure martial in the game currently, but struggles to compete with the paladin in anything except damage, and any caster completely outclasses it mechanically. I would also argue the fighter is not cool in the sense that it doesn't actually do anything. I have played and DMd for multiple fighters, and the thing I always notice is that those players have to make their own fun, either by multiclassing or experimenting with other rules (sometimes with rules locked in the DMG of all places, which I really don't like) - the main issue I see with the fighter time and again is that there aren't enough mechanics in the class to make it fun for longer than a few levels at a time as a class itself, which then means players need to put more effort in to make it as fun as other classes. I recognise a lot of people like simple fighter, but what I have seen every single time I've DMd a fighter is that the fighter's player is always the one asking for rule concessions and changes to do cool things not allowed within the fighter's base mechanics. I almost always allow them, because I'm a rule of cool DM above all else, but I just wish the fighter actually had the mechanical base to allow for that sort of thing as standard instead of having the DM arbitrate every single new thing the fighter wants to do because they got bored of taking the Attack action over and over again four levels ago (from personal experience).
Also I meant what I said - the fighter only has three impactful abilities. Second Wind is a bandage, 1d10 + level HP is about enough to reliably save you from one attack at every level of the game. It also can't be used while unconscious, which is the only time healing is ever good enough to use seriously, AND its once per short rest (in my fighter revised I gave them a second use per short rest at like 14th level or smth). It just doesn't do enough. Here's the table I base this on, btw:
Fighter Level
Average Healing from 2nd Wind
Average DPR of a monster of the same CR
1
6.5 (2-11)
9-14
2
7.5 (3-12)
15-20
3
8.5 (4-13)
21-26
4
9.5 (5-14)
27-32
5
10.5 (6-15)
33-38
6
11.5 (7-16)
39-44
7
12.5 (8-17)
45-50
8
13.5 (9-18)
51-56
9
14.5 (10-19)
57-62
10
15.5 (11-20)
63-68
11
16.5 (12-21)
69-74
12
17.5 (13-22)
75-80
13
18.5 (14-23)
81-86
14
19.5 (15-24)
87-92
15
20.5 (16-25)
93-98
16
21.5 (17-26)
99-104
17
22.5 (18-27)
105-110
18
23.5 (19-28)
111-116
19
24.5 (20-29)
117-122
20
25.5 (21-30)
123-140
A single use of Second Wind is at best going to prevent on average half a round of damage, at 1st level, and it continues to dwindle rapidly.
On top of that, Indomitable is only really useful on Strength and Constitution saving throws (because using it on a mental save is basically being given the opportunity to fail a saving throw twice), one of which basically never happens and the other of which is really good for avoiding damage, and that's about it. Indomitable IMO would've been better if it just worked like Legendary Resistance - failed a saving throw? No you didn't. Like the monk's Diamond Soul, just instead of expending ki points you get it for free once, then twice, then thrice per day.
I didn't mention the additional uses of Extra Attack and Action Surge because I was talking about general gameplay - what features are you likely to use in any given session? Extra Attack, Action Surge. Fighting Style comes up a lot because its a decent enough passive that most fighters build their playstyle around it (and some, like Archery, are borderline necessary for sharpshooter builds).
On the other hand, with the ranger? Nature's Veil is awesome, Feral Senses is great (but comes online waaaay too late), and being a half-caster automatically makes it stronger overall than the fighter. I did make a mistake though, I meant to say Favoured Foe instead of Favoured Enemy - you are right, Favoured Enemy does absolutely nothing, but Favoured Foe actually works pretty decently.
Fighter Class base description: Fighters "all share an unparalleled mastery with weapons and armor, and a thorough knowledge of the skills of combat."
Well-Rounded Specialists: "Fighters learn the basics of all combat styles. Every fighter can swing an axe, fence with a rapier, wield a longsword or a greatsword, use a bow, and even trap foes in a net with some degree of skill. Likewise, a fighter is adept with shields and every form of armor. Beyond that basic degree of familiarity, each fighter specializes in a certain style of combat. Some concentrate on archery, some on fighting with two weapons at once, and some on augmenting their martial skills with magic. This combination of broad general ability and extensive specialization makes fighters superior combatants on battlefields and in dungeons alike."
