The whole idea of a class for the new players is a contradiction unto itself. When you reach level 20 in a class, are you still a new player? How long do you stay "new"?
Quote from BoringBard>> At some point, a player has to LEARN THE RULES OF THE GOD DAMNED GAME. It doesn't have to be their first session. It doesn't even necessarily have to be their first campaign. A DM, or their fellow players, can (and should!) help them learn and be forgiving of their goofs while they're learning. But I cannot fathom nor abide this ridiculous stupid notion that a 'New Player' is NEVER supposed to learn how to play and that they should strive to stay bad at the game for as long as they can.
Many many people play D&D with their 7 year old children, and those kids deserve to have fun without you shaming them for not memorizing 50 rules or making perfectly optimal choices in combat. Gatekeepers like you would kill D&D. And honestly, you should stop believing you are a slave to the mechanics written in the book. In my long running game we've had martials: - use a grapple hook to catch a giant sea monster and tie it to a stone column. - hop into an enemy vehicle, kill the driver and ram the vehicle into the BBEG - climb up the back of a dragon to stab it in the face - lasso an enemy that was fleeing to they can be interrogated.
The most important rule in D&D is that the rules are just suggestions. Good DMs allow martials to do all the things you are asking for without the necessity of a dictionary of rules about how exactly they should work.
Except there is only three, maybe four builds of fighter using feats subclasses etc. And feats are an optional rule - what happens if the DM doesn’t allow feats in the name of ‘simplicity’
That's more than most straight-classes, if the DM wants a simple game and you want a complex one then you need to find another group to play with. Newbie DMs should be supported as much as Newbie players because it is only by constantly attracting new players and new DMs that D&D will survive.
Many many people play D&D with their 7 year old children, and those kids deserve to have fun without you shaming them for not memorizing 50 rules or making perfectly optimal choices in combat. Gatekeepers like you would kill D&D.
You're forgetting who the target audience is. Sure, dumb it down for 7 year olds. Then adults won't buy kids' books of a kids' RPG for themselves. Neither would a 7 year old kid, actually. And here you are with a watered down product that tries to grasp all the audience while appealing to none. DnD survived persecution by religious fanatics, it will survive if another 9yo TikToker would lack attention span to play it.
Also, imagine helping a kid understand the rules - which are quite simple, it's nowhere near Pathfinder math. Naah, it's ridiculous, who would want to teach a new player and help them live their fantasy, right? Force them to play champion fighter because they are too dumb to even try a wizard, throw PHB their way and wait until they figure it out themselves somehow. It's not like it was DM's job to process players' actions and tell them what to roll and when.
As has been stated, most PCs are lucky if they even get to smell their second subclass feature by the time a campaign ends, so subclasses cannot possible provide enough to really differentiate two fighters from each other 90% of the time. It’s just not possible. There needs to be something baked into the base class.
I don't think this is true. All the published hardcovers go to at least level 8, which is enough to get 2 subclass features on all subclasses I think and most campaigns go beyond level 10.
According to statistics, the vast majority of campaigns end before the party hits 6th level for one reason or another.
Except there is only three, maybe four builds of fighter using feats subclasses etc. And feats are an optional rule - what happens if the DM doesn’t allow feats in the name of ‘simplicity’
That's more than most straight-classes, if the DM wants a simple game and you want a complex one then you need to find another group to play with. Newbie DMs should be supported as much as Newbie players because it is only by constantly attracting new players and new DMs that D&D will survive.
Then D&D is doomed because there are a finite number of people and only a fraction of them have the interest, resources, and time to play a game like D&D. It’s because of the people who have been playing the game for years that it has survived for 50 of them.
Except there is only three, maybe four builds of fighter using feats subclasses etc. And feats are an optional rule - what happens if the DM doesn’t allow feats in the name of ‘simplicity’
That's more than most straight-classes, if the DM wants a simple game and you want a complex one then you need to find another group to play with. Newbie DMs should be supported as much as Newbie players because it is only by constantly attracting new players and new DMs that D&D will survive.
On the contrary - spellcasters especially have many more straight-class options than fighters. And I disagree with your final statement - D&D is a constantly evolving game, so it could easily survive by appealing to its player base instead of appealing to new players. D&D is supposed to attract more players by itself by finding groups, not be dumbed down to appeal to the maximum number of new players, IMO.
