If you want to "pop" then pick a class that pops!. The answer is so simple, why are you playing a fighter? Wizards pop, fighters don't - stay in your lane!
OK, I wasn't intending to really speak in this discussion, but this just sounds insulting to me.
And also, why is the fighter the "simple" class? Why is a class that is supposed to be the martial expert, the person who embodies the art of combat, the one that is being pegged as the "simple" class? Where in the Player's Handbook did it claim that this class is the one that is meant specifically for players who only want to do simple stuff? This all just sounds incredibly arbitrary and I don't understand it.
Saying a fighter is boring is insulting to me as someone who has played and enjoyed playing the current fighter.
As for the answer it is right in your post - Fighter is the class that is a martial expert. That is its definition. It is mundane, tangible, grounded in physics and down to earth. With the exception of Rogue, other classes all are fantastical with underpinnings that are intangible, esoteric or literally magical.
That is why fighter specifically, along with Rogue, are the classes that should be simple at its core. There are subclasses that dynamic for both of those classes enabling them to be more complex or magical, but if you ask why that is the reason why and I don't think we should change it for a few expert players that want more when they already have more in other classes.
If he wants to get extra attack with his Druid, then yes you should tell him that - put down the Druid and play a class that gets extra attack like Fighter or maybe you homebrew a Druid subclass that does that. If you want to play a Druid though you don't get to do that as part of your class.
This is actually a great analogy! Should we give the Druid class extra attack and martial weapon proficiency because some players like your newbie want to play a Druid that gets to attack twice on every turn with a greatsword?
The issue I take with this analogy is that the spellcasting and extra attack simply aren't comparable mechanics-wise or flavour-wise. We're not trying to give more to a class already has it, we're trying to give something to a class that has nothing (exaggeration for effect, the fighter does have a few things going for it, but I'm matching exaggeration for exaggeration). In comparison to spellcasters, fighters have very little to write home about mechanically, save for Action Surge and the really late Extra Attacks, AND the fighter struggles to fulfill the fantasy of a mythical or legendary fighters - Perseus, Theseus, Odysseus, etc all performed superhuman feats (and they were definitely all fighters) - but there is no real mechanical system for fighters in 5e to perform those superhuman feats, whereas spellcasters are doing those superhuman feats from level 1, and by level 17 they Literally Become Gods with Wish.
Saying a fighter is boring is insulting to me as someone who has played and enjoyed playing the current fighter.
"Saying the taste of mac and cheese is boring is insulting to me as someone who has eaten and enjoyed eating mac and cheese." Different people are allowed different opinions, and others' opinions being different to yours does not automatically make it an insult to you specifically.
Saying a fighter is boring is insulting to me as someone who has played and enjoyed playing the current fighter.
As for the answer it is right in your post - Fighter is the class that is a martial expert. That is its definition. It is mundane, tangible, grounded in physics and down to earth. With the exception of Rogue, other classes all are fantastical with underpinnings that are intangible, esoteric or literally magical.
That is why fighter specifically, along with Rogue, are the classes that should be simple at its core. There are subclasses that dynamic for both of those classes enabling them to be more complex or magical, but if you ask why that is the reason why and I don't think we should change it for a few expert players that want more when they already have more in other classes.
The issue I take with this analogy is that fighters in the lore and description aren't mundane or tangible. No character is. Every single PC in D&D is already superhuman by 1st level. From the description, a 1st level fighter will have a minimum of three to four times as many hit points as the average commoner, can already do things no commoner could dream of (Second Wind), and has an understanding of combat far beyond the average commoner (Fighting Style). Same with the rogue (though only to a lesser, later extent) - Evasion, Blindsense, Slippery Mind, Elusive and Stroke of Luck are all inherently superhuman feats. The idea of playing an average commoner is the idea of playing a 0th level character (or, perhaps, as Yurei has made mention of, playing one of the sidekick classes), OR to play up to 6th level Thief rogue; anything beyond that in 5e is fundamentally already superhuman.
Edit: also to add, a commoner's ability scores are an average of 10 across the board. Basically every character in D&D will start with a 16 or higher in at least one ability, and will only have two ability scores max that are 10 or lower. 5e characters are inherently superhuman in every single way. ON TOP OF THAT the Battle Master's maneuvers AREN'T SUPERHUMAN. They're still grounded in reality, still mundane, they just reflect a skilled warrior's ability to control the battlefield, and are very similar to the many, many, many combat manuals written throughout the centuries, from Sun Tzu to the hundreds of swordfighting moves and concepts from Europe, so even then that argument doesn't work.
The question then remains: why do some classes get to have mechanics that support those superhuman abilities with spells, while other classes get shafted in terms of converting the irrefutably superhuman description of the fighter into mechanics that allow them to live up to that description, to the fantasy?
If he wants to get extra attack with his Druid, then yes you should tell him that - put down the Druid and play a class that gets extra attack like Fighter or maybe you homebrew a Druid subclass that does that. If you want to play a Druid though you don't get to do that as part of your class.
This is actually a great analogy! Should we give the Druid class extra attack and martial weapon proficiency because some players like your newbie want to play a Druid that gets to attack twice on every turn with a greatsword?
The issue I take with this analogy is that the spellcasting and extra attack simply aren't comparable mechanics-wise or flavour-wise. We're not trying to give more to a class already has it, we're trying to give something to a class that has nothing (exaggeration for effect, the fighter does have a few things going for it, but I'm matching exaggeration for exaggeration). In comparison to spellcasters, fighters have very little to write home about mechanically, save for Action Surge and the really late Extra Attacks, AND the fighter struggles to fulfill the fantasy of a mythical or legendary fighters - Perseus, Theseus, Odysseus, etc all performed superhuman feats (and they were definitely all fighters) - but there is no real mechanical system for fighters in 5e to perform those superhuman feats, whereas spellcasters are doing those superhuman feats from level 1, and by level 17 they Literally Become Gods with Wish.
It is the same thing - a player wants something that is not part of a class to be added to a class. You want magical - How about if said Druid wanted every Druid to have Warlock invocations , or be able to cast spirit guardians like a cleric?
You and I have a different idea of what the definition of a fighter is, but history is on my side. Being able to do combat maneuvers is not part of the fighter class and historically has not been part of the fighter class. It is not how fighters have been designed for most of D&D history. In 6 editions of D&D fighters could only do this kind of stuff as part of their class in one edition (4E) and that was the worst edition. In every other edition this is not part of the core class.
I am fine with keeping that stuff in battlemaster where it belongs and I think most players and the designers are with me on that as it gives an option to do exactly what YOU want without mucking up the game for other players.
I'm going to be blunt. If you want to play someone who's grounded and down to earth, then D&D is not the best system for that. Magic is so horrendously pervasive in this system on both the player and DM side, that it is very difficult to get away with being a "normie" for more than a few levels. Past a certain point, unless the DM really makes a concerted effort to avoid this situation (like maybe only pitting the party against nonmagical NPCs or magical NPCs that have relatively weak magic or something), even the "normie" characters have to slap on some magic items.
Exactly, especially considering how heavily 5e martials are "balanced" by forcing DMs to give them magic items, so they don't get immediately hardwalled by an accidental werewolf with immunity to every damage type they deal. I will regularly hand out at least common magic items to every martial as soon as they hit level 2 or higher (I only play level 1 to introduce new players into the game, otherwise I start at level 3 with magic items), and even then the spellcasters still pull ahead at almost every level.
I'm going to be blunt. If you want to play someone who's grounded and down to earth, then D&D is not the best system for that. Magic is so horrendously pervasive in this system on both the player and DM side, that it is very difficult to get away with being a "normie" for more than a few levels. Past a certain point, unless the DM really makes a concerted effort to avoid this situation (like maybe only pitting the party against nonmagical NPCs or magical NPCs that have relatively weak magic or something), even the "normie" characters have to slap on some magic items.
Exactly, especially considering how heavily 5e martials are "balanced" by forcing DMs to give them magic items, so they don't get immediately hardwalled by an accidental werewolf with immunity to every damage type they deal. I will regularly hand out at least common magic items to every martial as soon as they hit level 2 or higher (I only play level 1 to introduce new players into the game, otherwise I start at level 3 with magic items), and even then the spellcasters still pull ahead at almost every level.
