I'm saying that Fighter is the most simple martial by a decently large amount. The other martials may seem simple to you, but for the vast majority of players, I don't think Rogue is exactly known for being simple. As for Barbarian, not only is that class not actually as simple as some make it out to be, but it's also the most limiting concept in D&D, as I explained HERE. Yes, most martial classes aren't complex, but I never pretended they were and they aren't exactly simple either. Martials aren't just "complex" or "simple", most are something in between.
Sure, and then you were given ideas for how you could see the barbarian as a more expansive concept, something which I think you'd have the flexibility for, since you're capable of seeing the Fighter as more than "I hit things" despite the lack of mechanical backing for that, but you dismissed those ideas in favor of insisting the Barbarian can only be a "frothing madman." You insist without explanation here that several Barbarian features characterize them as frothing madmen when they are far from being that limiting.
For instance, it was suggested that the Barbarian's "Rage" could be flavored as a Sherlock Holmes-esque combat calculation, and when Holmes grabs Moriarty to throw him over the falls, knowing that he is leaving himself open for Moriarty to drag him over with him, what is that if not attacking with "fierce desperation"? A "Reckless Attack," even. Hardly a frothing madman. Relentless rage is nothing more than the ability to keep fighting under grievous injuries, something that happens in countless action movies without any need for froth or madness. Brutal Critical and Indomitable Might are both simply about being strong and powerful, with no need for any reference to gnawing on shields.
But anyway, you've already moved the goalposts. It's not that the Fighter is the "only" simple martial, and that if it is made more complex we're taking away "the [sole] simple martial option," it's that the Fighter is somehow the "most simple" martial (because Action Surge is so much simpler than Rage?), and our simple martial must not be conceptually limited in any way. Why shouldn't the Fighter, who devotes their life to studying combat and approaching it with skill and honed technique, be the more complex martial?
Fighter is the one simple martial with a versatile class design that was made to be available to new players.
To the extent fighters are versatile they aren't simple (and this is not limited to fighters -- there's a pretty direct correlation between complexity and versatility for all classes and subclasses) -- in fact, I suspect many of the people who want more 'complexity' for fighters are really more interested in making fighters more versatile.
So I'm at work and can't write anything but the briefest, lamest of posts. But... question. I have proposed ideas and compromises? Alternate class features supplanting "complicated" features like Superiority, Fighting Style, and the like with fixed passive bonuses? Rebuilding the sidekick classes into "Foundation" classes that can be significantly simpler than even the absolute putrid actively-insulting Champion fighter, whilst discarding the dismissive 'sidekick' moniker and tuning the Foundation classes for the specific job of Being Simple? Before this thread even, the idea of adding a "Brutal Blow" maneuver that turns Superiority dice into raw damage, a'la Smite, to simplify the use of the resource for those uninterested in more tactical use of the mechanic?
I'm sure they saw it, but they dismissed it, because they're starting from a point of "nothing can complicate the simplicity of the base Fighter chassis, not even alternate class features," which means the only acceptable solution is to relegate complexity to subclasses, which means it comes online slowly and infrequently and ends up being tightly limited anyway.
So I'm at work and can't write anything but the briefest, lamest of posts. But... question. I have proposed ideas and compromises? Alternate class features supplanting "complicated" features like Superiority, Fighting Style, and the like with fixed passive bonuses? Rebuilding the sidekick classes into "Foundation" classes that can be significantly simpler than even the absolute putrid actively-insulting Champion fighter, whilst discarding the dismissive 'sidekick' moniker and tuning the Foundation classes for the specific job of Being Simple? Before this thread even, the idea of adding a "Brutal Blow" maneuver that turns Superiority dice into raw damage, a'la Smite, to simplify the use of the resource for those uninterested in more tactical use of the mechanic?
Did nobody see any of that?
If you're speaking to me, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to imply that you hadn't suggested anything at all here. (I didn't read the previous threads) I was only listing the things that we have been actively doing here to try to find something that works for both you, and the other people who like the fighter the way it is. That included us sharing stories, offering suggestions, asking for input, etc. That's all I was trying to say. The one thing we haven't been doing is telling you to play a different game.
I'm sure they saw it, but they dismissed it, because they're starting from a point of "nothing can complicate the simplicity of the base Fighter chassis, not even alternate class features," which means the only acceptable solution is to relegate complexity to subclasses, which means it comes online slowly and infrequently and ends up being tightly limited anyway.
This is just untrue. I have made many suggestions on how to update the base class with options that can give the player control over the level of mechanical complexity they want to play with. I've worked with everyone here that wants a more complex fighter, to brainstorm solutions. I've tried to bring everyone together and not dismiss anyone's experience. Even the people who like the fighter exactly the way it is are just asking that it not be taken from them.
So I'm at work and can't write anything but the briefest, lamest of posts. But... question. I have proposed ideas and compromises? Alternate class features supplanting "complicated" features like Superiority, Fighting Style, and the like with fixed passive bonuses? Rebuilding the sidekick classes into "Foundation" classes that can be significantly simpler than even the absolute putrid actively-insulting Champion fighter, whilst discarding the dismissive 'sidekick' moniker and tuning the Foundation classes for the specific job of Being Simple? Before this thread even, the idea of adding a "Brutal Blow" maneuver that turns Superiority dice into raw damage, a'la Smite, to simplify the use of the resource for those uninterested in more tactical use of the mechanic?
Did nobody see any of that?