And I don’t have the issue of DMs wanting a simple game and me wanting a complex one; I’m playing with a group of new players at the moment and not one of them has picked a ‘simple’ class, because we had a Session Zero one-shot where I actually taught them the rules. It was merely an example of simple always being an option, but complex being dependent on the DM due to the nature of the rules.
We owe it to ourselves to be honest. When someone says they want a class or subclass to be more "complex" they're really just saying they want more features to pick from. Features themselves aren't complex. They're just new toys for the player to, well, play with.
Classes with spellcasting are complex, by default, because every spell is a class feature. You get a ton of them, and they can be changed out from a master list fairly regularly.
Classes without spellcasting need other features to feel complex without ever actually approaching the complexity of a devoted spellcasting class. Classes like monk and rogue are excellent examples.
So, what do "basic bonk" classes, like the fighter, actually need to feel suitably complex? Something akin to battle master maneuvers is off the table. That's reserved for the subclass. And speaking of which, does the fighter chassis need this complexity, or can it come from the subclass?
Perhaps a skill tree of increasing specialisation over levels? It could function similarly to eldritch invocations like Yurei suggested earlier.
We just want it kept out of the fighter and any player can play any class they want.
These two statements are incompatible.
No they aren't. You can play the fighter if you want. If you don't like that class because it is not complex enough for you then you can play another class that is more complex.
It is really that simple!
More complexity does not automatically mean a better game. We KNOW that from 3E. More balance does not automatically mean a better game. We KNOW that from 4E. We also know that 5E as it is is VASTLY popular and fun without striving for either more complexity or more balance than it currently has.
We also can surmise from the Expert ONE playtest that the simple classes will probably get more simple and that will likely lead to more disparity and more imbalance. That is the way the game seems to be going.
No. It is not. A different class, no matter how ‘martial’ you make it, is not a fighter. It doesn’t have action surge, or second wind, or the same amount of attacks, or the same hit points, or feat options, or armour proficiencies, or weapon proficiencies.
You are using exaggerated examples. The ‘complex fighter’ would not ruin the game to the extent of 4e.
We aren’t debating the way the game is going, we are debating the way it should go.
But a fighter is a fighter even if you keep it as it is, so people can still play a fighter with the current rules.
No one has offered any evidence that a more complex fighter will actually make the game better and examples of D&D that had more complex fighters (3E) and more balanced fighters ($E) were both worse in play. That doesn't mean 5E would automatically be worse, but it provides anecdotal evidence that it might be and no one has offered any evidence (anecdotal or not) that it won't be.
You want the complexity ripped from the game and thrown in the Dumpster, and you want martial classes to be the exclusive purview of brand new players. We. Get. It. The people who ACTUALLY work with data in their day-to-day don't know anything about data, the DDB materials are absolutely 100% laws-of-physics level true, and we should just outright eliminate the warlock, the wizard, the artificer, and the druid from the game because Simple is Best and anyone who wants more from the game than HITTIN' STICK is not only objectively wrong but also actively malicious and likely criminally liable for something.
Holy goddamn moosecracker banana ****whistles, why am I still here?
If that is what you think I want, then you really don't "get it". I don't "want the complexity ripped from the game and thrown in the Dumpster," all I want is for you to not rip the simplicity out of Fighter. You can literally have all the complexity you want in any other class.
We just want it kept out of the fighter and any player can play any class they want.
These two statements are incompatible.
No they aren't. You can still play the "simple" Fighter complexly via feats, backgrounds, and subclasses. On the other hand, a new player can't play any class they want if you've made half the classes so complicated that it takes years for someone just to understand the basics of how they work.
Except there is only three, maybe four builds of fighter using feats subclasses etc. And feats are an optional rule - what happens if the DM doesn’t allow feats in the name of ‘simplicity’
This is objectively not true. Even if you are only limited to the PHB there are still 3 subclasses and 5 fighting styles. That is 15 different builds right there using only the PHB and the fighter class features.
If you use all official sources you have 11 fighting styles and 10 subclasses. So that provides 110 different basic fighter frameworks to draw from and then you can customize each of these 110 further with which subclass options you take, what your ability scores are, what your race is and backgrounds. Together this results in tens of thousands of different build combinations, if not more. That is before you consider the optional feat and multiclass rules.
I have played far more than 4 fighters in 5E (probably about 20 total) and none of them have been the same build or even very similar builds to any other one.