Creating a Fighter, PHB: "As you build your fighter, think about two related elements of your character’s background: Where did you get your combat training, and what set you apart from the mundane warriors around you?"
I never at any point said the fighter's description said it should be complex. I say they should fulfill the fantasy of playing a master at arms, which the official descriptions clearly support. What in the fighter's class suggests it has an unparalleled mastery with weapons and armour? Access to the Fighting Style feature, which two other classes also get by default and literally any class can get as a feat? Or perhaps Extra Attack, which literally every class in the game except the sorcerer can access as part? What in the fighter's class mechanically sets it apart from mundane warriors - the five total features it gets beyond ASIs and subclass features? There is nowhere in the description that paints them as "a warrior who is good with a sword and shield" any more than it does any other fighter archetype. Actually, let's check that description again...
Fighter Class base description: "A human in clanging plate armor holds her shield before her as she runs toward the massed goblins. An elf behind her, clad in studded leather armor, peppers the goblins with arrows loosed from his exquisite bow. The half-orc nearby shouts orders, helping the two combatants coordinate their assault to the best advantage. A dwarf in chain mail interposes his shield between the ogre’s club and his companion, knocking the deadly blow aside. His companion, a half-elf in scale armor, swings two scimitars in a blinding whirl as she circles the ogre, looking for a blind spot in its defenses. A gladiator fights for sport in an arena, a master with his trident and net, skilled at toppling foes and moving them around for the crowd’s delight — and his own tactical advantage. His opponent’s sword flares with blue light an instant before she sends lightning flashing forth to smite him."
Literally none of these describe a sword and shield fighter. Fighter 1: plate armour, shield. Fighter 2: studded leather, bow. Fighter 3: no equipment mentioned. Fighter 4: chain mail, shield. Fighter 5: scale, two scimitars. Fighter 6: trident, net. Fighter 7: sword, magic. No sword and shield fighter in sight.
Secondly, you're right! You don't need complexity to make a class powerful and good with weapons! You're absolutely right. However, the fighter class is - in my opinion - lacking both in mechanics that match the theme and any level of interesting gameplay beyond bonk bonk, on top of not being powerful enough to stand up to any caster beyond like level 3. That is why I want to add complexity to the fighter.
As I mentioned earlier, fighters are not powerful. They are the most powerful martial, but within the context of the game, especially beyond level 5, they are weak and underpowered compared to the full casters, as is every other class that isn't a full caster. I mentioned here:
To paraphrase; in the current release of the game, no matter what a fighter can do, a full caster can do it better. No matter how hard a fighter tries, nothing it can do will ever equal being able to cast Silvery Barbs or Invisibility or Hypnotic Pattern or Banishment or Wall of Force or Disintegrate or Forcecage or Maze or Meteor Swarm at the level a caster gets access to that spell. And that's not even mentioning Simulacrum and Wish.
In addition, and Treantmonk has talked about this a lot, the ability for spellcasters to easily acquire plate armour and combine it with a shield for a base AC of 20 without at all reducing their power, especially when the Shield spell is added in, means that any spellcaster who remotely tries to get a nice AC will outmatch a fighter, especially since all of the most damaging playstyles available for fighters don't work with a shield - sharpshooter/crossbow expert, polearm master with glaive, greatsword with GWM. The myth of the squishy caster was dispelled a long time ago in 5e.
I did actually miss that reply, that's my bad! Let's check it out!
Oh boy. So your answer to my "hey, I understand this is a really contentious issue right now, but I am interesting in solving it in a way that makes everyone happy. Consider this idea!" is "nah but consider this, go **** yourself." You clearly aren't interested in actually finding a solution to this issue the community is having. What I see is one side - the ones advocating for complexity - suggesting ideas and considering balance issues, and another side - the ones advocating for simplicity - going "nyeh" and shitting on every single idea passed to them.