If you're speaking to me, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to imply that you hadn't suggested anything at all here. (I didn't read the previous threads) I was only listing the things that we have been actively doing here to try to find something that works for both you, and the other people who like the fighter the way it is. That included us sharing stories, offering suggestions, asking for input, etc. That's all I was trying to say. The one thing we haven't been doing is telling you to play a different game.
Um correct me if I'm wrong but I think Yurei made a lot of those in this thread.
So I'm at work and can't write anything but the briefest, lamest of posts. But... question. I have proposed ideas and compromises? Alternate class features supplanting "complicated" features like Superiority, Fighting Style, and the like with fixed passive bonuses? Rebuilding the sidekick classes into "Foundation" classes that can be significantly simpler than even the absolute putrid actively-insulting Champion fighter, whilst discarding the dismissive 'sidekick' moniker and tuning the Foundation classes for the specific job of Being Simple? Before this thread even, the idea of adding a "Brutal Blow" maneuver that turns Superiority dice into raw damage, a'la Smite, to simplify the use of the resource for those uninterested in more tactical use of the mechanic?
Did nobody see any of that?
If you're speaking to me, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to imply that you hadn't suggested anything at all here. (I didn't read the previous threads) I was only listing the things that we have been actively doing here to try to find something that works for both you, and the other people who like the fighter the way it is. That included us sharing stories, offering suggestions, asking for input, etc. That's all I was trying to say. The one thing we haven't been doing is telling you to play a different game.
Um correct me if I'm wrong but I think Yurei made a lot of those in this thread.
You aren't wrong. I was only saying that I couldn't speak about that thread or what was said there. I can only speak to what was said here. And I recognized that Yurei had made suggestions here. In the sentence right before the one you bolded. I said I wasn't trying to imply that she didn't. Because she had.
I then went on to explain that my previous post was not intended to imply Yurei wasn't trying. I was trying to talk about what the rest of us had done to try to compromise. And point out that it was all done while being insulted. And that still no one told Yurei to go play another game. And no one insulted Yurei back.
These posts are all made in the context of the conversation being had. I'm not sure what's happening. Is everyone just trying to pick a fight now? Or am I just really bad at explaining myself?
You're fine, Steg. I have deeply limited ability to post from the never-sufficiently-damned phone is all. That said, Pantagruel has an excellent point.
Versatility is the end goal. OPTIONS, beyond "I hit it w/muh Hittin' Stick!" REAL options. VALID options. I am also deeply tired of being told that giving the people who want OPTIONS more OPTIONS is Ruining The Game Forever (!!!) for people who can't deal with options and just want a one-button class that doesn't do anything but Hittin' Stick, and those people are intrinsically more valuable than the rest of us and deserve special consideration to the active and intentional detrimental of everybody else.
Of course, the elephant in the room is that the current crop of designers are bad at giving classes versatility and options without resorting to magic. Witness how heavily the Ranger and Bard lean on spellcasting in the 1DD playtest to allow them to be good at the things the flavor says they should be good at. Not that I blame them, because previous efforts in that vein (Book of Nine Swords, the Martial power source in 4th Edition) have been locked away in the Restricted Section for fear of angering the Grognard Coalition, and without those to build off of, 5e offers a very limited palette for offering martials versatility (bring back the Warlord you cowards).
Even if that weren't an issue, the sticking point seems to be that people insist that the Fighter needs to be the "simple" martial, or at least default to simplicity, when I would argue that out of all the martial classes, it is the most thematically appropriate choice for the complex martial class. Who else is better positioned to push mundane excellence to lofty heights through the application of skill and technique, rather than mystical flim-flammery?
Stego, the problem is that you're trying to stake out a middle ground between "I want Fighters to have the option to go complex baked into the class" (as opposed to pointing them towards the same backgrounds, feats, and magical items everyone gets) and "Under no circumstances can we ask first level Fighters to make interesting decisions," and keep getting pulled towards the latter. You gestured towards the Monk as a more complex martial class, but the Monk has the same problem as the Battlemaster: a very limited set of choices to make on a round by round basis, all of which tend to be dwarfed by "hit harder/faster" in effect. Beyond Ki powers, most of what the Monk gets is passive and reactive. The problem is not the difficulty of reflavoring (the Monk has no more issue here than the barbarian), but the fact that under the gloss is the same limited set of choices.
FWIW, I do think your idea of offering combat maneuvers from level 1 has some merit. In the 1DD style, they could say "Pick Precision Attack and Lunging Strike, or two from this list," which would give players favoring simplicity a pair of maneuvers that happen on their turn as part of a normal attack and either help them land a hit or hit a little harder (with some corner case applications of the additional reach). If they then built on that by making the Battle Master offer more "advanced" maneuvers that offer a greater versatility of choices that increase in efficacy/power as they increase in level (rather than picking from the same pool forever), we might be onto something. Assuming that adding the option of maneuvers to the base class isn't a non-starter for the likes of BoringBard.
Well, Tasha's already added maneuvers to the base class, via the Superior Technique fighting style, it's just a super limited resource, and techniques don't particularly scale, it's like you're getting first level spell slots... nice when you get them but not really going anywhere.
I think the current fighter is already complex with the subclasses, action surge and second wind, not to mention the complexity you can get with feats. I certainly wouldn't want it more complex than it is and personally I don't think physics-breaking super-human stuff is the purview of a non-magical class. To me, super-human is magic and magic belongs with the magicians.