This arguement is contradictory. You want to add more to the fighter without addding magic, but then you reverse yourself and say magic is required.
Also I never give magic items as a DM and most tables I play at don't either. Magic items or generally randomly selected or the DM provides whatever is in the adventure and it is hugely unbalanced. I was playing a game 2 weeks ago where 4 of our 6 players could not damage a boss at all. The Warlock could damage him (with Eldritch Blast) and the melee artificer could damage him with the create bonfire cantrip, everyone else was using help or positioning or something like that to open up those guys.
Spellcasters are more powerful than martials but that has never been a problem in ANY 5E game I have played (and I have played hundreds). I have had a lot of other problems at tables, but this has never been one of them in. I hear a lot about theories on how bad this is but I have not seen them in practice and I wonder if most of the people complaining have either or if they are just worried abotu seeing it.
Finally I will note balance is NOT a good thing. 4E was balanced and it was awful because of it.
It is the same thing - a player wants something that is not part of a class to be added to a class. You want magical - How about if said Druid wanted every Druid to have Warlock invocations , or be able to cast spirit guardians like a cleric?
You and I have a different idea of what the definition of a fighter is, but history is on my side. Being able to do combat maneuvers is not part of the fighter class and historically has not been part of the fighter class. It is not how fighters have been designed for most of D&D history. In 6 editions of D&D fighters could only do this kind of stuff as part of their class in one edition (4E) and that was the worst edition. In every other edition this is not part of the core class.
I am fine with keeping that stuff in battlemaster where it belongs and I think most players and the designers are with me on that as it gives an option to do exactly what YOU want without mucking up the game for other players.
It isn't the same thing, in any way, shape or form, and I think the fact that you can't see that is the reason this entire forum is in a deadlock. People who want the simple fighter kept as is have demonstrated time and again that they are fundamentally incapable of accepting that anyone could ever want to play a fighter in a different way to them. As I explained in the post that you quoted, giving Extra Attack or Spirit Guardians to the base druid is fundamentally distinct from giving maneuvers to the base fighter because maneuvers are supported by both the description of the fighter class AND the massive mechanical disparity between martials and casters.
In addition, as I edited in to my previous post, maneuvers are not magical or superhuman. See here:
Edit: ... the Battle Master's maneuvers AREN'T SUPERHUMAN. They're still grounded in reality, still mundane, they just reflect a skilled warrior's ability to control the battlefield, and are very similar to the many, many, many combat manuals written throughout the centuries, from Sun Tzu to the hundreds of swordfighting moves and concepts from Europe.
We do have a different idea, but using "history is on my side" means nothing. Literally all social progress in the history of existence has been "against the side of history" because progress by definition means new. Just because you are stuck in the past, stuck to tradition, doesn't mean you have to drag the rest of us back to the 80s with you.
On top of that, again, as I feel like I have had to repeat over and over again, no one is trying to muck the game up for others or steal the fighter class from the poor simple fighter players. We had identified an issue we have with a class, that impedes our ability to enjoy that class. We would like to find a way to fix that issue while still allowing for other players to enjoy their game as well. We don't want to monopolise the fighter, we want everyone who plays D&D to be able to enjoy every facet of D&D.
Saying a fighter is boring is insulting to me as someone who has played and enjoyed playing the current fighter.
"Saying the taste of mac and cheese is boring is insulting to me as someone who has eaten and enjoyed eating mac and cheese." Different people are allowed different opinions, and others' opinions being different to yours does not automatically make it an insult to you specifically.
Exactly, that quote is a reply to someone who found my opinion insulting!
The issue I take with this analogy is that fighters in the lore and description aren't mundane or tangible. No character is. Every single PC in D&D is already superhuman by 1st level. From the description, a 1st level fighter will have a minimum of three to four times as many hit points as the average commoner, can already do things no commoner could dream of (Second Wind), and has an understanding of combat far beyond the average commoner (Fighting Style). Same with the rogue (though only to a lesser, later extent) - Evasion, Blindsense, Slippery Mind, Elusive and Stroke of Luck are all inherently superhuman feats. The idea of playing an average commoner is the idea of playing a 0th level character (or, perhaps, as Yurei has made mention of, playing one of the sidekick classes), OR to play up to 6th level Thief rogue; anything beyond that in 5e is fundamentally already superhuman.
Ok, they are already superhuman. That is hardly a reason for adding aditional martial abilities and making them more superhuman.
Further it is a matter of what you are comparing them to. If you put me in with a bunch of 6 year olds in real life I have King Kong level strength, God like Wisdom and I am super fast. I am vastly physically and mentally superior to all of them in most measurable attributes. Put me in a group with my peers (people in their 50s) and I am pretty average physically. In the same token - sure a fighter is superhuman against commoners, and a 10th level fighter is superhuman compared to 1st level PCs. But put that fighter against his own peers - other PCs of 10th level - compared to those people he is and should be grounded and mundane.
The question then remains: why do some classes get to have mechanics that support those superhuman abilities with spells, while other classes get shafted in terms of converting the irrefutably superhuman description of the fighter into mechanics that allow them to live up to that description, to the fantasy?
I have answered this numerous times. On the other hand one has bothered to come up with a good reason why they should get that as a class mechanic, other than "I want to play that" which is hardly a reason (see Druid and extra attack above). This is especially when those options are available for a build through other methods via subclasses or feats.
Further, despite the fact I disagree with the premise, I have offered solutions on this thread as an optional replacement for extra attack. This would do exactly what people claim they want but no one seems to want to do that. People want a straight up power and complexity increase in the class.
The eldritch knight seems to try to change the power fantasy to add a little sorcery for a "sword and sorcery" style character. I personally do not think the eldritch knight successfully fulfills this fantasy because their spells scale too slowly for evocation spells to be all that useful for a fighter.
Someone else made the suggestion that Eldritch Knight should have selected for abjuration and transmutation, instead of abjuration and evocation. Because transmutation is a school that actually buffs you in combat. And if cast on yourself only, it should be castable as a bonus action much earlier on.
Too true. If that had been the Eldritch Knight we had gotten, with a specific buff to concentration, this whole conversation would be about bringing the rest of the fighter subclasses up on par with the EK.
Finally I will note balance is NOT a good thing. 4E was balanced and it was awful because of it.
"4e was awful because it was balanced" is I think the coldest take I've ever heard in my entire life. 4e was awful because it was slow and clunky and because it had way too much to track like numerical resistances and whatnot. The idea that every member of a collaborative storytelling game being able to play the same game without outshining one another is somehow notthe specific end goal of said game is simply not true.
This arguement is contradictory. You want to add more to the fighter without addding magic, but then you reverse yourself and say magic is required.
Also I never give magic items as a DM and most tables I play at don't either. Magic items or generally randomly selected or the DM provides whatever is in the adventure and it is hugely unbalanced. I was playing a game 2 weeks ago where 4 of our 6 players could not damage a boss at all. The Warlock could damage him (with Eldritch Blast) and the melee artificer could damage him with the create bonfire cantrip, everyone else was using help or positioning or something like that to open up those guys.
Spellcasters are more powerful than martials but that has never been a problem in ANY 5E game I have played (and I have played hundreds). I have had a lot of other problems at tables, but this has never been one of them in. I hear a lot about theories on how bad this is but I have not seen them in practice and I wonder if most of the people complaining have either or if they are just worried abotu seeing it.
Literally where did I say that. I said that all characters are superhuman, not magical. Rage is a superhuman feature, but its not magical. Action Surge is definitely a superhuman feature, but its not magical. What I said was that, ironically, the one feature you are so adamantly against adding "because it is magical and not mundane" is actually mundane, but that doesn't mean that suddenly the rest of 5e is mundane too. And I stand by what I said - every character is superhuman in 5e - even the rogue, which has mostly mundane features until 7th level, is still a superhumanly good rogue. That is what makes them a rogue. A mundane rogue is a petty thief or burglar. A 1st level rogue is inherently a cut above the rest.