I think we must be having different conversations. "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" and "you seem to think that simplicity automatically means something is bad." "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." What are you talking about. Who are you talking to. Is there someone else named AndreGolin in this thread?
I have never said that I want to "take away Fighter from the people who need it." I have expressed my desire to see a fighter base class with some more mechanical complexity because I believe that is what the fighter is missing; I have, however, made it very clear multiple times in this thread that this is my opinion, so I'm not sure why you're painting me out to be some fun-destroying supervillain scheming to rob the poor bonk bonks of their precious TTRPG class and replace it with my own sick and twisted desires.
Neither have I ever said that "simplicity automatically means something is bad." I have, however, again, made it very clear multiple times that IN MY OPINION I believe the fighter is lacking in complexity.
If this part of your message was not sarcastic: seriously, unironically, legitimately, with no ounce of disdain or mockery, for your own health, please go outside.
That’s funny, because they look to me that, out of the three martial classes, we want the Fighter to be the most complex of those three. We expect it to still be less complex than Wizards or Warlocks or Bards (oh my).
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Grasping Arrow is fantastic, definitely better than maneuvers, absolutely agree. Banishing Arrow and Seeking Arrow I'd argue come somewhat close, but the rest aren't fantastic, especially with your low DC unless you go full MAD. So you use Grasping Arrow, get a really cool shot in, and it works well! Good damage, good CC, and the target has to use their action for a chance to escape. Good stuff!
You get two uses. You get to be useful to your party to your combat twice per rest. The rest of the time you're just bonk bonking (shoot shooting ig), whereas, if the fighter had any complexity, it would be able to be useful to the party every turn - like a spellcaster! A spellcaster is useful pretty much every turn. Martials get to do damage every turn, which certainly has its uses, but pales in comparison to chucking down a Spike Growth (which becomes available at the same level as Grasping Arrow and is vastly more effective) or, gods forbid, a Forcecage.
You're right, my bad, I haven't read the feature in a while.
The issue with two uses per short rest, and the reason why I prefer more uses per day than fewer uses per rest, is that I can decide exactly when to nova (insofar as Arcane Archers can nova, since their Arcane Shot is 1/turn). With only two uses, I either: use none, use one, use two; but with, say, five uses? I have much more flexibility in when and how I use my features, instead of being gated to a couple times per rest. My favourite method of regaining features (for any feature) so far is many uses (PB?) per long rest, plus regain one use per short rest; or, if the feature isn't as combat defining (maneuvers), PB uses per short rest, regain one when you roll initiative, right out the gate - no waiting to 15th level like with Arcane Archers - so that you can use everything when you need to know while still knowing that you won't be completely empty if another random fight starts up before you've had the chance to rest.
Also, if you've not tried Bless on a martial, I'd recommend it. Martials kind of by necessity will have high Constitutions, and most have proficiency in Con saves, making them perfect for concentrating on a spell as universally effective as Bless. Because of bounded accuracy, a +1d4 to attack rolls and saving throws is HUGE at every tier of the game.
They did the math, they did the monster math.
Edited to make it clear I am not disagreeing with your conclusion (my bad if it did, I'm terrible with tone): I am not personally a fan of white room maths, especially if you're not considering to hit bonuses and average AC per level/CR etc, BUT those numbers are pretty damning, so I'll do some monster maths of my own in a bit to see if I can get some of my own data to support/verify yours.
1. Fair, I always forget the dart exists.
2. Fair. If anyone wants to make a serious build out of throwing weapons, they'll take the fighting style, at which point Quick Toss is redundant, BUT yes if their main focus is something else (archery of the arcane variety, for example), Quick Toss makes up for that.
3. That is true, but for a fighter is extremely uncommon to come up since most of what a fighter does is take the Attack action anyway. I wouldn't include multiclassing in this discussion because multiclassing immediately throws balance out the window, and only really shows that Quick Toss is arguably better for most spellcasters than for a fighter.
