Lemme "simply" say this, BB: Release 5e has no option whatsoever for people who want an 'Advanced' martial class.
It does not exist. No, the Battlemaster does not count. Anyone who tells me "Superiority is too complicated!" is either lying to me or missing something, because Superiority is not complex at all. If you can get your brain around spellcasting - and everybody who runs this game for any length of time can get their brain around spellcasting, even if Wizards insists on making it weird - you can get your brain around Superiority. The Battlemaster is at best an "Intermediate Bonk" class. There is no option for people who want an advanced, high-caliber martial warrior. None. Paladins are not it. Monks are not it. THERE IS NO "IT".
And we're never going to get it, because people keep screaming and shrieking and screeching and caterwauling that 1DD needs to be More Better Simple with no option whatsoever for anyone that wants any god damned meat on their character's bones because tHeN nEw PlAyErS mIgHt GeT cOnFuSeD!!, and keeping one brainless goober from bouncing off the already oversimplified, straightforward rules of D&D is worth telling a hundred thousand "Advanced" players to shut the **** up, get lost, and never play a tabletop game again.
Gods above and below, I am so ****ing sick of this ridiculous 'argument'. Just say what you all f@#$ing mean already - you don't want "advanced" players in the game or at your tables. You want everyone with any clue what they're doing to be barred from playing, because it's easier for y'all to adjudicate the game if nobody you're adjudicating for has any goddamned clue how the game works and you can just make shit up on the spot without worry. Everybody gets to play D&D for precisely the length of one campaign, and then they're banned from the hobby for Beeing Tu Gud.
Yurei, literally no one is saying these things. We ARE saying what we mean. You don't have to make up some secret message behind it. We are giving real examples of real people that enjoy simple classes. People who aren't dumb. I am actively trying to offer real suggestions of how we could please everyone with better rules. I don't even know what you want, aside from superiority dice for everyone and some vague concept of a more advanced class.
You keep fighting these wars against armies of straw. The people you are imitating literally aren't here. No one is screaming or crying. It makes it so hard to support you and help design something better for everyone when you keep characterizing people who don't agree with you as blithering insane morons. I agree with you on a lot of things, and I want to help find a solution you would like. But I can't do it when you keep making these gross exaggerations of people that don't exist.
No one is telling you to play a different game. No one is a moron. Yes, 5e DnD is a relatively simple game. Even for spellcasters. It's good because it's simple. It's good that everyone can play a character as complex as they want to. Every group of classes should have one simple base chasis option. Especially the most popular class for new players - fighters. No one says a Rogue or Sorcerer is too simple, but they're just as 'boring' as fighters, and that's okay. We need simple classes. And we need complex options for advanced players that want them. Not all experienced players even want them. Many intelligent, well versed players, with much more experience at DnD go back to OSR rules for simpler times and party games with friends. And more importantly to what I've been saying, we can make advanced options without making them complicated.
Battlemasters are cool. But the rules don't have to include dice pools and short rests and juggling action economy as much as they do. They can be written better. And we can get even more subclasses like them. And they can coexist with the Champion.
The base fighter chasis can be improved. Some would rightfully argue that the extra feats and variety of subclasses already give a fighter player the option to complicate their character as much or as little as they want. But yes we can do even better. Maybe 8th level feats and higher will give all kinds of cool options. We don't know.
Maybe just try to tell us some examples of what you are looking for without name calling. We might be able to make something great together.
I don't know if Fighters need to be more complex (although I wouldn't be opposed to it), but I do feel, of all the martials, the Fighter should be "the best" at what they do. They are straight forward, but I think they could be better. They are on the right track. They have Action Surge, probably one of the most powerful class features in the game and a reason why many take a 2 level fighter dip to get it and they get the additional ASI's at 6 and 10, and they get up to 4 attacks with the Attack action. They could get something as simple as "when wearing armor, they get an additional +1 to AC, at level 10 it becomes a +2" (basically, remove the Defensive fighting style from the game and make it a Fighter class feature that scales), or as mentioned above they add PB to their damage. Or when they hit with a melee attack, once on a turn, they can knock the target prone or shove 5' (if failed save), or any other myriad of things that the base fighter can have without relying on tracking dice and maneuvers, or limited use abilities. It's one of the things I liked about the 5E Hunter Ranger, you could customize your character a little.
Anyway, I didn't read the other thread, but at one time I thought Battle Master should be the base Fighter class. I don't think that anymore, but I would like to see some improvements. Let's see what the 1D&D UA has to say before we get ahead of ourselves. But it is a fun discussion, as long as we're civil.
I love the idea of an AC bonus. Combined with proficiency bonus added to damage, it would really make martials feel distinctly better at brawling than other classes.
Maybe at 5th level, give martials a bonus to their AC equal to half their proficiency, rounded down. That's high enough level to keep it from being a go-to multiclass pick, scales well, and keeps within the realm of bounded accuracy.
And yes, totally agree, the next UA might answer a lot of these questions. I'm looking forward to it.
Lemme "simply" say this, BB: Release 5e has no option whatsoever for people who want an 'Advanced' martial class.
It does not exist. No, the Battlemaster does not count. Anyone who tells me "Superiority is too complicated!" is either lying to me or missing something, because Superiority is not complex at all. If you can get your brain around spellcasting - and everybody who runs this game for any length of time can get their brain around spellcasting, even if Wizards insists on making it weird - you can get your brain around Superiority. The Battlemaster is at best an "Intermediate Bonk" class. There is no option for people who want an advanced, high-caliber martial warrior. None. Paladins are not it. Monks are not it. THERE IS NO "IT".
And we're never going to get it, because people keep screaming and shrieking and screeching and caterwauling that 1DD needs to be More Better Simple with no option whatsoever for anyone that wants any god damned meat on their character's bones because tHeN nEw PlAyErS mIgHt GeT cOnFuSeD!!, and keeping one brainless goober from bouncing off the already oversimplified, straightforward rules of D&D is worth telling a hundred thousand "Advanced" players to shut the **** up, get lost, and never play a tabletop game again.
Gods above and below, I am so ****ing sick of this ridiculous 'argument'. Just say what you all f@#$ing mean already - you don't want "advanced" players in the game or at your tables. You want everyone with any clue what they're doing to be barred from playing, because it's easier for y'all to adjudicate the game if nobody you're adjudicating for has any goddamned clue how the game works and you can just make shit up on the spot without worry. Everybody gets to play D&D for precisely the length of one campaign, and then they're banned from the hobby for Beeing Tu Gud.
This... this
I love the martial fantasy as a whole just as much as the caster fantasy, because swords are enjoyable by everyone of all ages, rated G for gore when slashed, and yeah. But I'm just... sick of classes with only one option as a whole. I know "just homebrew it" exists (I'm planning to make a full advanced martial class which is a "half-caster" with homebrew martial spells) but it is a terrible thing that 5e doesn't support an actually non-braindead, good martial class with proper utility, combat options, etc and truly fulfills that fantasy, especially when casters get their fantasy plus much more, being stronger than most casters in popular media from lvl 5 + while martial in 5e are just stronk town guard.
I'm happy that lots of people like simple martials, but 5e needs a more advanced option... at least one
Okay. Here is a short, brief, and incomplete view of what I am looking for:
1.) The Fighter class needs to allow a fighter's player to make significant tactical decisions every single round of a combat. I would prefer for every single attack to have significant tactical decision-making involved, but that is likely too high resolution. Nevertheless, in almost every single combat in D&D, The Fighter Man's job is to do one thing, and ONLY one thing - "I use The Attack Action to damage the closest enemy." Fighters do not make tactical decisions. They don't make choices. They don't do things. They use The Attack Action to damage the enemy closest to them, and that is it. It is also 100% utterly, entirely, and inexcusably unacceptable. The game's "Master Warrior", the class people argue is the pinnacle of all things Sword, should not be this lame.