If you don't give magic items out, you are 1) in the minority - most 5e games are high magic; and 2) allowing the possibility for any caster to vastly outstrip the functionality of every martial (note the use of "allowing the possibility for" - I'm not saying it will happen, just that you are inviting the possibility of it happening into your game). Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't it mean it won't, and it certainly doesn't mean that it doesn't happen in many many other games.
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.
This thread went back into its usual circles over night, so I wanted to take a minute to thank you for providing this feedback before it was lost entirely.
I appreciate it. This helps me understand a little better. At least for what one person is looking for. I do like the idea of making a separate section for maneuvers, especially if they plan up use them as feature options more often. Or if they make advanced versions of them. They've included them in a fighting style, a feat, and some other recent playtest material for different books. It makes more sense from an organizational standpoint to give them their own place in the book.
Saying a fighter is boring is insulting to me as someone who has played and enjoyed playing the current fighter.
"Saying the taste of mac and cheese is boring is insulting to me as someone who has eaten and enjoyed eating mac and cheese." Different people are allowed different opinions, and others' opinions being different to yours does not automatically make it an insult to you specifically.
Exactly, that quote is a reply to someone who found my opinion insulting!
They did not find your opinion insulting, you told them to "stay in their lane," which is insulting and also gatekeeping.
If you want to "pop" then pick a class that pops!. The answer is so simple, why are you playing a fighter? Wizards pop, fighters don't - stay in your lane!
OK, I wasn't intending to really speak in this discussion, but this just sounds insulting to me.
And also, why is the fighter the "simple" class? Why is a class that is supposed to be the martial expert, the person who embodies the art of combat, the one that is being pegged as the "simple" class? Where in the Player's Handbook did it claim that this class is the one that is meant specifically for players who only want to do simple stuff? This all just sounds incredibly arbitrary and I don't understand it.
Saying a fighter is boring is insulting to me as someone who has played and enjoyed playing the current fighter.
As for the answer it is right in your post - Fighter is the class that is a martial expert. That is its definition. It is mundane, tangible, grounded in physics and down to earth. With the exception of Rogue, other classes all are fantastical with underpinnings that are intangible, esoteric or literally magical.
That is why fighter specifically, along with Rogue, are the classes that should be simple at its core. There are subclasses that dynamic for both of those classes enabling them to be more complex or magical, but if you ask why that is the reason why and I don't think we should change it for a few expert players that want more when they already have more in other classes.
After you told them to, again, "stay in their lane," they said that they were insulted by it (rightly so), repeated what many of us have been asking for 460 posts with no actual response, and then you hit back with "well actually saying you didn't like my favourite class is insulting too, nyeh." You do see how these are completely different, right? Lmao.
The issue I take with this analogy is that fighters in the lore and description aren't mundane or tangible. No character is. Every single PC in D&D is already superhuman by 1st level. From the description, a 1st level fighter will have a minimum of three to four times as many hit points as the average commoner, can already do things no commoner could dream of (Second Wind), and has an understanding of combat far beyond the average commoner (Fighting Style). Same with the rogue (though only to a lesser, later extent) - Evasion, Blindsense, Slippery Mind, Elusive and Stroke of Luck are all inherently superhuman feats. The idea of playing an average commoner is the idea of playing a 0th level character (or, perhaps, as Yurei has made mention of, playing one of the sidekick classes), OR to play up to 6th level Thief rogue; anything beyond that in 5e is fundamentally already superhuman.
Ok, they are already superhuman. That is hardly a reason for adding aditional martial abilities and making them more superhuman.
Further it is a matter of what you are comparing them to. If you put me in with a bunch of 6 year olds in real life I have King Kong level strength, God like Wisdom and I am super fast. I am vastly physically and mentally superior to all of them in most measurable attributes. Put me in a group with my peers (people in their 50s) and I am pretty average physically. In the same token - sure a fighter is superhuman against commoners, and a 10th level fighter is superhuman compared to 1st level PCs. But put that fighter against his own peers - other PCs of 10th level - compared to those people he is and should be grounded and mundane.
Hey, good thing none of us are comparing an adult to a child, cos we're comparing the average mundane commoner and the average superhuman PC. EVERY PC is orders of magnitude more superhuman than EVERY commoner. Truly, no idea what you meant by this.
I have answered this numerous times. On the other hand one has bothered to come up with a good reason why they should get that as a class mechanic, other than "I want to play that" which is hardly a reason (see Druid and extra attack above). This is especially when those options are available for a build through other methods via subclasses or feats.
Weird, cos I've come up with those reasons multiple times now. Here's an example, in which I am already lamenting the fact that I keep having to repeat myself because no simpler fighter aficionado wants to listen:
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.
I have given so many reasons for this to you directly that this boggles my mind. Here's a rundown, in case god is real and you're saying this all in good faith. 1) I believe the fighter is mechanically uninteresting at most levels of play. Note the use of the word believe here, which means "to hold something as an opinion," just to make sure you understand 100% that I am talking about my opinion, and not stating something as fact. 2) I believe the mechanics of the fighter do not provide adequate recourse to portray the fantasy of a mythical warrior - Perseus, St George, Theseus, Odysseus, etc. 3) I believe the fighter is mechanically weak at all levels of play when compared to the spellcasters, not because they can do more damage, but because butspellcasters get access to every solution other than damage while fighters have to hope either that damage is good enough, their extremely sparse mechanics are flavourful enough, or the DM is lenient enough to allow them to do the cool things that other classes are allowed to do as part of the base class chassis. With all this combined, I believe that the fighter specifically, more than any other martial class, needs some added features to allow for them to 1. make interesting decisions every turn of combat, just like spellcasters, that goes beyond taking the Attack action; 2. accurately portray the fantasy of a mythical or superheroic warrior; and 3. stand up, even in some small way, to the mechanical superiority of fighters. In my opinion, maneuvers as part of the base class fulfill all of those criteria, while still being able to allow for simplicity with the damage-only maneuver idea. Something like:
Clean Strike
Sometimes a simple strike is best. When you hit a creature with a weapon attack, you can expend one superiority die and add it to the damage roll.
As you said, if we give every fighter a choice of 20 maneuvers - while I disagree that it will be too complex for anyone to grasp - it may be difficult to find that easy option, so you make it explicitly clear in the game, with the suggested list. They have already done this in 1DD, with the suggested skills AND suggested spells, so why on earth can't they do it with suggested maneuvers? If you really want to spell it out for the simple fighter players because you think they're so incapable of playing the game that they need to have exactly zero decision making at any time, we can look back to 4e, where they had different archetypal build recommendations in the class description, before the features were even shown giving advice on which powers to pick if you want to play a certain way.
Our reasons are clear. We have seen an issue in the game. We want to fix that issue. Some people like the game as is. Therefore, we must find a solution to that issue that still allows the people who enjoy the game as is to keep on enjoying the game their way. D&D is a collaborative storytelling game that we play as a group, and we fix as a community, and that means fixing it in a way that everyone can continue playing and enjoying. Unfortunately, the one time I did that I was immediately shut down and told to "just go play some other class, if you want complexity." More gatekeeping, just like telling someone to "stay in their own lane" - all of the gatekeeping is coming from the simple fighter's side, all of the circular discussion is coming from that side, all of the active misrepresentation is coming from that side.
Further, despite the fact I disagree with the premise, I have offered solutions on this thread as an optional replacement for extra attack. This would do exactly what people claim they want but no one seems to want to do that. People want a straight up power and complexity increase in the class.
If you truly believe that, then you have fundamentally misunderstood what we want. We don't want replacements for Extra Attack. Extra Attack is already one of the strongest features a martial can get, and you think we want to get rid of that? No, we just want to have some level of decision making when we play our martials, in the same way spellcasters get to make a decision every turn.
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.
This thread went back into its usual circles over night, so I wanted to take a minute to thank you for providing this feedback before it was lost entirely.
I appreciate it. This helps me understand a little better. At least for what one person is looking for. I do like the idea of making a separate section for maneuvers, especially if they plan up use them as feature options more often. Or if they make advanced versions of them. They've included them in a fighting style, a feat, and some other recent playtest material for different books. It makes more sense from an organizational standpoint to give them their own place in the book.