4. This is really negligible, 5 damage once per short rest is just a nothing burger. I hate the fact that two-weapon fighting doesn't let you add your ability modifier, but arguing that Quick Toss is better than two-weapon fighting because it lets you add +5 once per short rest is not enough IMO.
And that really comes to the crux of the issue. Absolutely Quick Toss has its uses. However, what it effectively boils down to is the ability to, once per short rest, deal a potential 1d4 + 1d8 + 15 piercing. Assuming the 65% chance to hit (which should stay about the same throughout all of play due to bounded accuracy), that's an average damage of 9.15 (increases to 9.6 at 10th level and 10.05 at 15th level, with superiority die increases). Ironically, it comes out to 8.15 if you don't use sharpshooter, and using a handaxe (no sharpshooter) gives 8.85 average damage.
In conclusion: you get to, once per short rest, as a bonus action, do an average of 10 damage at 15th level. Meanwhile the wizard has created a thousand simulacra and has taken over the world by themselves. It sounds fun and interesting to use, and it is absolutely stronger than I gave it credit for (I thought it was literally just a trap choice) and you have definitely convinced me otherwise, but I still don't think 9 damage as a bonus action once per short rest really compares to a permanent +1 bonus to AC or +2 bonus to ranged attack rolls, if you're taking it through Superior Technique. I wouldn't call it mechanically powerful, and I definitely wouldn't say it gives the fighter the level of meaningful decision-making every round (to make it on par with literally any spellcaster) which remains the main issue people in this thread have with the fighter class.
Maybe make it a per encounter thing.
You can use x2 arrows per encounter and leave bigger novas like action surge as short rest.
i always felt Maritals should get cool stuff to be used every encounter and leave mages for the limited times per day.
Tbh I actually quite like that, I'm a big fan of getting one or a few uses of a feature back whenever you roll initiative (but maybe that's because I'm the only person in existence who liked playing 4e)
It's been 8 days since I made this appeal. And everyone is still arguing in the same circles. Not for 100 more posts as I predicted, but for almost 300 more now. And I can count the number of actually productive suggestions on my fingers.
Everyone keeps misrepresenting each other's opinions, putting words into each other's mouths, playing reductionists as it suits them, and overall just trying to prove that they're 'right' in a debate with no right side. Most people checked out long ago because this, and the constant vitriol. In this vain attempt to yell the loudest and have the 'most right' opinion on whether the fighter is fun already (a completely subjective topic), everyone has gotten nowhere.
Not even the current rules are being presented correctly. Things like Arcane Archer and the feat to get battle master maneuvers work twice per short rest, not per day. The game was designed with an average of two short rests a day, which triples their number of uses. If your table doesn't play that way, that's a problem with the short rest mechanic, not the fighter.
I even wrote a whole post about Simplicity vs Complexity in hopes of getting everyone in these different threads at least speaking the same language. And it's only in some rare few posts here that anyone comes close to defining what they actually mean when they say what they want. All of the rest of the posts are wasting electrons trying to nitpick each other's examples, and discarding any suggestions that don't already fit their preconceived notions of what the answer should look like.
The whole actual problem seems to boil down to the fact that Fighters look different to different people.
They do have some Implicit complexity already. They have real advantages that other classes don't. It's just not plainly written. It's not in detailed features. Their high HP, access to all armor and weapons for free, and preference for certain stats are an advantage. They can perform actions that anyone can, but they are often better at it and can do it more frequently. Sure, wizards can get some of the same feats, but fighters get more of them. A wizard can cast Knock a couple times a dungeon. But a Fighter can smash down 100 doors without any slots to track. All of these are hidden advantages. Extra Attack and Action Surge aren't flashy, but the right fighter can mow down as many enemies as a fireball if that's what they want to do. And they can do it all day long. Some people see this as the Fighter's strengths, and are fine with it. When they hear 'complex' they think Mechanical complexity, overworked and wordy rules, and too many things to learn to play the game. They see maneuvers as just junk to track that could be handled more elegantly to the same effect.