I think the fighter (and most classes) are likely to go the other way and become more simple in ONE. Certainly the Rogue and Ranger are simpler than their Tasha's counterparts, I think that is broadly what we will see across most classes.
I am cool with fighters being the only class that can get maneuvers through their class, the can getone use per short rest and I honestly think that is enough if that is the direction you want to go with your fighter. Me personally, I never play battlemaster any more, but I almost always get Superior Technique fighting style when I do play a fighter, for exactly the reason you state - I want a little more compexity and variation.
Martial Adept and Superior Technique, as written, are traps that suck unless combined with other sources of Superiority. And yes, I say this as a proponent of making Martial Adept a first-level chargen feat. For flavor it's great; as a real option that offers solid benefit it's a joke. For the same reason the Arcane Archer is garbage - and yes, I've played one. The Arcane Archer gets to be an Arcane Archer twice a day tops, because short rests simply don't exist anymore. Two uses per day of your signature build-defining power just isn't enough to feel good. How long and bitterly have warlocks complained about their unreasonably limited spellcasting, ne?
Martial Adept is a toy. A fun toy, but a toy. Superior Technique is an off-brand Dollar General toy. Neither is remotely sufficient to truly increase the fighter's versatility, no matter how often they're thrown in my face.
Martial Adept and Superior Technique, as written, are traps that suck unless combined with other sources of Superiority. And yes, I say this as a proponent of making Martial Adept a first-level chargen feat. For flavor it's great; as a real option that offers solid benefit it's a joke. For the same reason the Arcane Archer is garbage - and yes, I've played one. The Arcane Archer gets to be an Arcane Archer twice a day tops, because short rests simply don't exist anymore. Two uses per day of your signature build-defining power just isn't enough to feel good. How long and bitterly have warlocks complained about their unreasonably limited spellcasting, ne?
Well that is your opinion, but I enjoy them and like I said it is the most common fighting style I get. I also get martial adept occasionally.
My point is that option is already available, it may "suck" as far as you are concerned but it does bring more complexity, that is a fact.
If you really want more maneuvers or stuff added to the base class I would say make it an option that could be swapped out with extra attack. So each time you get extra attack you could take that or alternatively something more "complex" but have one less attack.
I think the current fighter is already complex with the subclasses, action surge and second wind, not to mention the complexity you can get with feats. I certainly wouldn't want it more complex than it is and personally I don't think physics-breaking super-human stuff is the purview of a non-magical class.
This one of the core reasons martial/caster balance in D&D has always been broken: you can't balance martial/caster without either giving martial characters superhuman abilities or drastically limiting tactical magic.
Myth has generally done the former, as have both western and eastern comic books (the Hulk is basically a barbarian... other than the part where he can shatter mountain ranges). The Western sword and sorcery genre has tended more towards the second, where spells with dramatic effects simply can't be cast in a tactical timeframe -- if you attack a wizard with a sword, he's probably going to run away, or maybe use extremely minor spells (in D&D terms, comparable to cantrips or first level spells). Fiction that does neither one generally doesn't bother with a pretense of equality, wizards in Harry Potter or the Dresden Files are just plain superior.
The Book of Nine Swords pretty much went the path of martial superpowers, though in practice it didn't go far enough, a CoDzilla or Wizard still way outclassed a Tome of Battle warrior at higher levels. D&D 4e mostly went the other way -- sure, martial characters had powers, but most of the work was done by dropping the nerfhammer of doom on spellcasters. Both were rejected by D&D players, which I can only interpret as a large percentage of D&D players want fighters to suck.
I'm saying that Fighter is the most simple martial by a decently large amount. The other martials may seem simple to you, but for the vast majority of players, I don't think Rogue is exactly known for being simple. As for Barbarian, not only is that class not actually as simple as some make it out to be, but it's also the most limiting concept in D&D, as I explained HERE. Yes, most martial classes aren't complex, but I never pretended they were and they aren't exactly simple either. Martials aren't just "complex" or "simple", most are something in between.
Sure, and then you were given ideas for how you could see the barbarian as a more expansive concept, something which I think you'd have the flexibility for, since you're capable of seeing the Fighter as more than "I hit things" despite the lack of mechanical backing for that, but you dismissed those ideas in favor of insisting the Barbarian can only be a "frothing madman." You insist without explanation here that several Barbarian features characterize them as frothing madmen when they are far from being that limiting.
For instance, it was suggested that the Barbarian's "Rage" could be flavored as a Sherlock Holmes-esque combat calculation, and when Holmes grabs Moriarty to throw him over the falls, knowing that he is leaving himself open for Moriarty to drag him over with him, what is that if not attacking with "fierce desperation"? A "Reckless Attack," even. Hardly a frothing madman. Relentless rage is nothing more than the ability to keep fighting under grievous injuries, something that happens in countless action movies without any need for froth or madness. Brutal Critical and Indomitable Might are both simply about being strong and powerful, with no need for any reference to gnawing on shields.
But anyway, you've already moved the goalposts. It's not that the Fighter is the "only" simple martial, and that if it is made more complex we're taking away "the [sole] simple martial option," it's that the Fighter is somehow the "most simple" martial (because Action Surge is so much simpler than Rage?), and our simple martial must not be conceptually limited in any way. Why shouldn't the Fighter, who devotes their life to studying combat and approaching it with skill and honed technique, be the more complex martial?
You have taken basically everything I've said out of context.