I think this is a good idea, I think moving them away from the class (like spells!) means that you can separate the content for simple fighters and compelx fighters. Perhaps something like:
Combat Superiority
2nd-level Fighter feature
You can demonstrate your tremendous skill in battle. You gain X superiority dice, which are d8s, and whenever you make an attack or damage roll, you can add one of those d8s to that roll. Alternatively, you can learn Y maneuvers from the maneuvers list, provided in chapter Z (which you can then use as a battle master would). The dice increase as you go up in level. If you chose maneuvers, you gain more as you go up in level.
Something short, sweet, and allows you to keep simplicity OR take complexity without making complexity fundamentally superior to simplicity, because that's already the issue between martials and spellcasters.
Edit: also, Stego? I appreciate you trying to keep everyone on the same track and trying to actually find a fix for everyone's problems. It's refreshing.
God, I can now imagine Alter Self being useful in anything other than heavily aquatic campaigns. Somehow buffing both the EK and Alter Self with a single feature is a pretty cool achievement.
Finally I will note balance is NOT a good thing. 4E was balanced and it was awful because of it.
"4e was awful because it was balanced" is I think the coldest take I've ever heard in my entire life. 4e was awful because it was slow and clunky and because it had way too much to track like numerical resistances and whatnot. The idea that every member of a collaborative storytelling game being able to play the same game without outshining one another is somehow notthe specific end goal of said game is simply not true.
The things you mention flow from the desire to be balanced. Perhaps they could have implemented it better but the primary shortfall of 4Ewas trying to balance a fighter swinging a greatsword with a Wizard casting a Lightning Bolt. If you wantto balance those things one can not be more powerful than the other.
In collaborative storytelling mechanical features are not what leads to one player outshining every other. The biggest driver in this by far is PLAYER personality with the way the DM runs the game and his personality being the second biggest driver. Included in that is what the split is between combat, social and exploration pillars. No version of D&D except 4E has been balanced in combat. 5E is wildly unbalanced especially if some players make very weak choices and other players make very strong ones yet that does not make one player outshine the other in play. I have literally NEVER experienced this in probably 1000 or so gaming sessions. Every time a player has been outshined it is due to something other than character mechanics.
Finally if you really want to mechanically balance the fighter with the other classes you need to give it abilities outside of combat. Put your fighter with better combat maneuvers in Wild Behind the Witchlight with a party that does not want to engage in combat at all and his mechanical abilities are going to bring nothing to the game at all. he can still avoid being outshined through his play.
What I said was that, ironically, the one feature you are so adamantly against adding "because it is magical and not mundane" is actually mundane, but that doesn't mean that suddenly the rest of 5e is mundane too.
I never said the rest of 5E was mundane. I said the base Fighter and Rogue class should be.
If you don't give magic items out, you are 1) in the minority - most 5e games are high magic; and 2) allowing the possibility for any caster to vastly outstrip the functionality of every martial (note the use of "allowing the possibility for" - I'm not saying it will happen, just that you are inviting the possibility of it happening into your game). Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't it mean it won't, and it certainly doesn't mean that it doesn't happen in many many other games.
I think you misunderstood what I meant. Most games are high magic with magic items. When I said "give out" magic items I should have been more clear and used different wording. Most DMs do not assign players specific magic items for their class. When it comes to loot I don't think most DMs make sure there is a magic weapon that suits the GWM fighter for example. I think a majority of DMs either place magic items randomly, for story reasons or use published adventures as written. That is what I was referring to when I said that, and I admit the fault is mine and I should have been more clear.
In terms of mechanical power casters do outstrip non-casters. I don't think that is even in debate. That does not mean those casters will outshine other players in play and just because it could happen doesn't mean it does happen. Even if it does happen though it can be easily remedied by simply playing a caster.
What I am saying essentially is that Fighters, Rogues and other martials are not outshined in actual play because of their objectively weaker combat mechanics. I have never seen that happen, and I have difficulty believing it does happen But if class mechanics really do drive that in some games I have been fortunate enough to avoid; then it is still EASILY remedied by not playing a martial (or alternatively by not allowing casters). If martials and casters can't have a fun time together then don't play them together, choose something else if you are a player or steer a player to a class he can have fun with if you are a DM ... or join one of the many, many,, many tables where this is not a problem ... or homebrew.
Just because some small minute number of people playing on a small minute number of tables can't have fun playing a Fighter and can't have fun playing something other than a Fighter does not mean WOTC should change the Fighter.
The eldritch knight seems to try to change the power fantasy to add a little sorcery for a "sword and sorcery" style character. I personally do not think the eldritch knight successfully fulfills this fantasy because their spells scale too slowly for evocation spells to be all that useful for a fighter.
Someone else made the suggestion that Eldritch Knight should have selected for abjuration and transmutation, instead of abjuration and evocation. Because transmutation is a school that actually buffs you in combat. And if cast on yourself only, it should be castable as a bonus action much earlier on.
Too true. If that had been the Eldritch Knight we had gotten, with a specific buff to concentration, this whole conversation would be about bringing the rest of the fighter subclasses up on par with the EK.
Incidentally, this version of the EK would also make a spell like alter self more appealing, because you can bonus action alter self for unarmed strikes or (if you're underwater) bonus action alter self to give yourself a swim speed so you aren't hampered.
This version of the EK would actually be super sweet, I think it’ll be my next “FIFY WotC” project.
What about the "massive amount of people" who want/need/love MORE FROM THEIR GAME, Bard?
Then not only can those people play Fighter in a complex way, but they can have all that complexity in any other class. Yurei, throughout this thread, you have repeatedly used hyperbole, misrepresentation and name-calling to attack fictional versions of opinions that were nothing like any opinions actually voiced. At this point, I am honestly losing my confidence in my ability to have a civil disagreement with anyone who repeatedly does this.
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.
"Firstly, none of us will be able to "solve" this issue. The best we can do is make homebrew solutions." Then why are you here? Seriously. This thread was started by people attempting to fix an issue they see in the game they love. If none of us can solve the issue, and we can do is homebrew, why the **** do you care what we do? Why are you still here, posting, disrupting other people's problem-solving? In your eyes we're just suggesting homebrew ideas, right? In what way could that ever possibly "steal the simple fighter away from you" if all we're doing is homebrewing?
Also, your response to "here's this idea about introducing complexity while still allowing for simplicity so everyone gets what they want" was "or you could just not do that so you don't 'confuse new players and hope they find the simple one'." And no, you did not give any useful or meaningful counter-solution. You said "or we can not do this, and also if we did it would be meaningless since damage isn't as good as superiority." First, if you really think that maneuvers are so deeply and incomprehensibly complex that a new player won't be able to figure out they mean, you are really, really underselling the intelligence of new players. Secondly, when people are discussing potential solutions to a problem and you butt in by saying "no actually you should just not do this, thank you!" you're not actually helping. This is the equivalent of telling everyone who wants to fix an issue they see in the game they love to go **** themselves - you clearly don't care about actually solving the issue, you just want people to stop "trying to steal the simple fighter" away from you.
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.
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.
Again, if you believe the suggestions I have made would seriously stop every single simple player from picking up the game, I think you need to reevaluate your understanding of intelligence because these suggestions are not complex at all.
Here's a recommendation: if you desperately want to play simple fighter, go play simple fighter. If you see a forum thread of a couple people discussing about how to fix the issues they see in the fighter by adding complexity, don't join in. If you don't have anything constructive to say, don't say anything, just let it go, because by your own admission none of this matters, we're only homebrewing, and none of this will ever affect you.
Here's another recommendation: if you're going to interact with multiple people on a forum at once, make sure you have the mental bandwith to interact with multiple people on a forum at once. None of this "ah sorry I mistook you for another poster, so I accused you of actively trying to destroy the game I love" crap, its absolutely ridiculous. I had posted I think twice before you made that post, so I have no idea why you think its okay to insult me like that, and then not even apologise? Just hand wave it away as "ah my bad I confused you with all your other blank avatar ilk". Absolutely ridiculous.