I like Superiority as a slap fix because Superiority offers many of the same exceptional benefits spellcasting does - not only does it allow some modicum of tactical decision-making round over round, but it also allows a fighter to customize and tailor their loadout the same way spellcasters do, which is also something The Fighter Class sorely lacks. Every last single level [X] fighter of a given species is completely 100% identical to every single other fighter of the same level and species.
But we've seen where that goes so huzzah I guess. Every goddamn nitwit says "you can already opt into Superiority by taking a fighting style and a feat, you have what you want already!" WOOOOOOOOO, I can burn two extremely scant and valuable resources on TWO WHOLE MANEUVERS A DAY from a pool of five entire choices. Such dramatic impact! Such a sweeping and transformational change of the class! Such Internet sarcasm! The Arcane Archer is an already-existing example of "I get my signature thing two whole times a day!", and we all know what a sad bad meme-riddled joke the Arcane Archer is.
And before you ask - yes, I've played Arcane Archer. I've bent everything in my power to make what should be the most awesome bow user in all of 5e just tolerable, and I've failed. I've spent hours trying to work out the ways in which AA could be brought up to the level of merely just competent, and in every single case I've run up against the same dumbass limitation - you only get to be an "Arcane Archer" twice per f@#$ing day. And neither of your "Arcane Shots" is anything to write home about even if you're really damn good at picking your moments - and believe me when I say I'm better than many people in this game when it comes to picking my moments.
All of which leads me to...:
2.) Fighter subclasses suck. They. SUCK. Fighter subclasses do almost nothing to improve upon The Fighter Class, and they often do less than nothing to fix The Fighter Class's glaring issues or to change the way the class plays. None of them, none of them, none of them!, with the sole exception of Battlemaster, change the fact that The Fighter Class's only valid option in combat on a given turn is "I use The Attack Action to damage the enemy closest to me." Not Eldritch Knights with their godawful spellcasting, not Arcane Archers with their "I have a subclass twice per day!" bullshit, not Samurai with their "I use a bonus action to make The Attack Action better for a turn!" junk, and certainly not the f@#$ing Champion. The Champion is worse than no subclass at all, allocating Champion as your subclass makes you WORSE THAN A SUBLESS FIGHTER!
Fighter subclasses need to be punchy, powerful, and dramatically change the way the Fighter plays. Choice of subclass should be about more than just which flavor of garnish you put on the already inedible Shit Cake; they should change the function and flavor of the entire thing. Fighter subclasses - and R5e subclasses in general - are weak, anemic, lame and pointless, and I f@#$ing hate that shit. I want my Arcane Archer to be a fearsome and devastating sniper - or, alternatively, a deadly short-range combatant firing flurries of empowered shots from her shortbow. I want my Samurai to be an unparalleled master of the blade. I want my Eldritch Knight to be a forboding and lethal battlemage crackling with barely-contained power. And I want the Champion to F@#$ING DO SOMETHING.
And finally, for the moment...:
3.) I want significant differentiation between weapons. The weapon in your hands should matter - but currently it does no such thing. A character that fights with a shortsword should feel noticeably different in combat than one who fights with a longsword...but they don't. A longsword, a battleaxe, and a warhammer are all functionally identical given how much R5e cares about damage types (to whit: R5e does not care one single dead frog about different damage types). Fighters effectively have three options - the d6 Light weapon, the d8 Versatile weapon, and the d10 Heavy weapon, and frankly even those three are barely distinct from each other. Again, Superiority could go a long way towards fixing that by granting each weapon a weapon-specific maneuver you can only execute while making an attack with that weapon so that what was in your hands mattered, but everybody has decided that Superiority is literally the worst thing humanity has invented since mustard gas sooo............yeah.
What I want is for knowing your shit to be rewarded. The Fighter Class performs exactly the same in the hands of a master player as it does in the hands of a rank rookie running through Baby's First Lost Mines Game because there is so little tactical versatility and flexibility in The Fighter Class that there's nothing the master player can do, or use to influence the character's abilities. The rookie says "I use The Attack Action to damage the enemy closest to me" because they can't think of anything else to do; the master says "I use The Attack Action to damage the enemy closest to me" because they know there's nothing else this stupid abortion of a class can do that's worth more than The Attack Action-ing the nearest enemy.
And that goes against everything I hold to be true and worthwhile in not just a TTRPG, but in any game ever written.
Well, we almost made it three paragraphs before someone got called a damn nitwit, but it's a start!
This is much more productive. Okay, you want three things: More options for a fighter to do on a turn, better subclasses, and more interesting weapon rules. Awesome, I'm on board.
For the first, did you like where I was going with some of my earlier suggestions to give all martial options to disarm, trip, and push on each turn being baked into the class? Is that a good starting point for a possible solution? I hear what you're saying about adding BM maneuvers for a quick fix, but could it be good to simplify those rules and let them do it every turn instead of a number of dice per short rest?
For the second, I agree some subclasses suck pretty bad. This is true for a lot of classes, especially the earlier subclasses. Arcane Archer and Eldritch Knight do not live to to the fantasy. I would prefer a new arcane gish class to appear and to roll these into it. But baring that unlikely event, I'm all for updating these older subclasses. I do rather like the Champion personally. Almost TPK'd a higher level party with a 5th level NPC Champion in one turn once. Luckily she couldn't reach the hidden assassin PC, and had to nobly admit defeat and surrender. But yeah, we can improve that subclass too.
For the third point, I've added my thoughts and some basic ideas in another recent thread for weapon distinctions. Is that the directing you imagine? Or do you want something else? The last UA did say new weapons were coming soon for some classes, but I'm not sure how far it will go.
1.) For the first, did you like where I was going with some of my earlier suggestions to give all martial options to disarm, trip, and push on each turn being baked into the class? Is that a good starting point for a possible solution? I hear what you're saying about adding BM maneuvers for a quick fix, but could it be good to simplify those rules and let them do it every turn instead of a number of dice per short rest?
2.) For the second, I agree some subclasses suck pretty bad. This is true for a lot of classes, especially the earlier subclasses. Arcane Archer and Eldritch Knight do not live to to the fantasy. I would prefer a new arcane gish class to appear and to roll these into it. But baring that unlikely event, I'm all for updating these older subclasses. I do rather like the Champion personally. Almost TPK'd a higher level party with a 5th level NPC Champion in one turn once. Luckily she couldn't reach the hidden assassin PC, and had to nobly admit defeat and surrender. But yeah, we can improve that subclass too.
3.) For the third point, I've added my thoughts and some basic ideas in another recent thread for weapon distinctions. Is that the directing you imagine? Or do you want something else? The last UA did say new weapons were coming soon for some classes, but I'm not sure how far it will go.
1.) My first thought was/is "why are people so weirdly, bizarrely fixated on the idea of avoiding a resource mechanic?" That's been my confusion the whole time. People get downright vicious in their rejection of not only baking Superiority into the base fighter class, but of the existence of the Battle Master in general because: "It's soooooooooo complicated and hard to use, having a pool of dice to do stuff with! Nobody can keep track of it!" They hate the dice pool so much they want Superiority cut from the fighter completely, the Battle Master subclass erased altogether because it's just too complicated, and I'm left scratching my head wondering how...well. Thoughts that would be considered "rude." Like, for real. Put four to six Superiority dice in a cup next to your character sheet. When you spend one, put it back in your dice bag. if you still have dice in the cup? You still have Maneuver Juice.
That said, you already can disarm, trip, and push on your turn. You just have to sacrifice a swing to do it. Which, surprising nobody...is almost never worth it. A disarmed foe can just pick up their weapon again for free on their turn, a tripped foe can stand up freely with no penalties, and a pushed foe generally just walks five feet back into melee. Those things would have to do shit before making them a bigger part of the fighter's kit would matter. And since making anything but The Attack Action actually do shit is also against the Simple Fighter Crowd's credo of "nobody should ever have to make a decision when playing D&D!"..........................................................................