Other people want the Fighter's advantages to be Explicit. They want it written on the paper. They want to have options clearly stated inside the class package. Options that rival wizards (to various degrees depending on the individual.) When they say the want the Fighter to be 'complex,' they mean more options and cool things listed on their character sheet. They see maneuvers as being a step in the right direction because it's the closest WotC has come to giving that.
That's basically it.
So if anyone wants to actually find a solution, we just need to respect each other, move on from trying to be seen as having the most valuable opinion, and keep these things in mind:
1 - More Explicit martial combat options are desired.
2 - They can't involve high Mechanical complexity for the base class.
If you anyone come up with ideas that meet both of these requirements, then nearly everyone will be happy. Except the ones who are just here to fight. They'll read this and ignore it, pick apart one piece of it, or try to find a way to use it to prove they were the most right all along.
You're all right. And you always were. Because you were speaking from your own experiences. You were just speaking different languages. This whole debate could be moot when the Warriors UA comes out. But if I'm way off the mark, and misunderstanding what people actually want from the fighter, I'll be happy to admit that I'm wrong, and look for another solution. In the meantime, I'm going to be searching for answers that might work for everyone.
Steg. Buddy.
You're asking me to admit that over-simplicity is better than any form of "complexity", that my opinion is wrong and my experiences are invalid, and that the way to further productivity is to acknowledge that I am not the Target Audience for D&D and I should move on. When I tried to share some perspective in your thread about describing complexity, you told me to remove my post - which I did.
I am sorry that I am unwilling to admit that the Simple Fighter Crowd are better people than I am and that I should not be attempting to continue playing this game. I've stepped down my posts in this and many other threads, but sometimes I feel a need to call things out. I find the entire subject deeply upsetting because the Simple Fighter Crowd is being given direct control over my game and my table via the 1DD surveys wherein they continue to argue that all forms of depth, engagement, and fulfilling gameplay should be stripped from all of D&D, and yet people keep telling me not to argue that point.
I'm sorry, I cannot do that. I will continue to defend the ideal that advanced players deserve to be able to play D&D too, no matter how hard Agilemind, BoringBard, Ecmo, Xalthu, Kotath, or any of the others try to drown the ideal out and force us out of the game. I paid for the books too, dead gods damn it. I'm allowed to request more from my game and my cash than "Implicit Rules" that do not mean or accomplish anything at all and a bunch of stripped-down Tactical Tic-Tac-Toe 'classes' with precisely three "features" each.
Am I truly so wrong?
Please do not contact or message me.
I'm sorry, but I'm a bit dumbfounded. I'm not trying to say any of that at all. I explicitly said the exact opposite. I didn't say that simplicity is better than complexity, or the other way around. I said that no one is talking about the same thing when they call something complex. Everyone is talking about different types of complexity. And replacing complexity of one kind for another. I didn't say your opinions were invalid. I said everyone's opinions were valid. And I have never said that anyone should move on to another game. I've repeatedly said that no one should be asked to leave, and that DnD is for everyone.
I also honestly had no idea that I asked you to remove your post on my other thread. If is was something I said in my response, then that was not my intent all. I was glad you posted. I won't get into details since no one can see either of ours now, but I was trying to say you brought up a good point about Implicit vs Explicit rules that I felt was at the core of some of these discussions. It wasn't necessarily the way I would have personally made the point, but I did hear your point and tried to encourage that part of the discussion.
If it was some button in the forum I accidentally pressed to signal you to remove it, then that was genuinely a mistake.
Either way I'm very sorry that you felt I wanted it removed.
But no, I'm absolutely not saying your opinion is wrong, or you should stop playing, or complexity is inherently bad or good. I was very much saying the opposite. I was saying everyone should be able to play the game and have fun, that all opinions are valid, and that solutions can exist to please everyone.