Here's a final recommendation: listen to people when they tell you what they mean. There's no need for this "unless I'm misunderstanding you, I think you're problematic and a danger to this game and that you want to steal away my precious simple fighter." It's so completely deranged that I don't know where to begin. I have made it extremely clear now that I do not wish to "turn complex the simple option people love" - I want to find a fix for the fighter that makes it fun for everyone. Currently, there are two main groups, one of which enjoys the fighter as is, and one of which does not. I am trying to find a solution that allows both groups to enjoy playing the fighter, so that no one is simply gatekept out of a class (because right now that is effectively what is happening; the class does not fulfill the fantasy that many people want it to, and no other class can, so they are trying to make it so that it does fulfill the fantasy, and are being told to just "go play some other class"). That is my goal here, I have always made it explicitly clear that that is my goal here, and at no poiny have I ever alluded to, or made any suggestion in the hopes of, wanting to destroy your experience of the game.
AndreGolin, I am genuinely sorry because I believe that I have misunderstood your opinion, and badly so. I think I may have confused you with some other avatar-less users on this thread who have suggested things such as adding large amounts of complexity to the base Fighter class with no alternatives. Looking back at your posts, I seem to have mistaken your and other users opinions. I genuinely am sorry for this.
However, I have never ever told you "to go **** yourselves" or anything resembling that. I have given numerous other suggestions to help solve the issue, telling me that I'm not interested in helping anyone when I am literally working on a homebrew Fighter subclass is inaccurate. Personally, I and many other people I know have needed Fighter to help adjust to the game. Please do not tell me that I shouldn't "join in" on discussions about the Fighters simplicity or complexity, because it hurts me deeply when people say that my perspective is not valid and that I shouldn't voice it.
So there, I've apologized for misunderstanding you. However, you seem to be misunderstanding what I am saying too.
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.
Finally I will note balance is NOT a good thing. 4E was balanced and it was awful because of it.
"4e was awful because it was balanced" is I think the coldest take I've ever heard in my entire life. 4e was awful because it was slow and clunky and because it had way too much to track like numerical resistances and whatnot. The idea that every member of a collaborative storytelling game being able to play the same game without outshining one another is somehow notthe specific end goal of said game is simply not true.
The things you mention flow from the desire to be balanced. Perhaps they could have implemented it better but the primary shortfall of 4Ewas trying to balance a fighter swinging a greatsword with a Wizard casting a Lightning Bolt. If you wantto balance those things one can not be more powerful than the other.
In collaborative storytelling mechanical features are not what leads to one player outshining every other. The biggest driver in this by far is PLAYER personality with the way the DM runs the game and his personality being the second biggest driver. Included in that is what the split is between combat, social and exploration pillars. No version of D&D except 4E has been balanced in combat. 5E is wildly unbalanced especially if some players make very weak choices and other players make very strong ones yet that does not make one player outshine the other in play. I have literally NEVER experienced this in probably 1000 or so gaming sessions. Every time a player has been outshined it is due to something other than character mechanics.
Finally if you really want to mechanically balance the fighter with the other classes you need to give it abilities outside of combat. Put your fighter with better combat maneuvers in Wild Behind the Witchlight with a party that does not want to engage in combat at all and his mechanical abilities are going to bring nothing to the game at all. he can still avoid being outshined through his play.
The things I mention are partially due to a desire to be balanced. And, yes, you're right? If you want to balance these things one cannot be more powerful than the other? You're right, and that's why I try to make non-full-casters stronger in my homebrews? I'm really not understanding your point here.
Also, mechanical differences in a collaborative storytelling game ABSOLUTELY lead to players outshining one another. If you're playing a TTPRG like Wanderhome where there are functionally no mechanics, then yes player personality is the biggest thing. However, I have seen time and again martials complaining about the turn coming around to them in combat, taking the Attack action, rolling some dice, and then the turn ending. There's no meaningful decision-making, there's no incentive to do anything other than attack. Just because you haven't experienced it doesn't mean it isn't a very real phenomenon that makes up the majority of discussions around D&D.
"5E is wildly unbalanced especially if some players make very weak choices and other players make very strong ones" - that is not imbalance. That is player choice. A player is allowed to start their character with low scores, or make unoptimal decisions in chargen. The imbalance in 5e is that if you ever pick any non-full-caster you are inherently weaker than any full-caster, full stop, from 1st level through to 20th level. There is a complete and fundamental disconnect between the game of D&D martials play and the game of D&D casters play.
"Finally if you really want to mechanically balance the fighter with the other classes you need to give it abilities outside of combat." Damn, like Ambush? Like Commanding Presence, Tactical Assessment? Woah that's crazy, did you know that the feature we've been suggesting this entire time actually covers that too? It's almost like we've thought about what we want from our game for more than 2 seconds. Also, in my PHB revised, where I gave fighters maneuvers, I also gave them more features to make them more fun to play out of combat. Here's one example:
Professional Soldier
2nd-level Fighter feature
Your experience as a warrior has granted you great prowess off the battlefield as well as on it. Choose one of the following benefits:
Athlete. The distance you cover when performing a running jump increases by a number of feet equal to your Strength or Dexterity modifier (your choice), and you add half your proficiency (rounded down) to any Strength or Dexterity check you make that doesn’t already add your proficiency bonus.
Competent. You gain proficiency in one skill or tool, or fluency in one language, and you gain Expertise in one skill proficiency of your choice.
Parlay. Any warrior who knows the rules of battle will know when and how to avoid one. You have advantage on Charisma checks you make to counsel peace, but only if you make the check in good faith.
Simple, flat bonus that you pick once and never have to worry about again, just like Fighting Styles (which, by y'alls admission of loving the fighter's current simplicity, is absolutely simple enough for anyone to pick up easily).
If you don't give magic items out, you are 1) in the minority - most 5e games are high magic; and 2) allowing the possibility for any caster to vastly outstrip the functionality of every martial (note the use of "allowing the possibility for" - I'm not saying it will happen, just that you are inviting the possibility of it happening into your game). Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't it mean it won't, and it certainly doesn't mean that it doesn't happen in many many other games.
I think you misunderstood what I meant. Most games are high magic with magic items. When I said "give out" magic items I should have been more clear and used different wording. Most DMs do not assign players specific magic items for their class. When it comes to loot I don't think most DMs make sure there is a magic weapon that suits the GWM fighter for example. I think a majority of DMs either place magic items randomly, for story reasons or use published adventures as written. That is what I was referring to when I said that, and I admit the fault is mine and I should have been more clear.
Whenever I DM, I always make sure to think about which of my players are having fun and which ones aren't, which ones are stronger or weaker, which ones feel stronger or weaker to play (cos that's a different but equally important thing), and which ones need magical items. I'm always giving my players magic items and feats and boons that I think will complement their character's strengths and shore up their weaknesses. I never give out random items, because half the time they're just never used. I always give my players access to what I think they need, now or for in the future. And, from what I've noticed, invariably I tend towards stronger items and boons for the martials, because, invariably, they are always lacking compared to casters.
In terms of mechanical power casters do outstrip non-casters. I don't think that is even in debate. That does not mean those casters will outshine other players in play and just because it could happen doesn't mean it does happen. Even if it does happen though it can be easily remedied by simply playing a caster.
"That does not mean those casters will outshine other players in play and just because it could happen doesn't mean it does happen" damn it's almost like that's exactly what I said, wild. However, that doesn't change the fact that casters regularly do outshine martials. So, yes, you're right to repeat my words back at me - casters won't always be better than martials. They just are most of the time, in which case its fine because at least the fighter is still simple.
Also, "if it does happen it can be easily remedied by simply playing a caster" damn! Not only is that the second time you've gatekept someone, you're actually gatekeeping EVERYONE! You have just sent out a message to the entire community saying "if you play a martial at my table and aren't happy with how strong casters are compared to martials? Just play a caster lmao." What about all the people who love playing martials, who want to play up to the fantasy of a powerful warrior who slays dragons? Are they just not allowed at your table? Should they not be allowed at any table? I hope you know this is what you're implying, and I hope you take this away, think about it, and come back to the discussion ready to compromise with complex fighters in the same way we are ready - and have already made strides to do so, multiple times - to compromise with you.
What I am saying essentially is that Fighters, Rogues and other martials are not outshined in actual play because of their objectively weaker combat mechanics. I have never seen that happen, and I have difficulty believing it does happen But if class mechanics really do drive that in some games I have been fortunate enough to avoid; then it is still EASILY remedied by not playing a martial (or alternatively by not allowing casters). If martials and casters can't have a fun time together then don't play them together, choose something else if you are a player or steer a player to a class he can have fun with if you are a DM ... or join one of the many, many,, many tables where this is not a problem ... or homebrew.