2.) This is a very common refrain with Simple Fighter (and Barbarian, and Rogue, and Sorcerer, and Cleric, and Ranger, and Paladin, and....) sorts: "Just make a new class with all the dumb stupid fancy complicated stuff so we can all ignore it and play with the PHB stuff instead!" No. Here's a question nobody has answered - what happens when you have an entire tableful of Advanced Players? According to the Simple Fighter Crowd(C), Advanced Players are restricted SOLELY AND EXCLUSIVELY to wizard, artificer, and ONE subclass from a very limited number of other classes. They are not allowed to play anything else, because then they're dirtying the beautiful simplicity of R5e with their filthy knowing-stuff hands. So what happens when an entire table of people are Advanced Players?
I'll tell you what happens - everybody fights to get to play the arcane caster, and the other folks all rotate through Butt Plug duty - filling the hole at the end of the line. Tables come up with increasingly baroque homebrew rules to try and make it more interesting and engaging to play the SFC classes, and the whole while the SFC is doing everything in its power to erase depth, engagement, and fun from every last single player-facing option except wizards - and frankly, wizards aren't complex. They are, in fact, exceedingly simple classes because they have no class features except Spellcasting. They're "complucayted" only inasmuch as someone cannot grasp the spells on their sheet, because wizards are literally nothing but a flimsy bag of arcane stunts.
So yeah. Not in favor of the oft-touted solution of "making complucayted classes later and eliminating all depth, engagement and fun from the PHB." Mostly because the SFC will ensure that the depth, engagement, and fun never comes back by campaigning and crusading to avoid the release of any new content that breaks their paradigm of "nobody should have to make a decision when playing D&D!" Just look at the artificer - a forgotten class with one post-release subclass and omitted entirely from One D&D. Do you think that's honestly a good solution for Advanced Players? Be real with me here, Steg - do you truly think that's the solution?
3.) Ideas found in The Other Thread are, frankly, so basic I don't know what they'd do the current system does not. We already have keywords that differentiate weapons. Most of them are just bad and don't do anything. Name me one single D&D player that regularly switches between one and two-handed grips on a "versatile" weapon. One. I'll wait. But not for long because there are none. What keywords could possibly make anything better, and how does that fix the deplorable state of armor in 5e? No. Weapons have to do things, not just be passive things that you only care about when it's time to take The Attack Action to damage the enemy closest to you.
1) I meant for these disarm/trip/push actions to be part of the Attack. So you would get to do the damage, AND have an affect on the battlefield. I also intentionally made them more effective than the current offerings. Disarming someone and having their sword fall at their feet isn't very useful I agree. At least throwing it 10 feet away makes them have to leave your reach to get it, and risk an attack of opportunity. And short rest dice mechanics aren't horrible, they're just unnecessary. You can let the player do these moves every round, gain a smaller amount of consistent damage, and end up with the same or better results.
2) I was saying we should improve ALL of the old subclasses, not ignore them. While I would like a true arcane gish option, and the Arcane Archer and Eldrith Knight would fit in there well, I don't expect it will happen soon. So I'm good with making those subclasses much better now. (I too also want the Artificer. It's a good well-balanced class)
3) I just had a character that switched between versatile options. But that's beside the point. I was saying that keywords are a good place to add rules to give different weapons variety. I gave some examples of what that might look like. Like heavy two-handed weapons get a power attack option. They weren't very detailed, I know, but I haven't given it much thought yet.
I don't know who these people are that say no one should have to make a decision. Maybe they exist, but I haven't met them. I'm only saying that the mechanics of those decisions should be elegant, and they should have meaningful results. That's all.
Pathfinder is chock full of decisions, skill trees, multiple actions, and modifiers. Some people love it. But there are a lot of people that realize none of it really matters after playing for awhile. That they end up doing the same thing over and over in combat. They stand in one place and cycle through cooldowns like an MMO. I'm not trying to say there's anything wrong with the game, but I do know I'm not interested in it (Though it does have a pretty nice starter box set). Because all the crunchy rules in the world don't matter if the outcome is the same.
So if my suggestions are lame, that's cool. What would you rather see? Like what would an example be of a fighter skill or a weapon trait that would satisfy your desire for advanced play, and still flow easily?
On a note of optimism, they (WotC) seem like they are heading in the right direction, in some part, with 1D&D. If they survive play test, Unarmed strikes can damage, grapple, shove. Light weapons give TWF as part of the attack action. Maybe we will see some changes to how damage types work, versatile or heavy weapons work.
It would be interesting if the Slasher, Piercer, Crusher feats were removed and became abilities of the Fighter, when wielding those types of weapons. Or something along those lines to make the Fighter stand out when they have the same weapon as the character next to them.
I agree, I'm really excited by the direction they seem to be going with things like you mention. The changes to unarmed strikes and two weapons are great. With only two releases, it looks like there is no reason to take a two-handed weapon when you can fight with two weapons instead. So I think we will see even more enhancements to those heavy weapons when the Warriors come out. And I like the idea of rolling feats into weapons or class abilities. I could even imagine warriors getting critical hits on a 19 or 20 as a baseline, and having special effects on the crits. Looking forward to the next UA.
I'm not necessarily against every idea, Steg. Though I will say that allowing resource-free, do-whenever-you-want access to maneuvers has unintended consequences. How tired is a DM going to be of their fighter disarming every enemy they come across, or knocking every single enemy they fight prone every single turn. What seems like an easy, in-the-moment resolution turns into a constant drag on the DM because the fighter will - without any fault and well within the rules - use his shiny toy to get on the DM's last nerve. There's a reason those things require saves and generally don't allow you to piggyback on an attack without some sort of penalty or expenditure.
As well, things you don't get to do at will are allowed to be punchier than things you do. It's another reason I'm a fan of Superiority - maneuvcers get to do more than a basic, at-will action can because there's a limit to how often they can be employed. Just like spells can do more than a basic action can because there's a sharp limit to them, whatever "mages have too many spell slots!" people think. Yes, stripping away the resource management allows turn-my-brain-off Pizza and BS-style D&D players to better access the system, but that will in turn force the system to be weaker and less impactful than it might otherwise be.
Do we really want that, considering the whole issue is that martials never get to make impactful decisions in the first place?
I’ve been playing nearly 40 years, and fighters are still my favorite class. They’re my go-to. And if you think they don’t make tactical decisions just because the base class lacks some kind of limited resource mechanic, we’ll, you probably don’t play a fighter. First, every subclass save the champion has a limited resource. And even then, there’s choices to make. Yes, you do end up hitting the guy next to you, but if you don’t put tactical thought into who is next to you, you’re not doing your job.
The thing is, baseline fighters serve an important meta game role. Being simple to play is kind of the point. They can be the training wheels character. The one you give you little brother or sister who is learning the game. There needs to be an option like that. That’s why it’s tough to include things like maneuvers in the base class. You can add all kinds of funky options to the subclasses, but there has to be an option for here’s a couple passive bonuses, now just go hit the bad guy and don’t worry about the rest.
Oh it's no problem. Just to be clear, because tone is tough to get across online, I an genuinely not at all bothered if any of my ideas aren't well received. I was just throwing things out to see if that was a direction that might appeal to people. I'm not attached to any of them. I was really just trying to guess what people were looking for. I'm not a game designer, and nothing would get through actual playtesting completely unscathed even if I was. So I'm totally fine if those ideas were misses. :)
My thought process on those suggestions was based on the fact that battle master maneuvers are a bit... overworked. You can get the same effect much more simply. A battle master gets 4 dice and 3 maneuvers to start with. The dice come back on a short rest. Since short rests are definitely controversial, and dice pools aren't fun for everyone, I was looking at a way to remove both from the equation and boost all martials at the same time.