I mean, I know you are trying to argue that Second Wind is bad, but your table kind of just proved my point. Being able to heal half an attack's damage at low level while making good use of your action economy is helpful at worst and crucial at best. At higher levels, you have more uses of Second Wind (which your table did not account for). Not only that, but monsters attacks are broken into a multiattack routine, so the likelihood that you take the full 100 damage on your turn is basically zero, because not only would you have to be targeted by all the monsters attacks (which would be a sign of poor DMing), but all of those attacks would have to hit as well.
As you yourself admitted, many of the Ranger's important abilities come at levels that are too late to be of much use. So while having lots of nice abilities may be cool, it's not nearly as cool if your campaign doesn't last long enough to use them. On the other hand, Fighter gets most of their important abilities at low levels, and the power and amount of uses of those abilities scales as well.
Firstly, Strength and Con saves are frequent occurrences in the game. Not only that, but Indomitable is not "useless" against other types of saves, it just doesn't work as well. In other words, Indomitable is a massively important and overall quite powerful Fighter feature, leaving it out from your list is leaving out a key detail. I do really like your proposal of making Indomitable like Legendary Resistance though.
Anyways, as you admitted, this conversation doesn't relate to the overlying topic of the thread (martial complexity) whatsoever.
Fair enough, I concede that the description says they should be a "master at arms". However, I still think the current Fighter is exactly that. Anyways, as you literally just said yourself, this too does not relate to martial complexity whatsoever.
Firstly, none of us will be able to "solve" this issue. The best we can do is make homebrew solutions.
Secondly, who you are even talking to and where on all of Faerun, the Nine Hells and beyond did anyone ever tell you to "**** yourself." All I told you is that I don't that one specific idea works, but apparently, disagreeing with one idea means that you are "shitting" on them. Also, I proposed numerous suggestions to help fix this. The vast majority of them were ignored.
Perhaps I am confusing what you and other posters with the exact same blank avatar screen are saying. However, I have seen you make multiple suggestions to add complicated (or at least what would be complicated to a new player) mechanics such as Superiority to the base-Fighter class. And honestly, I don't think that's fair to the massive amount of people that want/need/love "simple" Fighter as it is.
People who like simplicity need options, too. Making Fighter a complex class only takes away the already limited pool of some options from the players who enjoy them. I get that your opinion is that Fighter is "lacking in complexity", but according to my personal experience and according to data that is overall quite reliable (it is certainly much more reliable than a few small polls on DDB) many want an option that is lacking in complexity. Because they enjoy simplicity.
You may think something to be bad, but many, many other people like that thing. And arguing that that option should be taken away from them and made complex because you enjoy complexity ignores the simple reality that other people may enjoy different things and that they too, need options. Nothing you've said explains why Fighter should be the complex class when it can literally be any other class.
So yes, (unless I am misunderstanding you) it may be your opinion that those people should have the simple option they love turned complex. But personally at least, I think that is a very problematic opinion to have.
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.What about the "massive amount of people" who want/need/love MORE FROM THEIR GAME, Bard? You've spent the entirety of several threads now castigating them, shaming them, insisting that they're Wrong Bad People and that giving them any measure of play space would Ruin D&D Forever.
Have you not been monitoring the forums? "Better Martial Combat" has been one of the most frequently requested large-scale fixes to R5e for the last several years. Hundreds of Dungeon Master's Guild products attempt to make martial combat less mind-numbingly boring. Most of the most common and ubiquitous homebrew out there is attempts to patch the humdrum tedium of Basic Bonk. People have been hoping and praying and begging for Better Melee Combat since the game dropped. And yet here you are, four hundred posts later, still telling people that the only thing that matters is that as many classes as possible be stripped of as much "complexity" as possible and as many other areas of the game are made to follow suit because New Players Need Simple, and it's absolutely intolerable that anything which might daunt a New Player in any way for any length of time be allowed to remain in the game.
Why?
Please do not contact or message me.
I liked aspects of 4e Many of which would be unpopular.
My biggest inspiration would be 3.5 ToB type classes which are also unpopular.