Just because some small minute number of people playing on a small minute number of tables can't have fun playing a Fighter and can't have fun playing something other than a Fighter does not mean WOTC should change the Fighter.
"What I am saying essentially is that Fighters, Rogues and other martials are not outshined in actual play because of their objectively weaker combat mechanics. I have never seen that happen, and I have difficulty believing it does happen." You've just gone into a hospital and said "I have never seen this specific illness, and I have difficulty believing it does happen" while there are people all around you actively telling you that not only does it happen, but when it happens it can ruin their life/game. The absolute lack of empathy is astounding. There are dozens and dozens of threads on D&D Beyond filled with hundreds of people telling you to your face that this impacts their game, and your response is "nah, it's never happened to me so I don't think it exists."
" If martials and casters can't have a fun time together then don't play them together, choose something else if you are a player or steer a player to a class he can have fun with if you are a DM ... or join one of the many, many,, many tables where this is not a problem ... or homebrew." Third time's the charm! Gatekeeping players out of options just because you aren't empathetic or imaginative enough to realise that they might still want to play that class, just in a way that works better for them, and that these ideas are compatible, but one half of the conversation refuses to allow for any kind of compromise or leeway.
"Just because some smallminute number" (nice reductionism, very cool) "of people playing on a small minute number of tables can't have fun playing a Fighter and can't have fun playing something other than a Fighter does not mean WOTC should change the Fighter." I can have fun playing any class in the game except Monk (I never vibed with Monk, completely personal preference). That doesn't mean that I don't think the barbarian, rogue, fighter AND monk need some serious revisions to make them more fun and meaningful to play and to adhere to the lore better and to appeal to the fantasy of playing a legendary warrior.
A bit off-topic, but haven't really thought of how to improve the Arcane Trickster, or even if Arcane Trickster really needs improvement.
But positioning the EK to use buff spells without hampering their bonk seems like an obvious approach, to the point where I think WoTC didn't really put as much thought into its design as they should have.
I honestly think the Arcane Trickster is fine, its by far the stronger of the two, and it's arguably the best rogue as well. And yah defo agree, the EK should be about using magic to assist the bonking, rather than substituting the bonking for magic, especially since the EK's spells scale so slowly that it'll never be a worthwhile substitution.
A bit off-topic, but haven't really thought of how to improve the Arcane Trickster, or even if Arcane Trickster really needs improvement.
But positioning the EK to use buff spells without hampering their bonk seems like an obvious approach, to the point where I think WoTC didn't really put as much thought into its design as they should have.
Thematically I would agree on EK as I find most of the Evocations they get to be not very useful. Magic Missile is ok, but usually not worth trading a shield slot for. When I am playing it is usually Abjurations I am casting early in combat. As far as a bonus action goes though I don't think that is very useful Warmagic tends to gobble up a lot of bonus actions. I think this is really what Action Surge is for on an EK. In the first turn of a tough combat throw up your buff with action surge, then use your blade cantrip, then attack with Warmagic.
Enchantment and illusion are exactly was a Rogue needs though. I think this is a perfect fit for a AT. There are a few Divination spells that would fit too (Find Traps, Detect Magic, Clairvoyance), but if you were limiting it to 2 schools I think Illusion and Enchantment are the right ones for AT.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Saying a fighter is boring is insulting to me as someone who has played and enjoyed playing the current fighter.
As for the answer it is right in your post - Fighter is the class that is a martial expert. That is its definition. It is mundane, tangible, grounded in physics and down to earth. With the exception of Rogue, other classes all are fantastical with underpinnings that are intangible, esoteric or literally magical.
That is why fighter specifically, along with Rogue, are the classes that should be simple at its core. There are subclasses that dynamic for both of those classes enabling them to be more complex or magical, but if you ask why that is the reason why and I don't think we should change it for a few expert players that want more when they already have more in other classes.
The issue I take with this analogy is that the spellcasting and extra attack simply aren't comparable mechanics-wise or flavour-wise. We're not trying to give more to a class already has it, we're trying to give something to a class that has nothing (exaggeration for effect, the fighter does have a few things going for it, but I'm matching exaggeration for exaggeration). In comparison to spellcasters, fighters have very little to write home about mechanically, save for Action Surge and the really late Extra Attacks, AND the fighter struggles to fulfill the fantasy of a mythical or legendary fighters - Perseus, Theseus, Odysseus, etc all performed superhuman feats (and they were definitely all fighters) - but there is no real mechanical system for fighters in 5e to perform those superhuman feats, whereas spellcasters are doing those superhuman feats from level 1, and by level 17 they Literally Become Gods with Wish.
"Saying the taste of mac and cheese is boring is insulting to me as someone who has eaten and enjoyed eating mac and cheese." Different people are allowed different opinions, and others' opinions being different to yours does not automatically make it an insult to you specifically.
The issue I take with this analogy is that fighters in the lore and description aren't mundane or tangible. No character is. Every single PC in D&D is already superhuman by 1st level. From the description, a 1st level fighter will have a minimum of three to four times as many hit points as the average commoner, can already do things no commoner could dream of (Second Wind), and has an understanding of combat far beyond the average commoner (Fighting Style). Same with the rogue (though only to a lesser, later extent) - Evasion, Blindsense, Slippery Mind, Elusive and Stroke of Luck are all inherently superhuman feats. The idea of playing an average commoner is the idea of playing a 0th level character (or, perhaps, as Yurei has made mention of, playing one of the sidekick classes), OR to play up to 6th level Thief rogue; anything beyond that in 5e is fundamentally already superhuman.
Edit: also to add, a commoner's ability scores are an average of 10 across the board. Basically every character in D&D will start with a 16 or higher in at least one ability, and will only have two ability scores max that are 10 or lower. 5e characters are inherently superhuman in every single way. ON TOP OF THAT the Battle Master's maneuvers AREN'T SUPERHUMAN. They're still grounded in reality, still mundane, they just reflect a skilled warrior's ability to control the battlefield, and are very similar to the many, many, many combat manuals written throughout the centuries, from Sun Tzu to the hundreds of swordfighting moves and concepts from Europe, so even then that argument doesn't work.
The question then remains: why do some classes get to have mechanics that support those superhuman abilities with spells, while other classes get shafted in terms of converting the irrefutably superhuman description of the fighter into mechanics that allow them to live up to that description, to the fantasy?
It is the same thing - a player wants something that is not part of a class to be added to a class. You want magical - How about if said Druid wanted every Druid to have Warlock invocations , or be able to cast spirit guardians like a cleric?
You and I have a different idea of what the definition of a fighter is, but history is on my side. Being able to do combat maneuvers is not part of the fighter class and historically has not been part of the fighter class. It is not how fighters have been designed for most of D&D history. In 6 editions of D&D fighters could only do this kind of stuff as part of their class in one edition (4E) and that was the worst edition. In every other edition this is not part of the core class.
I am fine with keeping that stuff in battlemaster where it belongs and I think most players and the designers are with me on that as it gives an option to do exactly what YOU want without mucking up the game for other players.
Exactly, especially considering how heavily 5e martials are "balanced" by forcing DMs to give them magic items, so they don't get immediately hardwalled by an accidental werewolf with immunity to every damage type they deal. I will regularly hand out at least common magic items to every martial as soon as they hit level 2 or higher (I only play level 1 to introduce new players into the game, otherwise I start at level 3 with magic items), and even then the spellcasters still pull ahead at almost every level.
This arguement is contradictory. You want to add more to the fighter without addding magic, but then you reverse yourself and say magic is required.
Also I never give magic items as a DM and most tables I play at don't either. Magic items or generally randomly selected or the DM provides whatever is in the adventure and it is hugely unbalanced. I was playing a game 2 weeks ago where 4 of our 6 players could not damage a boss at all. The Warlock could damage him (with Eldritch Blast) and the melee artificer could damage him with the create bonfire cantrip, everyone else was using help or positioning or something like that to open up those guys.