Love how folks assume I'm a literal war criminal for saying that people should try and know the rules of a game they play. "Shame on you!" the calls come. "Don't you know that seven year olds play this game?! They don't need to know the rules at all!"
1.) Yes they do. They don't need to know all the rules, but if they want to play D&D they have to know what all the dice are and what to do when the DM tells them to do something. Obviously a parent running a game for their young child is not likely to get into the minutiae of every single rule, but man - I bet that seven year old knows what a d20 is.
2.) It's not like teachers across the globe use D&D as a way to teach reading, arithmetic, social skills, and numerous other things in a way that students find fun and engaging or anything, right? The rules of the game toooootally aren't important when you're using the game as a vehicle to teach kids how to work effectively in a team under a set of rules, guidelines, and mandates...kinda like they'd encounter when they got out into the cold, uncaring, brutal and oppressive workplace, ne?
Knock it off. Anybody can come up with singleton examples of "the rules don't matter!", and for every person who does I can come up with an example the other way. No, the rules don't matter - but only if you understand why they don't matter. It's like painting. The 'rules' of painting don't matter for spit to a trained, accomplished artist, but the only way you get to be a trained and accomplished artist that flouts the rules of painting with style and panache is by learning the rules in the first place, what they're doing, and why they're there.
I am not keeping any gates. Stop hiding behind New Players and Young Players and Dumb Players and Stressed Players and whatever other "I know a friend who knows a guy who knows a dude who knows..." excuses y'all keep inventing to hide the real argument you're all trying to make - you don't want 'advanced' players to be able to play D&D. Not "better" than a rank rookie, at least. Any rule somebody can use to make a decision that's better than another decision is one you want pulled, because only when no decision is better than any other decision and absolutely everything is a randomized fifty-fifty coin flip will there truly be no pressure on anybody to stop being a slapass yaybo with no idea what they're doing who're actively trying to get their party killed with Hilarious Comedy Antics(TM).
We owe it to ourselves to be honest. When someone says they want a class or subclass to be more "complex" they're really just saying they want more features to pick from. Features themselves aren't complex. They're just new toys for the player to, well, play with.
I don't think this is true, I don't think they want more options, they want more power and abilities built into the frame.
I have mentioned several times that one option to a more complex fighter is to make extra attack an optional fighter feature with other options available instead, kind of like Ranger does with primal awareness or primeval awareness - pick one at the approriate level. That would be the easiest way to implement optional fighter features on the current class chassis, especially since they get extra attack multiple times. Most of the people stating they want a more complex fighter don't want that though or don't find that acceptable. They want extra attack along with all these other "complex" features added in on the side.
Here is an idea if you want more complexity than a fighter can offer - play a Cleric or Wizard! There is no reason we need a more complex fighter when very complex options already there for everyone to pick.
There's a very simple answer to that: I don't want to play a cleric or a wizard. I do in fact want to hit things with swords, I just want to do it with style.
Let me introduce you to the paladin, or swords bard, or swashbuckler, or hexblade, or spore Druid. There are any number of ways to hit things with swords with a variety of different styles. Or, you know, an eldritch knight, or an echo knight, or a rune knight if you are attached to hanging the fighter label on your stylish sword-hitting character.
As has been stated, most PCs are lucky if they even get to smell their second subclass feature by the time a campaign ends, so subclasses cannot possible provide enough to really differentiate two fighters from each other 90% of the time. It’s just not possible. There needs to be something baked into the base class.
I say let Barbarians be the boring class.
Are you saying a level 3 champion plays the same as a level 3 rune knight as a level 3 samurai as a level 3 echo knight? That there’s really no appreciable difference between them? Because if that’s the case, I’m going to have to disagree.
And my larger point still stands that there’s lots of other options for people who want complex melee characters.
The thing with barbs is, while rage by itself is pretty simple, the subclasses start layering more and more things on to the rage. I suppose that’s fixable and you could make a simple barb subclass akin to the barb version of the champion. Maybe it exists, I’ll admit I don’t know a lot about barbs. I play the hell out of fighters, but barbs don’t appeal to me much. Also, the armor situation makes them a bit less flexible as far as a character concept. Fighters can be leather clad, dex-based light on their feet, or walking hunks of iron and a shield, or something in between. Barbs don’t have as many choices. They have choices, yes, but you can’t put them in plate mail and go for the classic knight aesthetic. And you can’t pull off a barbarian archer.