The issue is that there are so many different ideas of what a martial should be. Anime/Guy at Gym/Conan ect. Which are hard to separate into subclasses and all fight over the fighter chassis. Which than leaves it not really fitting anyones ideas.
I'm going to try to list some examples of how you could increase the Explicit tactical options of a Fighter, in varying degrees of Mechanical complexity. They are not fully fleshed out. I'm just trying to see where people fall in what they are actually looking for.
So to be clear, the goal here is to create options for a Fighter to take in each turn of combat. They would have Explicit rules explaining how they are done. But they will not all require the same levels of Mechanical complexity or visibility. Because options don't require complex mechanics to offer interesting choices. They just might not all be immediately apparent as advantages at first glance. These examples will have nothing to do with how 'superhuman' the powers are. Just how much work is required to learn them and use them in play.
A) Least Mechanical Complexity -
Change nothing about the Fighter. Create options by making more explicit actions available to everyone in weapon combat. Add more interesting rules for weapon and armor properties. Create more advanced feats and fighting styles with more tactical choices. The fighter will benefit from all of these as the class with the most access to them, and the best stats for them.
B) Optional Mechanical Complexity -
Give the Fighters choices when they create their characters and level up. Some are simple flat bonuses. Some are more complicated like battle master maneuvers. The player gets to make each character as mechanically complex as they desire.
C) Moderate Mechanical Complexity -
Give every Fighter certain Stunts that only they can perform. These can be battle master maneuvers, or something else entirely The more dice/slots/points they have to track, and the more advanced levels of Stunts choices available, the more Mechanical complexity is involved. This is a broad category.
D) Highest Mechanical Complexity -
Make the Fighter work like the Wizard. Have many levels of Stunts, with dozens of options at each level. Use some version of slots, dice, points, or uses to track them all. Each Stunt requires detail descriptions filling an entire section of the book.
All of these examples can provide a much higher level of tactical options in a battle. Some just require more Mechanical rules to learn, choose, and track than others. Do any of these stand out to anyone as the direction they would like to take? Are there other broad categories of mechanical complexity I didn't cover?
Elements of A, B, and C are all highly desirable. I do think an idea spawned by D would be good though, and that's breaking Superiority off of Battlemaster and making it its own thing. Have a section in the PHB for it, something like "Some classes, subclasses, or abilities may grant you access to Superiority. Superiority is a special pool of dice you can use to empower your attacks or occasionally enhance your abilities in other ways. If you have Superiority, you can..." and then describe the system without making reference to it being exclusive to Battlemaster. Make Superiority a class-neutral mechanic that can be tied into other classes, subclasses, feats, or even items, to broaden it out and make it much more useful and impactful.
Please do not contact or message me.
I would argue that pausing combat to pull out the manual to figure out the intricacies of how you are holding your weapons and what style you are using so the DM can figure out how your shortsword damage impacts an enemy differently than the Rapier and Longbow your buddies are using would make combat even more boring than it currently is.
They are not identical. You can do 1d10 with a warhammer by using it with 2 hands. A Warhammer is also a lot better mechanically as far as combat goes, especially in tier 1. A number of common low level enemies are either resistant to piercing and slashing or alternatively they have vulnerability to bludgeoning. This includes skeletons of all types, which are probably the most common undead encountered in tier 1 and early tier 2. Once you get well into tier 2 that advantage goes away.
An optimizer should have a better AC than that mid tiers. A Bladesinger, Sword and board heavy armor caster or artificer should be able to drive that down to about 10%. You should be at either 25 AC with disadvantage or 27-28 without disadvantage.
A 6th level sword and Board Hexadin for example should be at 28 (plate, shield, protection, shield spell, shield of faith). A single-class Bladesinger should be at 25 with disadvantage or 27 without disadvantage (mage armor, dex, intelligence, shield spell and disadvantage through blur or PEG or +2 AC through Haste)
None of the spells you mention is reliably up -- you might have better uses for the action, bonus action, reaction, or spell slot. If you can consistently cast spells before combat the DM is being really generous -- it does happen, but it shouldn't be assumed true by default.