Spellcasters are more powerful than martials but that has never been a problem in ANY 5E game I have played (and I have played hundreds). I have had a lot of other problems at tables, but this has never been one of them in. I hear a lot about theories on how bad this is but I have not seen them in practice and I wonder if most of the people complaining have either or if they are just worried abotu seeing it.
Finally I will note balance is NOT a good thing. 4E was balanced and it was awful because of it.
It isn't the same thing, in any way, shape or form, and I think the fact that you can't see that is the reason this entire forum is in a deadlock. People who want the simple fighter kept as is have demonstrated time and again that they are fundamentally incapable of accepting that anyone could ever want to play a fighter in a different way to them. As I explained in the post that you quoted, giving Extra Attack or Spirit Guardians to the base druid is fundamentally distinct from giving maneuvers to the base fighter because maneuvers are supported by both the description of the fighter class AND the massive mechanical disparity between martials and casters.
In addition, as I edited in to my previous post, maneuvers are not magical or superhuman. See here:
We do have a different idea, but using "history is on my side" means nothing. Literally all social progress in the history of existence has been "against the side of history" because progress by definition means new. Just because you are stuck in the past, stuck to tradition, doesn't mean you have to drag the rest of us back to the 80s with you.
On top of that, again, as I feel like I have had to repeat over and over again, no one is trying to muck the game up for others or steal the fighter class from the poor simple fighter players. We had identified an issue we have with a class, that impedes our ability to enjoy that class. We would like to find a way to fix that issue while still allowing for other players to enjoy their game as well. We don't want to monopolise the fighter, we want everyone who plays D&D to be able to enjoy every facet of D&D.
Exactly, that quote is a reply to someone who found my opinion insulting!
Ok, they are already superhuman. That is hardly a reason for adding aditional martial abilities and making them more superhuman.
Further it is a matter of what you are comparing them to. If you put me in with a bunch of 6 year olds in real life I have King Kong level strength, God like Wisdom and I am super fast. I am vastly physically and mentally superior to all of them in most measurable attributes. Put me in a group with my peers (people in their 50s) and I am pretty average physically. In the same token - sure a fighter is superhuman against commoners, and a 10th level fighter is superhuman compared to 1st level PCs. But put that fighter against his own peers - other PCs of 10th level - compared to those people he is and should be grounded and mundane.
I have answered this numerous times. On the other hand one has bothered to come up with a good reason why they should get that as a class mechanic, other than "I want to play that" which is hardly a reason (see Druid and extra attack above). This is especially when those options are available for a build through other methods via subclasses or feats.
Further, despite the fact I disagree with the premise, I have offered solutions on this thread as an optional replacement for extra attack. This would do exactly what people claim they want but no one seems to want to do that. People want a straight up power and complexity increase in the class.
Too true. If that had been the Eldritch Knight we had gotten, with a specific buff to concentration, this whole conversation would be about bringing the rest of the fighter subclasses up on par with the EK.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
"4e was awful because it was balanced" is I think the coldest take I've ever heard in my entire life. 4e was awful because it was slow and clunky and because it had way too much to track like numerical resistances and whatnot. The idea that every member of a collaborative storytelling game being able to play the same game without outshining one another is somehow not the specific end goal of said game is simply not true.
Literally where did I say that. I said that all characters are superhuman, not magical. Rage is a superhuman feature, but its not magical. Action Surge is definitely a superhuman feature, but its not magical. What I said was that, ironically, the one feature you are so adamantly against adding "because it is magical and not mundane" is actually mundane, but that doesn't mean that suddenly the rest of 5e is mundane too. And I stand by what I said - every character is superhuman in 5e - even the rogue, which has mostly mundane features until 7th level, is still a superhumanly good rogue. That is what makes them a rogue. A mundane rogue is a petty thief or burglar. A 1st level rogue is inherently a cut above the rest.
If you don't give magic items out, you are 1) in the minority - most 5e games are high magic; and 2) allowing the possibility for any caster to vastly outstrip the functionality of every martial (note the use of "allowing the possibility for" - I'm not saying it will happen, just that you are inviting the possibility of it happening into your game). Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't it mean it won't, and it certainly doesn't mean that it doesn't happen in many many other games.
This thread went back into its usual circles over night, so I wanted to take a minute to thank you for providing this feedback before it was lost entirely.
I appreciate it. This helps me understand a little better. At least for what one person is looking for. I do like the idea of making a separate section for maneuvers, especially if they plan up use them as feature options more often. Or if they make advanced versions of them. They've included them in a fighting style, a feat, and some other recent playtest material for different books. It makes more sense from an organizational standpoint to give them their own place in the book.
They did not find your opinion insulting, you told them to "stay in their lane," which is insulting and also gatekeeping.
After you told them to, again, "stay in their lane," they said that they were insulted by it (rightly so), repeated what many of us have been asking for 460 posts with no actual response, and then you hit back with "well actually saying you didn't like my favourite class is insulting too, nyeh." You do see how these are completely different, right? Lmao.
Hey, good thing none of us are comparing an adult to a child, cos we're comparing the average mundane commoner and the average superhuman PC. EVERY PC is orders of magnitude more superhuman than EVERY commoner. Truly, no idea what you meant by this.
Weird, cos I've come up with those reasons multiple times now. Here's an example, in which I am already lamenting the fact that I keep having to repeat myself because no simpler fighter aficionado wants to listen:
Our reasons are clear. We have seen an issue in the game. We want to fix that issue. Some people like the game as is. Therefore, we must find a solution to that issue that still allows the people who enjoy the game as is to keep on enjoying the game their way. D&D is a collaborative storytelling game that we play as a group, and we fix as a community, and that means fixing it in a way that everyone can continue playing and enjoying. Unfortunately, the one time I did that I was immediately shut down and told to "just go play some other class, if you want complexity." More gatekeeping, just like telling someone to "stay in their own lane" - all of the gatekeeping is coming from the simple fighter's side, all of the circular discussion is coming from that side, all of the active misrepresentation is coming from that side.
If you truly believe that, then you have fundamentally misunderstood what we want. We don't want replacements for Extra Attack. Extra Attack is already one of the strongest features a martial can get, and you think we want to get rid of that? No, we just want to have some level of decision making when we play our martials, in the same way spellcasters get to make a decision every turn.
I think this is a good idea, I think moving them away from the class (like spells!) means that you can separate the content for simple fighters and compelx fighters. Perhaps something like:
Something short, sweet, and allows you to keep simplicity OR take complexity without making complexity fundamentally superior to simplicity, because that's already the issue between martials and spellcasters.
Edit: also, Stego? I appreciate you trying to keep everyone on the same track and trying to actually find a fix for everyone's problems. It's refreshing.
God, I can now imagine Alter Self being useful in anything other than heavily aquatic campaigns. Somehow buffing both the EK and Alter Self with a single feature is a pretty cool achievement.
The things you mention flow from the desire to be balanced. Perhaps they could have implemented it better but the primary shortfall of 4Ewas trying to balance a fighter swinging a greatsword with a Wizard casting a Lightning Bolt. If you wantto balance those things one can not be more powerful than the other.
In collaborative storytelling mechanical features are not what leads to one player outshining every other. The biggest driver in this by far is PLAYER personality with the way the DM runs the game and his personality being the second biggest driver. Included in that is what the split is between combat, social and exploration pillars. No version of D&D except 4E has been balanced in combat. 5E is wildly unbalanced especially if some players make very weak choices and other players make very strong ones yet that does not make one player outshine the other in play. I have literally NEVER experienced this in probably 1000 or so gaming sessions. Every time a player has been outshined it is due to something other than character mechanics.
Finally if you really want to mechanically balance the fighter with the other classes you need to give it abilities outside of combat. Put your fighter with better combat maneuvers in Wild Behind the Witchlight with a party that does not want to engage in combat at all and his mechanical abilities are going to bring nothing to the game at all. he can still avoid being outshined through his play.
I never said the rest of 5E was mundane. I said the base Fighter and Rogue class should be.
I think you misunderstood what I meant. Most games are high magic with magic items. When I said "give out" magic items I should have been more clear and used different wording. Most DMs do not assign players specific magic items for their class. When it comes to loot I don't think most DMs make sure there is a magic weapon that suits the GWM fighter for example. I think a majority of DMs either place magic items randomly, for story reasons or use published adventures as written. That is what I was referring to when I said that, and I admit the fault is mine and I should have been more clear.