If you are playing with 6-8 encounters and two short rests a day as they intended (but almost no one does) then we can plan out how maneuvers usually work. A typical fight lasts an average of 2-3 rounds, or that's how the game was designed at least. With 2 encounters per rest, that's about 5 rounds of fighting, assuming all of the encounters are actual combats and not other types like social encounters or traps. So even at level 3, a battle master has enough resources to do a maneuver almost once per round. Some of them go 'nova' and blow them all up front, but it's safe to say you can use roughly 1 every round or two already.
A maneuver has two components, usually extra damage and an effect. Sometimes just a bonus to a roll.
So we could emulate the same outcome by letting all martials get a short list of 3 solid maneuvers. Let them attempt one every time they take an attack action (one per round, not individual attack). Have the target creature make a save so it doesn't always work. And just add a flat dependable base bonus to damage by letting martials add their proficiency bonus when no one else can.
This would effectively give every martial the same average damage increase, and the ability to make decisions every round, with about the same overall effect they would get from using superiority dice. An extra d8 every other round is roughly the same as +2 damage. But a proficiency bonus to damage scales even better at higher levels with more attacks and higher bonus. A battle master at 15th level has 6 dice to use over two fights. They are still averaging an extra 1d8 on every round, or 5 extra damage per round. A fighter that adds proficiency bonus to damage at the same level would be making 3 attacks or more every round, adding at least 15 damage, and still getting some basic maneuvers. I felt like that simple fix would go a long way towards bringing martials power more in line with spellcasters. And it's not dependant on how many encounters are planned for a day.
The goals with that idea was to simplify the battle master mechanic for those who want it easier, give the same (or better) effects more elegantly, and offer more tactical options to every martial character. There should still also be a BM subclass for those who want more choices and extra bursts of power.
It's totally okay if that's not exactly what you're looking for. I was just trying to find an example of a good solution for everyone. A lot of complexity can be removed from abilities without sacrificing the effects or the options. I felt like every fighter player would love to do more damage than their other party members with the same weapons. And the option to disarm, trip, or shove once per round would give tactical options that aren't overwhelming if they are tempered by a saving throw, and are easy to remember.
That was just my thought process. Kind of a... design intent to please as many people as possible. But I'm excited to hear any other suggestions.
... The thing is, baseline fighters serve an important meta game role. Being simple to play is kind of the point. They can be the training wheels character. The one you give you little brother or sister who is learning the game. There needs to be an option like that. ...
Cool.
Where's the f@#$ing option for people who're done with the training wheels? Where's the option for people who know what they're doing and are ready to actually have an impact on the party's adventures?
Oh, right - THERE F@#$ING ISN'T ONE!
Why not, Xaltu? Why isn't there an option for advanced players that isn't "just play a wizard you stupid f@#$ing knowing-stuff *******!" or "go play a different game if you aren't down for turn-your-brain-off Pizza and BS where nothing matters and nobody cares about anything that happens because it's all just random ****ery anyways"? Where is it?
Where the f@#$ is it? Why don't we have it? Why do the Simple Fighter Crowd get to win every single god damn time and over-simplify every last single class in the game INCLUDING F@#$ING WIZARDS because they're petrified of someone having to actually learn a few rules before they play the god damned game?
Assuming we’re restricting the conversation to fighters, there’s the battle master. Or the rune knight. Or psi knight. Or the echo knight. Or eldritch knight. Each of them has limited resources and you have to make meaningful decisions about when and where to deploy them. And in some you choose which options you add.
Then there’s cavaliers, arcane archers and samurais that fall somewhere in between. I suppose technically, there’s purple dragon knights, but, well, I’m not quite sure what to say about them. They can’t all be winners.
Out of combat, many of those subclasses also add a skill proficiency or two, so you have some expanded options. When you couple that with a thoughtful background choice (something an advanced player should be quite capable of) you get a very well-rounded character. One who can contribute out of combat, and has interesting choices to make in combat.
If all that doesn’t fit the bill, I’m not quite sure what it is you’re after.
The point is, there needs to be room for the champion or something like it. It’s relatively easy to add more complexity buttons and levers through subclasses and even feats. But it’s really hard to remove them from the chassis. If you add complexity to the base class, you remove the simple option for everyone.
So we're just not allowed to have ANY martial characters that are deeper and more engaging to run than "Grognak hit bad guy!", because literally ****off everything has to be as offensively bland, boring, and actively detrimental to gameplay as the Champion fighter.
Cool. Cool cool cool. Glad we got that sorted.
This is why I hate this conversation, by the way, Steg. People who haven't been 'new players' in a decade or more insisting that all New Players are so fundamentally stupid and unable to grasp even the most basic of concepts that literally the only thing they can be trusted to play without being an egregious game-ruining ****-up is a Champion ****mothering Fighter. What a horrible attitude to have.
Just say what you all f@#$ing mean already - you don't want "advanced" players in the game or at your tables. You want everyone with any clue what they're doing to be barred from playing, because it's easier for y'all to adjudicate the game if nobody you're adjudicating for has any goddamned clue how the game works and you can just make shit up on the spot without worry. Everybody gets to play D&D for precisely the length of one campaign, and then they're banned from the hobby for Beeing Tu Gud.
That really isn't what I mean. In fact, it's the exact opposite of what I've been trying to say; my goal is for everyone to have options to play at my table. I want both new and advanced players to have options at my table. By turning every "simple" option you see into a complex one, you ensure that only one of those two groups is easily able to enjoy and play not just at your table, but at every table that plays D&D.
2.) This is a very common refrain with Simple Fighter (and Barbarian, and Rogue, and Sorcerer, and Cleric, and Ranger, and Paladin, and....) sorts: "Just make a new class with all the dumb stupid fancy complicated stuff so we can all ignore it and play with the PHB stuff instead!" No. Here's a question nobody has answered - what happens when you have an entire tableful of Advanced Players? According to the Simple Fighter Crowd(C), Advanced Players are restricted SOLELY AND EXCLUSIVELY to wizard, artificer, and ONE subclass from a very limited number of other classes. They are not allowed to play anything else, because then they're dirtying the beautiful simplicity of R5e with their filthy knowing-stuff hands. So what happens when an entire table of people are Advanced Players?
Sigh. Not only does Fighter already have numerous ways to play it complexly, but you already have multiple other classes that were made solely for people like you who want complexity. On the other hand, players who want simplicity only have one class; yet you still are determined to take that one class away from them, merely to add on to what you already have. You are complaining about other people limiting your options, and your way to resolve this problem is by limiting other peoples options instead.
Yes, each and every one of us knows that the Superiority mechanic does not seem complicated to you. But as I literally spent 7 pages explaining in the other thread that while it may not seem complicated to you, forcing every new player who wants to play a "simple" Fighter to deal with an elaborate maneuver based system simply is not fair. You can literally give any other class Superiority, and as you explained in this thread, the system "is extremely flexible and diverse" and can easily be put in any class, so why are you so determined to put it in the one class that is set out for players who enjoy simpler options?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
So we're just not allowed to have ANY martial characters that are deeper and more engaging to run than "Grognak hit bad guy!", because literally ****off everything has to be as offensively bland, boring, and actively detrimental to gameplay as the Champion fighter.
Siiiigh is right. I just gave a list of fighters that are deeper and more engaging to run than just “hit the bad guy.” Which is to say all of them, except for champion.
And if you want to talk martials in general, the list gets even longer.
Why are you so opposed to there being one option that is just, “hit bad guy.” That’s what some people want.
Have you ever played in a game with a champion fighter? They are far from actively detrimental. Not flashy, but effective.