For one, yes, there are ways to spend time, effort, and energy in reflavoring most of their class features for different concepts, but do you seriously expect a new player who is actively seeking out a simple class they can play to spend all that work remodeling things? Not only that, but a new player might now know they're allowed to change and reflavor what is written.
Secondly, I never insisted that a Barbarian can only be a frothing madman; I said that's what their features say they are and make them out to be.
Thirdly, I did not "insist without explanation" that several features tie into these themes. I simply listed features that mention or relate to things about the stereotypical Barbarian.
I don't think you're looking at the text around the rules that we're discussing. So I will quote the text in the PHB of each of the abilities I mentioned, and more specifically, the sections taht contained what I said they mentioned.
Rage: "In battle, you fill with a primal ferocity."
Reckless Attack: "You can throw aside all concern for defense to attack with fierce desperation."
Relentless Rage: "Your Rage can keep you fighting despite grievous wounds."
Persistent Rage: "Your Rage is so fierce that it ends only once if you fall unconscious or if you choose to end it."
Not only that, but as I mentioned in that post, there are numerous other features about superhuman strength. Those are more features that tie into the Barbarian's theme.
There is more text and evidence I cited in the post you responded to, but you appear to have ignored it, so I won't bother bringing any of that up again.
Yes, I know you can reflavor things, but even though I responded to this in my previous post, I'll repeat myself again: There are technically ways you could reflavor anything. I could pretend my Terrasque was a cat and spend hours making elaborate explanations for that, but what new player who wanted to play a simpler class that didn't require much work would want to spend hours reflavoring a class that has a clear-cut, premade, limiting and inflexible concept that all of their features relate to and close to 1/4 of their features actively mention?
Not only would your proposal force new players -- or players who just want simplicity -- into the most conceptually limiting class, but these players want the class that you are trying to take away from them, not the class that you are trying to shoehorn them into.
Per the links I cited above, there is a 5% difference between the amount of people who play Fighters and Barbarians, with Fighters on top. There is a reason more people like Fighter: It's because the class actually gives them conceptual versatility, among numerous other things.
We get it: You want Fighter to be complex because you enjoy complexity, but you can make literally any other martial class in the game complex. So why are you so insistent on taking Fighter away from the people who love it or need it, and then pushing those people into playing a class they don't want to be?
Fighter is the one simple martial with a versatile class design that was made to be available to new players.
To the extent fighters are versatile they aren't simple (and this is not limited to fighters -- there's a pretty direct correlation between complexity and versatility for all classes and subclasses) -- in fact, I suspect many of the people who want more 'complexity' for fighters are really more interested in making fighters more versatile.
Actually, I was talking about conceptual versatility, although the two are connected.
You're fine, Steg. I have deeply limited ability to post from the never-sufficiently-damned phone is all. That said, Pantagruel has an excellent point.
Versatility is the end goal. OPTIONS, beyond "I hit it w/muh Hittin' Stick!" REAL options. VALID options. I am also deeply tired of being told that giving the people who want OPTIONS more OPTIONS is Ruining The Game Forever (!!!) for people who can't deal with options and just want a one-button class that doesn't do anything but Hittin' Stick, and those people are intrinsically more valuable than the rest of us and deserve special consideration to the active and intentional detrimental of everybody else.
Stop it. Let us try and have some gorram fun too.
Feel free to like more complex classes, with more options, but some people like/want/need simpler options, and they should be able to have those options, too. No one said their players who like simplicity "are intrinsically more valuable than the rest of us and deserve special consideration"; all we said is that it might be considerate not to take away the most beloved "simple" class so that you can turn it into something that is much less accessible for new players.
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.
Yes, I know you can reflavor things, but even though I responded to this in my previous post, I'll repeat myself again: There are technically ways you could reflavor anything. I could pretend my Terrasque was a cat and spend hours making elaborate explanations for that, but what new player who wanted to play a simpler class that didn't require much work would want to spend hours reflavoring a class that has a clear-cut, premade, limiting and inflexible concept that all of their features relate to and close to 1/4 of their features actively mention?
Not only would your proposal force new players -- or players who just want simplicity -- into the most conceptually limiting class, but these players want the class that you are trying to take away from them, not the class that you are trying to shoehorn them into.
I don't know, I kind of like teaching new players that classes are more than their stereotypes, and that flavor is something that can be treated flexibly, rather than a straightjacket. But sure, it takes hours to pick up a 1st level barbarian and say "instead of 'primal ferocity,' it's more of an intense battle trance."
How about we have a Fighter that can be simple or complex instead of all one or the other, so we don't have to take away the "only" simple class to have a complex martial. As the most conceptually versatile martial class, the Fighter is best position to be mechanically versatile as well.
Fighter is the one simple martial with a versatile class design that was made to be available to new players.
To the extent fighters are versatile they aren't simple (and this is not limited to fighters -- there's a pretty direct correlation between complexity and versatility for all classes and subclasses) -- in fact, I suspect many of the people who want more 'complexity' for fighters are really more interested in making fighters more versatile.
Actually, I was talking about conceptual versatility, although the two are connected.
If you want versatile concepts out of fighter, you have a choice between "be bad at my concept" and "do complicated things involving feats, multiclassing, and complicated subclasses". If you have an unusual concept for a mundane character, there are ton of things you can do with, say, fighter(battle master)/rogue, and you'll actually likely be competent at two or even all three pillars of play, but most of the heavy lifting there is being done by the rogue levels, and the result is, while not super complex, certainly medium complexity.