I don't think this is true, I don't think they want more options, they want more power and abilities built into the frame.
I have mentioned several times that one option to a more complex fighter is to make extra attack an optional fighter feature with other options available instead, kind of like Ranger does with primal awareness or primeval awareness - pick one at the approriate level. That would be the easiest way to implement optional fighter features on the current class chassis, especially since they get extra attack multiple times. Most of the people stating they want a more complex fighter don't want that though or don't find that acceptable. They want extra attack along with all these other "complex" features added in on the side.
I mean, if we're ascribing ulterior motives to people, I think you just don't care to consider any options that would change the status quo, but here we are.
Here's the thing about making "Extra Attack" the thing to swap out for optional features: It is the Fighter's most powerful class feature, without a doubt. In order to allow the fighter to break even with that trade, the new features would have to be on par with applying a x2, x3, or x4 damage multiplier to every round. I'm not going to even bother trying to come up with such a feature, because I already know it will be dismissed on the grounds of being too powerful, too physics breaking, or too like some other edition that you personally don't like.
All I really want are some additional options on the Fighter that give me tactical abilities that aren't "Attack" or "Forgo an Attack or something that is not remotely worth it." As I said, I would like some interesting round-by-round decisions to make in any given combat, some abilities that have an impact beyond the span of a single attack or single round. But if you think changing a Champion's fighting style from Dueling to Defense makes for a completely different build, I can tell we aren't even in the same ballpark in terms of what constitutes a meaningful choice, so there's really no chance of having a productive discussion. You'll just keep saying "We have tactical options at home," when the "tactical options," are a half-a-dozen armors that represent different paths to the same numbers, and the like.
You want the complexity ripped from the game and thrown in the Dumpster, and you want martial classes to be the exclusive purview of brand new players. We. Get. It. The people who ACTUALLY work with data in their day-to-day don't know anything about data, the DDB materials are absolutely 100% laws-of-physics level true, and we should just outright eliminate the warlock, the wizard, the artificer, and the druid from the game because Simple is Best and anyone who wants more from the game than HITTIN' STICK is not only objectively wrong but also actively malicious and likely criminally liable for something.
Holy goddamn moosecracker banana ****whistles, why am I still here?
If that is what you think I want, then you really don't "get it". I don't "want the complexity ripped from the game and thrown in the Dumpster," all I want is for you to not rip the simplicity out of Fighter. You can literally have all the complexity you want in any other class.
We just want it kept out of the fighter and any player can play any class they want.
These two statements are incompatible.
No they aren't. You can still play the "simple" Fighter complexly via feats, backgrounds, and subclasses. On the other hand, a new player can't play any class they want if you've made half the classes so complicated that it takes years for someone just to understand the basics of how they work.
Except there is only three, maybe four builds of fighter using feats subclasses etc. And feats are an optional rule - what happens if the DM doesn’t allow feats in the name of ‘simplicity’
This is objectively not true. Even if you are only limited to the PHB there are still 3 subclasses and 5 fighting styles. That is 15 different builds right there using only the PHB and the fighter class features.
If you use all official sources you have 11 fighting styles and 10 subclasses. So that provides 110 different basic fighter frameworks to draw from and then you can customize each of these 110 further with which subclass options you take, what your ability scores are, what your race is and backgrounds. Together this results in tens of thousands of different build combinations, if not more. That is before you consider the optional feat and multiclass rules.
I have played far more than 4 fighters in 5E (probably about 20 total) and none of them have been the same build or even very similar builds to any other one.
That doesn’t mean there is 110 builds. The builds I was referencing were (+1, as I’ve thought of another unique one) 1. Ranged Fighter (will nearly always take the archery fighting style, crossbow expert/gunner, sharpshooter, use a heavy crossbow or longbow in games without firearms, and focus dexterity, and take other feats which allow for mobility, better initiative or more damage) 2. Melee Two-Handed Fighter (prioritises strength and constitution, almost always will take the defence or great weapon fighting style, great weapon master, and use a greatsword/greataxe and take other feats which aid defence) 3. Melee Sword and Board Fighter (prioritises strength or dexterity and constitution, will almost always take dueling or defence, wear medium or heavy armour) 4. Sentinel/PAM Fighter (prioritises strength and constitution, will almost always take defence or great weapon fighting, wield a glaive, halberd, or pike, and take other feats which aid defence and/or battlefield control) 5. Grappling Fighter (prioritises strength and constitution, will almost always take the unarmed fighting style, grappler feat, and feats that aid grappling and/or defence)
These were grouped and named based on what they were most likely to do in combat. They also include multiclassing, eg the Ranged Fighter will likely multiclass into rogue, ranger, or warlock, the grappling and two-handed melee into barbarian (if at all), and so on.