So we're just not allowed to have ANY martial characters that are deeper and more engaging to run than "Grognak hit bad guy!", because literally ****off everything has to be as offensively bland, boring, and actively detrimental to gameplay as the Champion fighter.
Siiiigh is right. I just gave a list of fighters that are deeper and more engaging to run than just “hit the bad guy.” Which is to say all of them, except for champion.
And if you want to talk martials in general, the list gets even longer.
Why are you so opposed to there being one option that is just, “hit bad guy.” That’s what some people want.
Have you ever played in a game with a champion fighter? They are far from actively detrimental. Not flashy, but effective.
What Xalthu said ^
I would like to add that there is nothing wrong with enjoying "simpler" classes and subclasses like Champion. Champions problem is that it needs to be a bit stronger mechanically, there is nothing wrong with having a subclass geared towards less advanced players, just as having subclasses geared towards more advanced players isn't a problem either. (And yes, I know what I'm talking about, I played Champion on repeat when I was new.)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
The thing is, baseline fighters serve an important meta game role. Being simple to play is kind of the point. They can be the training wheels character. The one you give you little brother or sister who is learning the game. There needs to be an option like that. That’s why it’s tough to include things like maneuvers in the base class. You can add all kinds of funky options to the subclasses, but there has to be an option for here’s a couple passive bonuses, now just go hit the bad guy and don’t worry about the rest.
You can play a complex class in a simple way. Pick a wizard and spam fireballs all day. It's a valid option. But you can't play a simple class in a complex way, it just lacks tools. Which is why all classes need complexity and customization. You can just have that one basic subclass for the "new players", it's not like they need choices anyway, it's not something a "new player" could handle.
You can't play a simple class in a complex way, it just lacks tools. Which is why all classes need complexity and customization. You can just have that one basic subclass for the "new players", it's not like they need choices anyway, it's not something a "new player" could handle.
Actually, you can play a "simple" class in a complex way. It's called subclasses, backgrounds, feats, and the ability to use your brain and think as opposed to just hitting what is right in front of you. If you make the base class super complicated, then anyone who plays that class will have to deal with all that complexity, regardless of what subclass they pick. Not only that, but you already have numerous options for "complexity and customization" available to you, you don't need to shunt everybody who likes those less into one subclass just to expand on what you already have.
You can play a complex class in a simple way. Pick a wizard and spam fireballs all day. It's a valid option.
Firstly, let me say that it is very hard to play a complex class simply if all the complicated mechanics are in the base class with no way to avoid them. If you are a Wizard just spamming Fireball, then not only will you lose all your 3rd level spell slots, but you will suffer mechanically because that's usually not optimal play. A simpler option doesn't necessarily mean a drastically less powerful option, and not only does it take lots of work to find simpler alternatives to complex options, but the system makes it so reusing the same spells over and over is inefficient at best.
Also, I explained this repeatedly in the other thread, but forcing everyone who wants to play a "simple" class to use Superiority is flat-out unfair. While you can limit the degree to which Superiority is complicated, you can only do it to a small extent. A more accurate statement for your original post would be that optional complexity (complexity that is in places such as subclasses, so you can choose to ignore or use it) allows for further customization and depth, while allowing simplicity for those who want it. That being said, saying complexity put into a base class can be ignored is simply not true.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
I think what Yurei, kamchatmonk, and others are saying is that it isn't enough to boost the power level of Fighters. We are looking for the same level of complexity as a wizard or cleric. And the complexity should increase in a real way as you gain levels. Gaining access to higher level spells is far more interesting than getting an extra attack. And this is something that happens every other level for a wizard.
At level 7, the battlemaster gets two more maneuvers, chosen from the same list they used at level 3. Which means you are now picking your 5th and 6th favorites. Plus you get one extra use. Whereas the casters get a brand new spell level, with unique options not available before.
The battlemaster doesn't get another die until level 15. They get two more maneuvers at level 10 and 15 (still from the same list). During that time, the caster got 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th level spells.
A reflavored War Cleric is a good example of what we want. Names in parentheses are just my off the cuff ideas for new names, don't judge.
Now imagine adding more options tailored made for a fighter.
The game allows casters to have fun, unique choices that increase as you gain levels. But fighters get more of the same thing they did at the early levels. I want to have new options at higher levels, and I want them to be more than just dealing more damage plus a minor effect.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Yurei, literally no one is saying these things. We ARE saying what we mean. You don't have to make up some secret message behind it. We are giving real examples of real people that enjoy simple classes. People who aren't dumb. I am actively trying to offer real suggestions of how we could please everyone with better rules. I don't even know what you want, aside from superiority dice for everyone and some vague concept of a more advanced class.
You keep fighting these wars against armies of straw. The people you are imitating literally aren't here. No one is screaming or crying. It makes it so hard to support you and help design something better for everyone when you keep characterizing people who don't agree with you as blithering insane morons. I agree with you on a lot of things, and I want to help find a solution you would like. But I can't do it when you keep making these gross exaggerations of people that don't exist.
No one is telling you to play a different game. No one is a moron. Yes, 5e DnD is a relatively simple game. Even for spellcasters. It's good because it's simple. It's good that everyone can play a character as complex as they want to. Every group of classes should have one simple base chasis option. Especially the most popular class for new players - fighters. No one says a Rogue or Sorcerer is too simple, but they're just as 'boring' as fighters, and that's okay. We need simple classes. And we need complex options for advanced players that want them. Not all experienced players even want them. Many intelligent, well versed players, with much more experience at DnD go back to OSR rules for simpler times and party games with friends. And more importantly to what I've been saying, we can make advanced options without making them complicated.
Battlemasters are cool. But the rules don't have to include dice pools and short rests and juggling action economy as much as they do. They can be written better. And we can get even more subclasses like them. And they can coexist with the Champion.
The base fighter chasis can be improved. Some would rightfully argue that the extra feats and variety of subclasses already give a fighter player the option to complicate their character as much or as little as they want. But yes we can do even better. Maybe 8th level feats and higher will give all kinds of cool options. We don't know.
Maybe just try to tell us some examples of what you are looking for without name calling. We might be able to make something great together.
I love the idea of an AC bonus. Combined with proficiency bonus added to damage, it would really make martials feel distinctly better at brawling than other classes.
Maybe at 5th level, give martials a bonus to their AC equal to half their proficiency, rounded down. That's high enough level to keep it from being a go-to multiclass pick, scales well, and keeps within the realm of bounded accuracy.
And yes, totally agree, the next UA might answer a lot of these questions. I'm looking forward to it.
This...
this
I love the martial fantasy as a whole just as much as the caster fantasy, because swords are enjoyable by everyone of all ages, rated G for gore when slashed, and yeah. But I'm just... sick of classes with only one option as a whole. I know "just homebrew it" exists (I'm planning to make a full advanced martial class which is a "half-caster" with homebrew martial spells) but it is a terrible thing that 5e doesn't support an actually non-braindead, good martial class with proper utility, combat options, etc and truly fulfills that fantasy, especially when casters get their fantasy plus much more, being stronger than most casters in popular media from lvl 5 + while martial in 5e are just stronk town guard.
I'm happy that lots of people like simple martials, but 5e needs a more advanced option... at least one
Okay. Here is a short, brief, and incomplete view of what I am looking for:
1.) The Fighter class needs to allow a fighter's player to make significant tactical decisions every single round of a combat. I would prefer for every single attack to have significant tactical decision-making involved, but that is likely too high resolution. Nevertheless, in almost every single combat in D&D, The Fighter Man's job is to do one thing, and ONLY one thing - "I use The Attack Action to damage the closest enemy." Fighters do not make tactical decisions. They don't make choices. They don't do things. They use The Attack Action to damage the enemy closest to them, and that is it. It is also 100% utterly, entirely, and inexcusably unacceptable. The game's "Master Warrior", the class people argue is the pinnacle of all things Sword, should not be this lame.