Of course, the elephant in the room is that the current crop of designers are bad at giving classes versatility and options without resorting to magic. Witness how heavily the Ranger and Bard lean on spellcasting in the 1DD playtest to allow them to be good at the things the flavor says they should be good at. Not that I blame them, because previous efforts in that vein (Book of Nine Swords, the Martial power source in 4th Edition) have been locked away in the Restricted Section for fear of angering the Grognard Coalition, and without those to build off of, 5e offers a very limited palette for offering martials versatility (bring back the Warlord you cowards).
Even if that weren't an issue, the sticking point seems to be that people insist that the Fighter needs to be the "simple" martial, or at least default to simplicity, when I would argue that out of all the martial classes, it is the most thematically appropriate choice for the complex martial class. Who else is better positioned to push mundane excellence to lofty heights through the application of skill and technique, rather than mystical flim-flammery?
Stego, the problem is that you're trying to stake out a middle ground between "I want Fighters to have the option to go complex baked into the class" (as opposed to pointing them towards the same backgrounds, feats, and magical items everyone gets) and "Under no circumstances can we ask first level Fighters to make interesting decisions," and keep getting pulled towards the latter. You gestured towards the Monk as a more complex martial class, but the Monk has the same problem as the Battlemaster: a very limited set of choices to make on a round by round basis, all of which tend to be dwarfed by "hit harder/faster" in effect. Beyond Ki powers, most of what the Monk gets is passive and reactive. The problem is not the difficulty of reflavoring (the Monk has no more issue here than the barbarian), but the fact that under the gloss is the same limited set of choices.
FWIW, I do think your idea of offering combat maneuvers from level 1 has some merit. In the 1DD style, they could say "Pick Precision Attack and Lunging Strike, or two from this list," which would give players favoring simplicity a pair of maneuvers that happen on their turn as part of a normal attack and either help them land a hit or hit a little harder (with some corner case applications of the additional reach). If they then built on that by making the Battle Master offer more "advanced" maneuvers that offer a greater versatility of choices that increase in efficacy/power as they increase in level (rather than picking from the same pool forever), we might be onto something. Assuming that adding the option of maneuvers to the base class isn't a non-starter for the likes of BoringBard.
I see what you're saying, and I do agree with a lot of it. The game designers do fall back on magic to solve a lot of problems. We got a whole new race and it was basically just another 'pick from 3 sets of spells' option mechanically, with limited flight. I can't count how many times 'misty step' has been used as a feature.
And yes, I'm all for more advanced levels of battle master maneuvers and fighting styles to go along with leveled feats.
But I disagree with the way this is characterized:
"I want Fighters to have the option to go complex baked into the class" (as opposed to pointing them towards the same backgrounds, feats, and magical items everyone gets) and "Under no circumstances can we ask first level Fighters to make interesting decisions,"
Fighters might have access to many of the same things other classes do. That's okay though. They also get them much more frequently. And can make use of more of them. Of all the 4th level feats we got in the last UA, a large percentage were really geared towards martial combat only.
The other side of the argument isn't saying 'fighters shouldn't make interesting decisions.' They are asking not to shut out players with complicated methods to make those decisions. A fighter can already make a lot of decisions. It might not be as obvious as it is with spells, but it is there. Wizards pick a few spells, but largely their equipment is unimportant. And once in battle, they mostly just try to be out of danger. Even at first level, a fighter chooses whether they focus on Strength or Dexterity, ranged combat or close combat, defensive or offensive kits, where to place themselves on the battlefield, how to draw enemy fire, who to protect, whether to attack as normal or grapple their opponent, what to do with them when they grab them, a weapon style focus, when to use second wind, when to make an attack of opportunity or risk waiting for a better target, etc. Their positioning and targeting often matters more than wizards using Sleep, or Bards handing out inspiration. And that's just the options that have rules specified at level 1. Their strength and durability also allows them to throw themselves into dangers that others can't. Something that isn't measured in short rest mechanics or slots Monks have even more options for positioning, battlefield control, and modes of attack. These are important, meaningful, and interesting decisions. They just don't have specific abilities associated with all of them. So they might not be as obvious. But the simple fighter advocates knows how much it matters, and how fun it can be. They just don't need or want complex mechanics to arrive at the same outcomes.
Whether these decisions are enough for someone or not is a matter of preference, and the crux of this thread. Many people express that they want more defined options. And more advanced level ones. We're just trying to figure out how to do that without breaking the most popular class for the people already happy with it.
I'm going to make another post for the rest of my thoughts so they can be more easily distinguished. I just wanted to try to get us all on the same page concerning where everyone was coming from.
I think the current fighter is already complex with the subclasses, action surge and second wind, not to mention the complexity you can get with feats. I certainly wouldn't want it more complex than it is and personally I don't think physics-breaking super-human stuff is the purview of a non-magical class.
This one of the core reasons martial/caster balance in D&D has always been broken: you can't balance martial/caster without either giving martial characters superhuman abilities or drastically limiting tactical magic.
Exactly, that is why you should not try to balance them. That is not broken, it is the way it should be.
The single biggest problem with 4E is the classes were very well balanced. That was the ONLY edition that actually had class balance. There were several poor design elements in 4E, but the near perfect balance is the largest reason the edition was so terrible. Your lightning bolt is doing 2d6 because that way the wizard was hitting several targets and doing the same damage as the fighter using an encounter ability.