You are talking about character concepts - I’m talking about builds, which dictate what your character does in combat, not what race they have and how that is any way relevant in more than a couple of edge cases. And what takes place in combat with these builds is in all but one case no more complicated than ‘HITTIN WITH MUH HITTING STICK’, the one being the grappling fighter. Which again is only marginally more complex.
That doesn’t mean there is 110 builds. The builds I was referencing were (+1, as I’ve thought of another unique one) 1. Ranged Fighter (will nearly always take the archery fighting style, crossbow expert/gunner, sharpshooter, use a heavy crossbow or longbow in games without firearms, and focus dexterity, and take other feats which allow for mobility, better initiative or more damage) 2. Melee Two-Handed Fighter (prioritises strength and constitution, almost always will take the defence or great weapon fighting style, great weapon master, and use a greatsword/greataxe and take other feats which aid defence) 3. Melee Sword and Board Fighter (prioritises strength or dexterity and constitution, will almost always take dueling or defence, wear medium or heavy armour) 4. Sentinel/PAM Fighter (prioritises strength and constitution, will almost always take defence or great weapon fighting, wield a glaive, halberd, or pike, and take other feats which aid defence and/or battlefield control) 5. Grappling Fighter (prioritises strength and constitution, will almost always take the unarmed fighting style, grappler feat, and feats that aid grappling and/or defence)
These were grouped and named based on what they were most likely to do in combat. They also include multiclassing, eg the Ranged Fighter will likely multiclass into rogue, ranger, or warlock, the grappling and two-handed melee into barbarian (if at all), and so on.
You are talking about character concepts - I’m talking about builds, which dictate what your character does in combat, not what race they have and how that is any way relevant in more than a couple of edge cases. And what takes place in combat with these builds is in all but one case no more complicated than ‘HITTIN WITH MUH HITTING STICK’, the one being the grappling fighter. Which again is only marginally more complex.
Right. If you zoom out and look at Fighter builds at a macro level, you have some variety, and from that perspective you can say "See? This is a mechanically flexible and versatile class." When you zoom in and look at how those different Fighters perform on a round-by-round basis, though, they generally spend the vast majority of their time using the Attack action, and where they have alternatives to that, the alternatives are rarely worth forgoing an Attack. That micro level perspective is where I'm looking from when I say I would like to see more options, more versatility.
tl;dr: build variety at the character creation layer is not the same thing as tactical variety at the play layer.
We owe it to ourselves to be honest. When someone says they want a class or subclass to be more "complex" they're really just saying they want more features to pick from. Features themselves aren't complex. They're just new toys for the player to, well, play with.
I don't think this is true, I don't think they want more options, they want more power and abilities built into the frame.
I have mentioned several times that one option to a more complex fighter is to make extra attack an optional fighter feature with other options available instead, kind of like Ranger does with primal awareness or primeval awareness - pick one at the approriate level. That would be the easiest way to implement optional fighter features on the current class chassis, especially since they get extra attack multiple times. Most of the people stating they want a more complex fighter don't want that though or don't find that acceptable. They want extra attack along with all these other "complex" features added in on the side.
Nobody's commented on your "Give up a foundational class feature of the fighter for a variety of crappy mostly-pointless 'variety' fluff pieces explicitly and intentionally designed to be drastically worse than Extra Attack" idea because it's an obvious nonstarter. You're asking if people would be willing to lose the primary differentiator that makes something a "Martial" character in the first place in favor of fluffy nothingburger abilities that have no impact or effect in battle, and when they say "No", you're assuming that's because they're a bunch of powermongering munchkin ******** instead of folks who'd simply like to not lose ground when they're already so far behind spellcasters.