I like Superiority as a slap fix because Superiority offers many of the same exceptional benefits spellcasting does - not only does it allow some modicum of tactical decision-making round over round, but it also allows a fighter to customize and tailor their loadout the same way spellcasters do, which is also something The Fighter Class sorely lacks. Every last single level [X] fighter of a given species is completely 100% identical to every single other fighter of the same level and species.
But we've seen where that goes so huzzah I guess. Every goddamn nitwit says "you can already opt into Superiority by taking a fighting style and a feat, you have what you want already!" WOOOOOOOOO, I can burn two extremely scant and valuable resources on TWO WHOLE MANEUVERS A DAY from a pool of five entire choices. Such dramatic impact! Such a sweeping and transformational change of the class! Such Internet sarcasm! The Arcane Archer is an already-existing example of "I get my signature thing two whole times a day!", and we all know what a sad bad meme-riddled joke the Arcane Archer is.
And before you ask - yes, I've played Arcane Archer. I've bent everything in my power to make what should be the most awesome bow user in all of 5e just tolerable, and I've failed. I've spent hours trying to work out the ways in which AA could be brought up to the level of merely just competent, and in every single case I've run up against the same dumbass limitation - you only get to be an "Arcane Archer" twice per f@#$ing day. And neither of your "Arcane Shots" is anything to write home about even if you're really damn good at picking your moments - and believe me when I say I'm better than many people in this game when it comes to picking my moments.
All of which leads me to...:
2.) Fighter subclasses suck. They. SUCK. Fighter subclasses do almost nothing to improve upon The Fighter Class, and they often do less than nothing to fix The Fighter Class's glaring issues or to change the way the class plays. None of them, none of them, none of them!, with the sole exception of Battlemaster, change the fact that The Fighter Class's only valid option in combat on a given turn is "I use The Attack Action to damage the enemy closest to me." Not Eldritch Knights with their godawful spellcasting, not Arcane Archers with their "I have a subclass twice per day!" bullshit, not Samurai with their "I use a bonus action to make The Attack Action better for a turn!" junk, and certainly not the f@#$ing Champion. The Champion is worse than no subclass at all, allocating Champion as your subclass makes you WORSE THAN A SUBLESS FIGHTER!
Fighter subclasses need to be punchy, powerful, and dramatically change the way the Fighter plays. Choice of subclass should be about more than just which flavor of garnish you put on the already inedible Shit Cake; they should change the function and flavor of the entire thing. Fighter subclasses - and R5e subclasses in general - are weak, anemic, lame and pointless, and I f@#$ing hate that shit. I want my Arcane Archer to be a fearsome and devastating sniper - or, alternatively, a deadly short-range combatant firing flurries of empowered shots from her shortbow. I want my Samurai to be an unparalleled master of the blade. I want my Eldritch Knight to be a forboding and lethal battlemage crackling with barely-contained power. And I want the Champion to F@#$ING DO SOMETHING.
And finally, for the moment...:
3.) I want significant differentiation between weapons. The weapon in your hands should matter - but currently it does no such thing. A character that fights with a shortsword should feel noticeably different in combat than one who fights with a longsword...but they don't. A longsword, a battleaxe, and a warhammer are all functionally identical given how much R5e cares about damage types (to whit: R5e does not care one single dead frog about different damage types). Fighters effectively have three options - the d6 Light weapon, the d8 Versatile weapon, and the d10 Heavy weapon, and frankly even those three are barely distinct from each other. Again, Superiority could go a long way towards fixing that by granting each weapon a weapon-specific maneuver you can only execute while making an attack with that weapon so that what was in your hands mattered, but everybody has decided that Superiority is literally the worst thing humanity has invented since mustard gas sooo............yeah.
What I want is for knowing your shit to be rewarded. The Fighter Class performs exactly the same in the hands of a master player as it does in the hands of a rank rookie running through Baby's First Lost Mines Game because there is so little tactical versatility and flexibility in The Fighter Class that there's nothing the master player can do, or use to influence the character's abilities. The rookie says "I use The Attack Action to damage the enemy closest to me" because they can't think of anything else to do; the master says "I use The Attack Action to damage the enemy closest to me" because they know there's nothing else this stupid abortion of a class can do that's worth more than The Attack Action-ing the nearest enemy.
And that goes against everything I hold to be true and worthwhile in not just a TTRPG, but in any game ever written.
Please do not contact or message me.
Well, we almost made it three paragraphs before someone got called a damn nitwit, but it's a start!
This is much more productive. Okay, you want three things: More options for a fighter to do on a turn, better subclasses, and more interesting weapon rules. Awesome, I'm on board.
For the first, did you like where I was going with some of my earlier suggestions to give all martial options to disarm, trip, and push on each turn being baked into the class? Is that a good starting point for a possible solution? I hear what you're saying about adding BM maneuvers for a quick fix, but could it be good to simplify those rules and let them do it every turn instead of a number of dice per short rest?
For the second, I agree some subclasses suck pretty bad. This is true for a lot of classes, especially the earlier subclasses. Arcane Archer and Eldritch Knight do not live to to the fantasy. I would prefer a new arcane gish class to appear and to roll these into it. But baring that unlikely event, I'm all for updating these older subclasses. I do rather like the Champion personally. Almost TPK'd a higher level party with a 5th level NPC Champion in one turn once. Luckily she couldn't reach the hidden assassin PC, and had to nobly admit defeat and surrender. But yeah, we can improve that subclass too.
For the third point, I've added my thoughts and some basic ideas in another recent thread for weapon distinctions. Is that the directing you imagine? Or do you want something else? The last UA did say new weapons were coming soon for some classes, but I'm not sure how far it will go.
1.) My first thought was/is "why are people so weirdly, bizarrely fixated on the idea of avoiding a resource mechanic?" That's been my confusion the whole time. People get downright vicious in their rejection of not only baking Superiority into the base fighter class, but of the existence of the Battle Master in general because: "It's soooooooooo complicated and hard to use, having a pool of dice to do stuff with! Nobody can keep track of it!" They hate the dice pool so much they want Superiority cut from the fighter completely, the Battle Master subclass erased altogether because it's just too complicated, and I'm left scratching my head wondering how...well. Thoughts that would be considered "rude." Like, for real. Put four to six Superiority dice in a cup next to your character sheet. When you spend one, put it back in your dice bag. if you still have dice in the cup? You still have Maneuver Juice.
That said, you already can disarm, trip, and push on your turn. You just have to sacrifice a swing to do it. Which, surprising nobody...is almost never worth it. A disarmed foe can just pick up their weapon again for free on their turn, a tripped foe can stand up freely with no penalties, and a pushed foe generally just walks five feet back into melee. Those things would have to do shit before making them a bigger part of the fighter's kit would matter. And since making anything but The Attack Action actually do shit is also against the Simple Fighter Crowd's credo of "nobody should ever have to make a decision when playing D&D!"..........................................................................
2.) This is a very common refrain with Simple Fighter (and Barbarian, and Rogue, and Sorcerer, and Cleric, and Ranger, and Paladin, and....) sorts: "Just make a new class with all the dumb stupid fancy complicated stuff so we can all ignore it and play with the PHB stuff instead!" No. Here's a question nobody has answered - what happens when you have an entire tableful of Advanced Players? According to the Simple Fighter Crowd(C), Advanced Players are restricted SOLELY AND EXCLUSIVELY to wizard, artificer, and ONE subclass from a very limited number of other classes. They are not allowed to play anything else, because then they're dirtying the beautiful simplicity of R5e with their filthy knowing-stuff hands. So what happens when an entire table of people are Advanced Players?