Balance Sucks! and not just a little bit, it sucks a lot. It gets in the way of story, which is the central element of D&D.
Myth has generally done the former, as have both western and eastern comic books (the Hulk is basically a barbarian... other than the part where he can shatter mountain ranges).
Hulk is magical, In d&d parlance he is an artificer experiment gone awry.
Sure, and then you were given ideas for how you could see the barbarian as a more expansive concept, something which I think you'd have the flexibility for, since you're capable of seeing the Fighter as more than "I hit things" despite the lack of mechanical backing for that, but you dismissed those ideas in favor of insisting the Barbarian can only be a "frothing madman." You insist without explanation here that several Barbarian features characterize them as frothing madmen when they are far from being that limiting.
For instance, it was suggested that the Barbarian's "Rage" could be flavored as a Sherlock Holmes-esque combat calculation, and when Holmes grabs Moriarty to throw him over the falls, knowing that he is leaving himself open for Moriarty to drag him over with him, what is that if not attacking with "fierce desperation"? A "Reckless Attack," even. Hardly a frothing madman. Relentless rage is nothing more than the ability to keep fighting under grievous injuries, something that happens in countless action movies without any need for froth or madness. Brutal Critical and Indomitable Might are both simply about being strong and powerful, with no need for any reference to gnawing on shields.
But anyway, you've already moved the goalposts. It's not that the Fighter is the "only" simple martial, and that if it is made more complex we're taking away "the [sole] simple martial option," it's that the Fighter is somehow the "most simple" martial (because Action Surge is so much simpler than Rage?), and our simple martial must not be conceptually limited in any way. Why shouldn't the Fighter, who devotes their life to studying combat and approaching it with skill and honed technique, be the more complex martial?
To the extent fighters are versatile they aren't simple (and this is not limited to fighters -- there's a pretty direct correlation between complexity and versatility for all classes and subclasses) -- in fact, I suspect many of the people who want more 'complexity' for fighters are really more interested in making fighters more versatile.
So I'm at work and can't write anything but the briefest, lamest of posts. But... question. I have proposed ideas and compromises? Alternate class features supplanting "complicated" features like Superiority, Fighting Style, and the like with fixed passive bonuses? Rebuilding the sidekick classes into "Foundation" classes that can be significantly simpler than even the absolute putrid actively-insulting Champion fighter, whilst discarding the dismissive 'sidekick' moniker and tuning the Foundation classes for the specific job of Being Simple? Before this thread even, the idea of adding a "Brutal Blow" maneuver that turns Superiority dice into raw damage, a'la Smite, to simplify the use of the resource for those uninterested in more tactical use of the mechanic?
Did nobody see any of that?
Please do not contact or message me.
I'm sure they saw it, but they dismissed it, because they're starting from a point of "nothing can complicate the simplicity of the base Fighter chassis, not even alternate class features," which means the only acceptable solution is to relegate complexity to subclasses, which means it comes online slowly and infrequently and ends up being tightly limited anyway.
If you're speaking to me, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to imply that you hadn't suggested anything at all here. (I didn't read the previous threads) I was only listing the things that we have been actively doing here to try to find something that works for both you, and the other people who like the fighter the way it is. That included us sharing stories, offering suggestions, asking for input, etc. That's all I was trying to say. The one thing we haven't been doing is telling you to play a different game.
This is just untrue. I have made many suggestions on how to update the base class with options that can give the player control over the level of mechanical complexity they want to play with. I've worked with everyone here that wants a more complex fighter, to brainstorm solutions. I've tried to bring everyone together and not dismiss anyone's experience. Even the people who like the fighter exactly the way it is are just asking that it not be taken from them.
Um correct me if I'm wrong but I think Yurei made a lot of those in this thread.
You aren't wrong. I was only saying that I couldn't speak about that thread or what was said there. I can only speak to what was said here. And I recognized that Yurei had made suggestions here. In the sentence right before the one you bolded. I said I wasn't trying to imply that she didn't. Because she had.
I then went on to explain that my previous post was not intended to imply Yurei wasn't trying. I was trying to talk about what the rest of us had done to try to compromise. And point out that it was all done while being insulted. And that still no one told Yurei to go play another game. And no one insulted Yurei back.
These posts are all made in the context of the conversation being had. I'm not sure what's happening. Is everyone just trying to pick a fight now? Or am I just really bad at explaining myself?
You're fine, Steg. I have deeply limited ability to post from the never-sufficiently-damned phone is all. That said, Pantagruel has an excellent point.
Versatility is the end goal. OPTIONS, beyond "I hit it w/muh Hittin' Stick!" REAL options. VALID options. I am also deeply tired of being told that giving the people who want OPTIONS more OPTIONS is Ruining The Game Forever (!!!) for people who can't deal with options and just want a one-button class that doesn't do anything but Hittin' Stick, and those people are intrinsically more valuable than the rest of us and deserve special consideration to the active and intentional detrimental of everybody else.
Stop it. Let us try and have some gorram fun too.
Please do not contact or message me.
Of course, the elephant in the room is that the current crop of designers are bad at giving classes versatility and options without resorting to magic. Witness how heavily the Ranger and Bard lean on spellcasting in the 1DD playtest to allow them to be good at the things the flavor says they should be good at. Not that I blame them, because previous efforts in that vein (Book of Nine Swords, the Martial power source in 4th Edition) have been locked away in the Restricted Section for fear of angering the Grognard Coalition, and without those to build off of, 5e offers a very limited palette for offering martials versatility (bring back the Warlord you cowards).