In terms of mechanical power casters do outstrip non-casters. I don't think that is even in debate. That does not mean those casters will outshine other players in play and just because it could happen doesn't mean it does happen. Even if it does happen though it can be easily remedied by simply playing a caster.
What I am saying essentially is that Fighters, Rogues and other martials are not outshined in actual play because of their objectively weaker combat mechanics. I have never seen that happen, and I have difficulty believing it does happen But if class mechanics really do drive that in some games I have been fortunate enough to avoid; then it is still EASILY remedied by not playing a martial (or alternatively by not allowing casters). If martials and casters can't have a fun time together then don't play them together, choose something else if you are a player or steer a player to a class he can have fun with if you are a DM ... or join one of the many, many,, many tables where this is not a problem ... or homebrew.
Just because some small minute number of people playing on a small minute number of tables can't have fun playing a Fighter and can't have fun playing something other than a Fighter does not mean WOTC should change the Fighter.
This version of the EK would actually be super sweet, I think it’ll be my next “FIFY WotC” project.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Then not only can those people play Fighter in a complex way, but they can have all that complexity in any other class. Yurei, throughout this thread, you have repeatedly used hyperbole, misrepresentation and name-calling to attack fictional versions of opinions that were nothing like any opinions actually voiced. At this point, I am honestly losing my confidence in my ability to have a civil disagreement with anyone who repeatedly does this.
AndreGolin, I am genuinely sorry because I believe that I have misunderstood your opinion, and badly so. I think I may have confused you with some other avatar-less users on this thread who have suggested things such as adding large amounts of complexity to the base Fighter class with no alternatives. Looking back at your posts, I seem to have mistaken your and other users opinions. I genuinely am sorry for this.
However, I have never ever told you "to go **** yourselves" or anything resembling that. I have given numerous other suggestions to help solve the issue, telling me that I'm not interested in helping anyone when I am literally working on a homebrew Fighter subclass is inaccurate. Personally, I and many other people I know have needed Fighter to help adjust to the game. Please do not tell me that I shouldn't "join in" on discussions about the Fighters simplicity or complexity, because it hurts me deeply when people say that my perspective is not valid and that I shouldn't voice it.
So there, I've apologized for misunderstanding you. However, you seem to be misunderstanding what I am saying too.
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.The things I mention are partially due to a desire to be balanced. And, yes, you're right? If you want to balance these things one cannot be more powerful than the other? You're right, and that's why I try to make non-full-casters stronger in my homebrews? I'm really not understanding your point here.
Also, mechanical differences in a collaborative storytelling game ABSOLUTELY lead to players outshining one another. If you're playing a TTPRG like Wanderhome where there are functionally no mechanics, then yes player personality is the biggest thing. However, I have seen time and again martials complaining about the turn coming around to them in combat, taking the Attack action, rolling some dice, and then the turn ending. There's no meaningful decision-making, there's no incentive to do anything other than attack. Just because you haven't experienced it doesn't mean it isn't a very real phenomenon that makes up the majority of discussions around D&D.
"5E is wildly unbalanced especially if some players make very weak choices and other players make very strong ones" - that is not imbalance. That is player choice. A player is allowed to start their character with low scores, or make unoptimal decisions in chargen. The imbalance in 5e is that if you ever pick any non-full-caster you are inherently weaker than any full-caster, full stop, from 1st level through to 20th level. There is a complete and fundamental disconnect between the game of D&D martials play and the game of D&D casters play.
"Finally if you really want to mechanically balance the fighter with the other classes you need to give it abilities outside of combat." Damn, like Ambush? Like Commanding Presence, Tactical Assessment? Woah that's crazy, did you know that the feature we've been suggesting this entire time actually covers that too? It's almost like we've thought about what we want from our game for more than 2 seconds. Also, in my PHB revised, where I gave fighters maneuvers, I also gave them more features to make them more fun to play out of combat. Here's one example:
Simple, flat bonus that you pick once and never have to worry about again, just like Fighting Styles (which, by y'alls admission of loving the fighter's current simplicity, is absolutely simple enough for anyone to pick up easily).
Whenever I DM, I always make sure to think about which of my players are having fun and which ones aren't, which ones are stronger or weaker, which ones feel stronger or weaker to play (cos that's a different but equally important thing), and which ones need magical items. I'm always giving my players magic items and feats and boons that I think will complement their character's strengths and shore up their weaknesses. I never give out random items, because half the time they're just never used. I always give my players access to what I think they need, now or for in the future. And, from what I've noticed, invariably I tend towards stronger items and boons for the martials, because, invariably, they are always lacking compared to casters.
"That does not mean those casters will outshine other players in play and just because it could happen doesn't mean it does happen" damn it's almost like that's exactly what I said, wild. However, that doesn't change the fact that casters regularly do outshine martials. So, yes, you're right to repeat my words back at me - casters won't always be better than martials. They just are most of the time, in which case its fine because at least the fighter is still simple.
Also, "if it does happen it can be easily remedied by simply playing a caster" damn! Not only is that the second time you've gatekept someone, you're actually gatekeeping EVERYONE! You have just sent out a message to the entire community saying "if you play a martial at my table and aren't happy with how strong casters are compared to martials? Just play a caster lmao." What about all the people who love playing martials, who want to play up to the fantasy of a powerful warrior who slays dragons? Are they just not allowed at your table? Should they not be allowed at any table? I hope you know this is what you're implying, and I hope you take this away, think about it, and come back to the discussion ready to compromise with complex fighters in the same way we are ready - and have already made strides to do so, multiple times - to compromise with you.
"What I am saying essentially is that Fighters, Rogues and other martials are not outshined in actual play because of their objectively weaker combat mechanics. I have never seen that happen, and I have difficulty believing it does happen." You've just gone into a hospital and said "I have never seen this specific illness, and I have difficulty believing it does happen" while there are people all around you actively telling you that not only does it happen, but when it happens it can ruin their life/game. The absolute lack of empathy is astounding. There are dozens and dozens of threads on D&D Beyond filled with hundreds of people telling you to your face that this impacts their game, and your response is "nah, it's never happened to me so I don't think it exists."
" If martials and casters can't have a fun time together then don't play them together, choose something else if you are a player or steer a player to a class he can have fun with if you are a DM ... or join one of the many, many,, many tables where this is not a problem ... or homebrew." Third time's the charm! Gatekeeping players out of options just because you aren't empathetic or imaginative enough to realise that they might still want to play that class, just in a way that works better for them, and that these ideas are compatible, but one half of the conversation refuses to allow for any kind of compromise or leeway.
"Just because some small minute number" (nice reductionism, very cool) "of people playing on a small minute number of tables can't have fun playing a Fighter and can't have fun playing something other than a Fighter does not mean WOTC should change the Fighter." I can have fun playing any class in the game except Monk (I never vibed with Monk, completely personal preference). That doesn't mean that I don't think the barbarian, rogue, fighter AND monk need some serious revisions to make them more fun and meaningful to play and to adhere to the lore better and to appeal to the fantasy of playing a legendary warrior.
I honestly think the Arcane Trickster is fine, its by far the stronger of the two, and it's arguably the best rogue as well. And yah defo agree, the EK should be about using magic to assist the bonking, rather than substituting the bonking for magic, especially since the EK's spells scale so slowly that it'll never be a worthwhile substitution.
Thematically I would agree on EK as I find most of the Evocations they get to be not very useful. Magic Missile is ok, but usually not worth trading a shield slot for. When I am playing it is usually Abjurations I am casting early in combat. As far as a bonus action goes though I don't think that is very useful Warmagic tends to gobble up a lot of bonus actions. I think this is really what Action Surge is for on an EK. In the first turn of a tough combat throw up your buff with action surge, then use your blade cantrip, then attack with Warmagic.
Enchantment and illusion are exactly was a Rogue needs though. I think this is a perfect fit for a AT. There are a few Divination spells that would fit too (Find Traps, Detect Magic, Clairvoyance), but if you were limiting it to 2 schools I think Illusion and Enchantment are the right ones for AT.