I'll tell you what happens - everybody fights to get to play the arcane caster, and the other folks all rotate through Butt Plug duty - filling the hole at the end of the line. Tables come up with increasingly baroque homebrew rules to try and make it more interesting and engaging to play the SFC classes, and the whole while the SFC is doing everything in its power to erase depth, engagement, and fun from every last single player-facing option except wizards - and frankly, wizards aren't complex. They are, in fact, exceedingly simple classes because they have no class features except Spellcasting. They're "complucayted" only inasmuch as someone cannot grasp the spells on their sheet, because wizards are literally nothing but a flimsy bag of arcane stunts.
So yeah. Not in favor of the oft-touted solution of "making complucayted classes later and eliminating all depth, engagement and fun from the PHB." Mostly because the SFC will ensure that the depth, engagement, and fun never comes back by campaigning and crusading to avoid the release of any new content that breaks their paradigm of "nobody should have to make a decision when playing D&D!" Just look at the artificer - a forgotten class with one post-release subclass and omitted entirely from One D&D. Do you think that's honestly a good solution for Advanced Players? Be real with me here, Steg - do you truly think that's the solution?
3.) Ideas found in The Other Thread are, frankly, so basic I don't know what they'd do the current system does not. We already have keywords that differentiate weapons. Most of them are just bad and don't do anything. Name me one single D&D player that regularly switches between one and two-handed grips on a "versatile" weapon. One. I'll wait. But not for long because there are none. What keywords could possibly make anything better, and how does that fix the deplorable state of armor in 5e? No. Weapons have to do things, not just be passive things that you only care about when it's time to take The Attack Action to damage the enemy closest to you.
Please do not contact or message me.
Okay, not a fan of my ideas, that's alright.
To clarify a few things though,
1) I meant for these disarm/trip/push actions to be part of the Attack. So you would get to do the damage, AND have an affect on the battlefield. I also intentionally made them more effective than the current offerings. Disarming someone and having their sword fall at their feet isn't very useful I agree. At least throwing it 10 feet away makes them have to leave your reach to get it, and risk an attack of opportunity. And short rest dice mechanics aren't horrible, they're just unnecessary. You can let the player do these moves every round, gain a smaller amount of consistent damage, and end up with the same or better results.
2) I was saying we should improve ALL of the old subclasses, not ignore them. While I would like a true arcane gish option, and the Arcane Archer and Eldrith Knight would fit in there well, I don't expect it will happen soon. So I'm good with making those subclasses much better now. (I too also want the Artificer. It's a good well-balanced class)
3) I just had a character that switched between versatile options. But that's beside the point. I was saying that keywords are a good place to add rules to give different weapons variety. I gave some examples of what that might look like. Like heavy two-handed weapons get a power attack option. They weren't very detailed, I know, but I haven't given it much thought yet.
I don't know who these people are that say no one should have to make a decision. Maybe they exist, but I haven't met them. I'm only saying that the mechanics of those decisions should be elegant, and they should have meaningful results. That's all.
Pathfinder is chock full of decisions, skill trees, multiple actions, and modifiers. Some people love it. But there are a lot of people that realize none of it really matters after playing for awhile. That they end up doing the same thing over and over in combat. They stand in one place and cycle through cooldowns like an MMO. I'm not trying to say there's anything wrong with the game, but I do know I'm not interested in it (Though it does have a pretty nice starter box set). Because all the crunchy rules in the world don't matter if the outcome is the same.
So if my suggestions are lame, that's cool. What would you rather see? Like what would an example be of a fighter skill or a weapon trait that would satisfy your desire for advanced play, and still flow easily?
On a note of optimism, they (WotC) seem like they are heading in the right direction, in some part, with 1D&D. If they survive play test, Unarmed strikes can damage, grapple, shove. Light weapons give TWF as part of the attack action. Maybe we will see some changes to how damage types work, versatile or heavy weapons work.
It would be interesting if the Slasher, Piercer, Crusher feats were removed and became abilities of the Fighter, when wielding those types of weapons. Or something along those lines to make the Fighter stand out when they have the same weapon as the character next to them.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
I agree, I'm really excited by the direction they seem to be going with things like you mention. The changes to unarmed strikes and two weapons are great. With only two releases, it looks like there is no reason to take a two-handed weapon when you can fight with two weapons instead. So I think we will see even more enhancements to those heavy weapons when the Warriors come out. And I like the idea of rolling feats into weapons or class abilities. I could even imagine warriors getting critical hits on a 19 or 20 as a baseline, and having special effects on the crits. Looking forward to the next UA.
Sigh.
I'm not necessarily against every idea, Steg. Though I will say that allowing resource-free, do-whenever-you-want access to maneuvers has unintended consequences. How tired is a DM going to be of their fighter disarming every enemy they come across, or knocking every single enemy they fight prone every single turn. What seems like an easy, in-the-moment resolution turns into a constant drag on the DM because the fighter will - without any fault and well within the rules - use his shiny toy to get on the DM's last nerve. There's a reason those things require saves and generally don't allow you to piggyback on an attack without some sort of penalty or expenditure.
As well, things you don't get to do at will are allowed to be punchier than things you do. It's another reason I'm a fan of Superiority - maneuvcers get to do more than a basic, at-will action can because there's a limit to how often they can be employed. Just like spells can do more than a basic action can because there's a sharp limit to them, whatever "mages have too many spell slots!" people think. Yes, stripping away the resource management allows turn-my-brain-off Pizza and BS-style D&D players to better access the system, but that will in turn force the system to be weaker and less impactful than it might otherwise be.
Do we really want that, considering the whole issue is that martials never get to make impactful decisions in the first place?
Please do not contact or message me.
I’ve been playing nearly 40 years, and fighters are still my favorite class. They’re my go-to. And if you think they don’t make tactical decisions just because the base class lacks some kind of limited resource mechanic, we’ll, you probably don’t play a fighter. First, every subclass save the champion has a limited resource. And even then, there’s choices to make. Yes, you do end up hitting the guy next to you, but if you don’t put tactical thought into who is next to you, you’re not doing your job.
The thing is, baseline fighters serve an important meta game role. Being simple to play is kind of the point. They can be the training wheels character. The one you give you little brother or sister who is learning the game. There needs to be an option like that. That’s why it’s tough to include things like maneuvers in the base class. You can add all kinds of funky options to the subclasses, but there has to be an option for here’s a couple passive bonuses, now just go hit the bad guy and don’t worry about the rest.
Oh it's no problem. Just to be clear, because tone is tough to get across online, I an genuinely not at all bothered if any of my ideas aren't well received. I was just throwing things out to see if that was a direction that might appeal to people. I'm not attached to any of them. I was really just trying to guess what people were looking for. I'm not a game designer, and nothing would get through actual playtesting completely unscathed even if I was. So I'm totally fine if those ideas were misses. :)
My thought process on those suggestions was based on the fact that battle master maneuvers are a bit... overworked. You can get the same effect much more simply. A battle master gets 4 dice and 3 maneuvers to start with. The dice come back on a short rest. Since short rests are definitely controversial, and dice pools aren't fun for everyone, I was looking at a way to remove both from the equation and boost all martials at the same time.
If you are playing with 6-8 encounters and two short rests a day as they intended (but almost no one does) then we can plan out how maneuvers usually work. A typical fight lasts an average of 2-3 rounds, or that's how the game was designed at least. With 2 encounters per rest, that's about 5 rounds of fighting, assuming all of the encounters are actual combats and not other types like social encounters or traps. So even at level 3, a battle master has enough resources to do a maneuver almost once per round. Some of them go 'nova' and blow them all up front, but it's safe to say you can use roughly 1 every round or two already.
A maneuver has two components, usually extra damage and an effect. Sometimes just a bonus to a roll.
So we could emulate the same outcome by letting all martials get a short list of 3 solid maneuvers. Let them attempt one every time they take an attack action (one per round, not individual attack). Have the target creature make a save so it doesn't always work. And just add a flat dependable base bonus to damage by letting martials add their proficiency bonus when no one else can.