Even if that weren't an issue, the sticking point seems to be that people insist that the Fighter needs to be the "simple" martial, or at least default to simplicity, when I would argue that out of all the martial classes, it is the most thematically appropriate choice for the complex martial class. Who else is better positioned to push mundane excellence to lofty heights through the application of skill and technique, rather than mystical flim-flammery?
Stego, the problem is that you're trying to stake out a middle ground between "I want Fighters to have the option to go complex baked into the class" (as opposed to pointing them towards the same backgrounds, feats, and magical items everyone gets) and "Under no circumstances can we ask first level Fighters to make interesting decisions," and keep getting pulled towards the latter. You gestured towards the Monk as a more complex martial class, but the Monk has the same problem as the Battlemaster: a very limited set of choices to make on a round by round basis, all of which tend to be dwarfed by "hit harder/faster" in effect. Beyond Ki powers, most of what the Monk gets is passive and reactive. The problem is not the difficulty of reflavoring (the Monk has no more issue here than the barbarian), but the fact that under the gloss is the same limited set of choices.
FWIW, I do think your idea of offering combat maneuvers from level 1 has some merit. In the 1DD style, they could say "Pick Precision Attack and Lunging Strike, or two from this list," which would give players favoring simplicity a pair of maneuvers that happen on their turn as part of a normal attack and either help them land a hit or hit a little harder (with some corner case applications of the additional reach). If they then built on that by making the Battle Master offer more "advanced" maneuvers that offer a greater versatility of choices that increase in efficacy/power as they increase in level (rather than picking from the same pool forever), we might be onto something. Assuming that adding the option of maneuvers to the base class isn't a non-starter for the likes of BoringBard.
Well, Tasha's already added maneuvers to the base class, via the Superior Technique fighting style, it's just a super limited resource, and techniques don't particularly scale, it's like you're getting first level spell slots... nice when you get them but not really going anywhere.
I think the current fighter is already complex with the subclasses, action surge and second wind, not to mention the complexity you can get with feats. I certainly wouldn't want it more complex than it is and personally I don't think physics-breaking super-human stuff is the purview of a non-magical class. To me, super-human is magic and magic belongs with the magicians.
I think the fighter (and most classes) are likely to go the other way and become more simple in ONE. Certainly the Rogue and Ranger are simpler than their Tasha's counterparts, I think that is broadly what we will see across most classes.
I am cool with fighters being the only class that can get maneuvers through their class, the can getone use per short rest and I honestly think that is enough if that is the direction you want to go with your fighter. Me personally, I never play battlemaster any more, but I almost always get Superior Technique fighting style when I do play a fighter, for exactly the reason you state - I want a little more compexity and variation.
Martial Adept and Superior Technique, as written, are traps that suck unless combined with other sources of Superiority. And yes, I say this as a proponent of making Martial Adept a first-level chargen feat. For flavor it's great; as a real option that offers solid benefit it's a joke. For the same reason the Arcane Archer is garbage - and yes, I've played one. The Arcane Archer gets to be an Arcane Archer twice a day tops, because short rests simply don't exist anymore. Two uses per day of your signature build-defining power just isn't enough to feel good. How long and bitterly have warlocks complained about their unreasonably limited spellcasting, ne?
Martial Adept is a toy. A fun toy, but a toy. Superior Technique is an off-brand Dollar General toy. Neither is remotely sufficient to truly increase the fighter's versatility, no matter how often they're thrown in my face.
Please do not contact or message me.
Well that is your opinion, but I enjoy them and like I said it is the most common fighting style I get. I also get martial adept occasionally.
My point is that option is already available, it may "suck" as far as you are concerned but it does bring more complexity, that is a fact.
If you really want more maneuvers or stuff added to the base class I would say make it an option that could be swapped out with extra attack. So each time you get extra attack you could take that or alternatively something more "complex" but have one less attack.
This one of the core reasons martial/caster balance in D&D has always been broken: you can't balance martial/caster without either giving martial characters superhuman abilities or drastically limiting tactical magic.
Myth has generally done the former, as have both western and eastern comic books (the Hulk is basically a barbarian... other than the part where he can shatter mountain ranges). The Western sword and sorcery genre has tended more towards the second, where spells with dramatic effects simply can't be cast in a tactical timeframe -- if you attack a wizard with a sword, he's probably going to run away, or maybe use extremely minor spells (in D&D terms, comparable to cantrips or first level spells). Fiction that does neither one generally doesn't bother with a pretense of equality, wizards in Harry Potter or the Dresden Files are just plain superior.
The Book of Nine Swords pretty much went the path of martial superpowers, though in practice it didn't go far enough, a CoDzilla or Wizard still way outclassed a Tome of Battle warrior at higher levels. D&D 4e mostly went the other way -- sure, martial characters had powers, but most of the work was done by dropping the nerfhammer of doom on spellcasters. Both were rejected by D&D players, which I can only interpret as a large percentage of D&D players want fighters to suck.
You have taken basically everything I've said out of context.
I don't think you're looking at the text around the rules that we're discussing. So I will quote the text in the PHB of each of the abilities I mentioned, and more specifically, the sections taht contained what I said they mentioned.
Not only that, but as I mentioned in that post, there are numerous other features about superhuman strength. Those are more features that tie into the Barbarian's theme.