This would effectively give every martial the same average damage increase, and the ability to make decisions every round, with about the same overall effect they would get from using superiority dice. An extra d8 every other round is roughly the same as +2 damage. But a proficiency bonus to damage scales even better at higher levels with more attacks and higher bonus. A battle master at 15th level has 6 dice to use over two fights. They are still averaging an extra 1d8 on every round, or 5 extra damage per round. A fighter that adds proficiency bonus to damage at the same level would be making 3 attacks or more every round, adding at least 15 damage, and still getting some basic maneuvers. I felt like that simple fix would go a long way towards bringing martials power more in line with spellcasters. And it's not dependant on how many encounters are planned for a day.
The goals with that idea was to simplify the battle master mechanic for those who want it easier, give the same (or better) effects more elegantly, and offer more tactical options to every martial character. There should still also be a BM subclass for those who want more choices and extra bursts of power.
It's totally okay if that's not exactly what you're looking for. I was just trying to find an example of a good solution for everyone. A lot of complexity can be removed from abilities without sacrificing the effects or the options. I felt like every fighter player would love to do more damage than their other party members with the same weapons. And the option to disarm, trip, or shove once per round would give tactical options that aren't overwhelming if they are tempered by a saving throw, and are easy to remember.
That was just my thought process. Kind of a... design intent to please as many people as possible. But I'm excited to hear any other suggestions.
Assuming we’re restricting the conversation to fighters, there’s the battle master. Or the rune knight. Or psi knight. Or the echo knight. Or eldritch knight. Each of them has limited resources and you have to make meaningful decisions about when and where to deploy them. And in some you choose which options you add.
Then there’s cavaliers, arcane archers and samurais that fall somewhere in between. I suppose technically, there’s purple dragon knights, but, well, I’m not quite sure what to say about them. They can’t all be winners.
Out of combat, many of those subclasses also add a skill proficiency or two, so you have some expanded options. When you couple that with a thoughtful background choice (something an advanced player should be quite capable of) you get a very well-rounded character. One who can contribute out of combat, and has interesting choices to make in combat.
If all that doesn’t fit the bill, I’m not quite sure what it is you’re after.
The point is, there needs to be room for the champion or something like it. It’s relatively easy to add more complexity buttons and levers through subclasses and even feats. But it’s really hard to remove them from the chassis. If you add complexity to the base class, you remove the simple option for everyone.
Siiiiigh
So we're just not allowed to have ANY martial characters that are deeper and more engaging to run than "Grognak hit bad guy!", because literally ****off everything has to be as offensively bland, boring, and actively detrimental to gameplay as the Champion fighter.
Cool. Cool cool cool. Glad we got that sorted.
This is why I hate this conversation, by the way, Steg. People who haven't been 'new players' in a decade or more insisting that all New Players are so fundamentally stupid and unable to grasp even the most basic of concepts that literally the only thing they can be trusted to play without being an egregious game-ruining ****-up is a Champion ****mothering Fighter. What a horrible attitude to have.
Please do not contact or message me.
That really isn't what I mean. In fact, it's the exact opposite of what I've been trying to say; my goal is for everyone to have options to play at my table. I want both new and advanced players to have options at my table. By turning every "simple" option you see into a complex one, you ensure that only one of those two groups is easily able to enjoy and play not just at your table, but at every table that plays D&D.
Sigh. Not only does Fighter already have numerous ways to play it complexly, but you already have multiple other classes that were made solely for people like you who want complexity. On the other hand, players who want simplicity only have one class; yet you still are determined to take that one class away from them, merely to add on to what you already have. You are complaining about other people limiting your options, and your way to resolve this problem is by limiting other peoples options instead.
Yes, each and every one of us knows that the Superiority mechanic does not seem complicated to you. But as I literally spent 7 pages explaining in the other thread that while it may not seem complicated to you, forcing every new player who wants to play a "simple" Fighter to deal with an elaborate maneuver based system simply is not fair. You can literally give any other class Superiority, and as you explained in this thread, the system "is extremely flexible and diverse" and can easily be put in any class, so why are you so determined to put it in the one class that is set out for players who enjoy simpler options?
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.Siiiigh is right. I just gave a list of fighters that are deeper and more engaging to run than just “hit the bad guy.” Which is to say all of them, except for champion.
And if you want to talk martials in general, the list gets even longer.
Why are you so opposed to there being one option that is just, “hit bad guy.” That’s what some people want.
Have you ever played in a game with a champion fighter? They are far from actively detrimental. Not flashy, but effective.
What Xalthu said ^
I would like to add that there is nothing wrong with enjoying "simpler" classes and subclasses like Champion. Champions problem is that it needs to be a bit stronger mechanically, there is nothing wrong with having a subclass geared towards less advanced players, just as having subclasses geared towards more advanced players isn't a problem either. (And yes, I know what I'm talking about, I played Champion on repeat when I was new.)
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.You can play a complex class in a simple way. Pick a wizard and spam fireballs all day. It's a valid option. But you can't play a simple class in a complex way, it just lacks tools. Which is why all classes need complexity and customization. You can just have that one basic subclass for the "new players", it's not like they need choices anyway, it's not something a "new player" could handle.
Actually, you can play a "simple" class in a complex way. It's called subclasses, backgrounds, feats, and the ability to use your brain and think as opposed to just hitting what is right in front of you. If you make the base class super complicated, then anyone who plays that class will have to deal with all that complexity, regardless of what subclass they pick. Not only that, but you already have numerous options for "complexity and customization" available to you, you don't need to shunt everybody who likes those less into one subclass just to expand on what you already have.
Firstly, let me say that it is very hard to play a complex class simply if all the complicated mechanics are in the base class with no way to avoid them. If you are a Wizard just spamming Fireball, then not only will you lose all your 3rd level spell slots, but you will suffer mechanically because that's usually not optimal play. A simpler option doesn't necessarily mean a drastically less powerful option, and not only does it take lots of work to find simpler alternatives to complex options, but the system makes it so reusing the same spells over and over is inefficient at best.
Also, I explained this repeatedly in the other thread, but forcing everyone who wants to play a "simple" class to use Superiority is flat-out unfair. While you can limit the degree to which Superiority is complicated, you can only do it to a small extent. A more accurate statement for your original post would be that optional complexity (complexity that is in places such as subclasses, so you can choose to ignore or use it) allows for further customization and depth, while allowing simplicity for those who want it. That being said, saying complexity put into a base class can be ignored is simply not true.
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.I think what Yurei, kamchatmonk, and others are saying is that it isn't enough to boost the power level of Fighters. We are looking for the same level of complexity as a wizard or cleric. And the complexity should increase in a real way as you gain levels. Gaining access to higher level spells is far more interesting than getting an extra attack. And this is something that happens every other level for a wizard.
At level 7, the battlemaster gets two more maneuvers, chosen from the same list they used at level 3. Which means you are now picking your 5th and 6th favorites. Plus you get one extra use. Whereas the casters get a brand new spell level, with unique options not available before.
The battlemaster doesn't get another die until level 15. They get two more maneuvers at level 10 and 15 (still from the same list). During that time, the caster got 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th level spells.
A reflavored War Cleric is a good example of what we want. Names in parentheses are just my off the cuff ideas for new names, don't judge.
1st Level Maneuvers: Bane (demoralize), Bless (inspire), Command (intimidate), Guiding Bolt (focus fire), Inflict Wounds (deadly strike), Shield of Faith (defensive stance).
Now imagine adding more options tailored made for a fighter.
The game allows casters to have fun, unique choices that increase as you gain levels. But fighters get more of the same thing they did at the early levels. I want to have new options at higher levels, and I want them to be more than just dealing more damage plus a minor effect.