There is more text and evidence I cited in the post you responded to, but you appear to have ignored it, so I won't bother bringing any of that up again.
Yes, I know you can reflavor things, but even though I responded to this in my previous post, I'll repeat myself again: There are technically ways you could reflavor anything. I could pretend my Terrasque was a cat and spend hours making elaborate explanations for that, but what new player who wanted to play a simpler class that didn't require much work would want to spend hours reflavoring a class that has a clear-cut, premade, limiting and inflexible concept that all of their features relate to and close to 1/4 of their features actively mention?
Not only would your proposal force new players -- or players who just want simplicity -- into the most conceptually limiting class, but these players want the class that you are trying to take away from them, not the class that you are trying to shoehorn them into.
Per the links I cited above, there is a 5% difference between the amount of people who play Fighters and Barbarians, with Fighters on top. There is a reason more people like Fighter: It's because the class actually gives them conceptual versatility, among numerous other things.
We get it: You want Fighter to be complex because you enjoy complexity, but you can make literally any other martial class in the game complex. So why are you so insistent on taking Fighter away from the people who love it or need it, and then pushing those people into playing a class they don't want to be?
Actually, I was talking about conceptual versatility, although the two are connected.
Feel free to like more complex classes, with more options, but some people like/want/need simpler options, and they should be able to have those options, too. No one said their players who like simplicity "are intrinsically more valuable than the rest of us and deserve special consideration"; all we said is that it might be considerate not to take away the most beloved "simple" class so that you can turn it into something that is much less accessible for new players.
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 don't know, I kind of like teaching new players that classes are more than their stereotypes, and that flavor is something that can be treated flexibly, rather than a straightjacket. But sure, it takes hours to pick up a 1st level barbarian and say "instead of 'primal ferocity,' it's more of an intense battle trance."
How about we have a Fighter that can be simple or complex instead of all one or the other, so we don't have to take away the "only" simple class to have a complex martial. As the most conceptually versatile martial class, the Fighter is best position to be mechanically versatile as well.
If you want versatile concepts out of fighter, you have a choice between "be bad at my concept" and "do complicated things involving feats, multiclassing, and complicated subclasses". If you have an unusual concept for a mundane character, there are ton of things you can do with, say, fighter(battle master)/rogue, and you'll actually likely be competent at two or even all three pillars of play, but most of the heavy lifting there is being done by the rogue levels, and the result is, while not super complex, certainly medium complexity.
I see what you're saying, and I do agree with a lot of it. The game designers do fall back on magic to solve a lot of problems. We got a whole new race and it was basically just another 'pick from 3 sets of spells' option mechanically, with limited flight. I can't count how many times 'misty step' has been used as a feature.
And yes, I'm all for more advanced levels of battle master maneuvers and fighting styles to go along with leveled feats.
But I disagree with the way this is characterized:
"I want Fighters to have the option to go complex baked into the class" (as opposed to pointing them towards the same backgrounds, feats, and magical items everyone gets) and "Under no circumstances can we ask first level Fighters to make interesting decisions,"
Fighters might have access to many of the same things other classes do. That's okay though. They also get them much more frequently. And can make use of more of them. Of all the 4th level feats we got in the last UA, a large percentage were really geared towards martial combat only.
The other side of the argument isn't saying 'fighters shouldn't make interesting decisions.' They are asking not to shut out players with complicated methods to make those decisions. A fighter can already make a lot of decisions. It might not be as obvious as it is with spells, but it is there. Wizards pick a few spells, but largely their equipment is unimportant. And once in battle, they mostly just try to be out of danger. Even at first level, a fighter chooses whether they focus on Strength or Dexterity, ranged combat or close combat, defensive or offensive kits, where to place themselves on the battlefield, how to draw enemy fire, who to protect, whether to attack as normal or grapple their opponent, what to do with them when they grab them, a weapon style focus, when to use second wind, when to make an attack of opportunity or risk waiting for a better target, etc. Their positioning and targeting often matters more than wizards using Sleep, or Bards handing out inspiration. And that's just the options that have rules specified at level 1. Their strength and durability also allows them to throw themselves into dangers that others can't. Something that isn't measured in short rest mechanics or slots Monks have even more options for positioning, battlefield control, and modes of attack. These are important, meaningful, and interesting decisions. They just don't have specific abilities associated with all of them. So they might not be as obvious. But the simple fighter advocates knows how much it matters, and how fun it can be. They just don't need or want complex mechanics to arrive at the same outcomes.
Whether these decisions are enough for someone or not is a matter of preference, and the crux of this thread. Many people express that they want more defined options. And more advanced level ones. We're just trying to figure out how to do that without breaking the most popular class for the people already happy with it.
I'm going to make another post for the rest of my thoughts so they can be more easily distinguished. I just wanted to try to get us all on the same page concerning where everyone was coming from.
Exactly, that is why you should not try to balance them. That is not broken, it is the way it should be.
The single biggest problem with 4E is the classes were very well balanced. That was the ONLY edition that actually had class balance. There were several poor design elements in 4E, but the near perfect balance is the largest reason the edition was so terrible. Your lightning bolt is doing 2d6 because that way the wizard was hitting several targets and doing the same damage as the fighter using an encounter ability.
Balance Sucks! and not just a little bit, it sucks a lot. It gets in the way of story, which is the central element of D&D.
Hulk is magical, In d&d parlance he is an artificer experiment gone awry.