If you ask me "would you be willing to give up a fighter's third and fourth attacks in favor of class features that allow you to make interesting tactical decisions on the battlefield with the two attacks you get by fifth level?" The answer would be "I'm certainly willing to consider it. Let's see what you got" and a willingness to see what the trade was about. if you ask me "Would you be willing to play a fighter that didn't get Extra Attack at all, ever, but instead got the ability to don or doff armor as an action, the ability to recognize heraldry on enemy shields without a roll, and the ability to drink 20% more alcohol without requiring a Constitution saving throw?" my answer is going to be "Uhhhh...no?" followed by wondering why the question was even asked in the first place.
Here is an idea if you want more complexity than a fighter can offer - play a Cleric or Wizard! There is no reason we need a more complex fighter when very complex options already there for everyone to pick.
There's a very simple answer to that: I don't want to play a cleric or a wizard. I do in fact want to hit things with swords, I just want to do it with style.
Let me introduce you to the paladin, or swords bard, or swashbuckler, or hexblade, or spore Druid. There are any number of ways to hit things with swords with a variety of different styles. Or, you know, an eldritch knight, or an echo knight, or a rune knight if you are attached to hanging the fighter label on your stylish sword-hitting character.
As has been stated, most PCs are lucky if they even get to smell their second subclass feature by the time a campaign ends, so subclasses cannot possible provide enough to really differentiate two fighters from each other 90% of the time. It’s just not possible. There needs to be something baked into the base class.
I say let Barbarians be the boring class.
Are you saying a level 3 champion plays the same as a level 3 rune knight as a level 3 samurai as a level 3 echo knight? That there’s really no appreciable difference between them? Because if that’s the case, I’m going to have to disagree.
When they’re not actively using their subclass feature, or can’t, then yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying.
Are you saying a level 3 champion plays the same as a level 3 rune knight as a level 3 samurai as a level 3 echo knight? That there’s really no appreciable difference between them? Because if that’s the case, I’m going to have to disagree.
He's not really wrong, though. One, single, subclass feature is a toy, no matter how "cool" that subclass feature is. And at third level, yeah - most fighters play the same save for one single combat per day where they get to use their one-off subclass toy.
The thing with barbs is, while rage by itself is pretty simple, the subclasses start layering more and more things on to the rage. I suppose that’s fixable and you could make a simple barb subclass akin to the barb version of the champion. Maybe it exists, I’ll admit I don’t know a lot about barbs. I play the hell out of fighters, but barbs don’t appeal to me much.
Mmh....it's almost like being able to play cool ideas you like is important to you, and people tryin'a tell you to just play something else because the "something else" better fits their prebuilt notion of what a class should be is upsetting...
Also, the armor situation makes them a bit less flexible as far as a character concept. Fighters can be leather clad, dex-based light on their feet,
Lolno. Dex fighters are sad memes that get laughed off tables. Nobody's allowed to play a Dex-based fighter. Any time some poor sod tries, the entirety of the Internet rises up to punch them in the tenders and bellow "YOU HAVE HEAVY ARMOR PROFICIENCY USE IT", and they get to put their cool idea for a nimble bow-centric skirmisher back in the bin because every last single fighter must at all times be absolutely identical to and interchangeable with every other fighter ever made, and that means a sword, a board, a steel business suit, and a history of soldiering. It's even worse if you try to make a Dex paladin, the game doesn't even let you with its shitty multiclass requirements. The ONLY classes allowed to be Dexy are rangers, rogues, and monks, none of which are allowed to have a Strength score higher than 9 according to the very same exact people currently arguing that the R5e Fighter is a perfect flawless paragon of supreme and undeniable Ultraperfection that cannot possibly be improved on in even the slightest, tiniest of ways. Because it's popular.
Here is an idea if you want more complexity than a fighter can offer - play a Cleric or Wizard! There is no reason we need a more complex fighter when very complex options already there for everyone to pick.
There's a very simple answer to that: I don't want to play a cleric or a wizard. I do in fact want to hit things with swords, I just want to do it with style.
Let me introduce you to the paladin, or swords bard, or swashbuckler, or hexblade, or spore Druid. There are any number of ways to hit things with swords with a variety of different styles. Or, you know, an eldritch knight, or an echo knight, or a rune knight if you are attached to hanging the fighter label on your stylish sword-hitting character.
As has been stated, most PCs are lucky if they even get to smell their second subclass feature by the time a campaign ends, so subclasses cannot possible provide enough to really differentiate two fighters from each other 90% of the time. It’s just not possible. There needs to be something baked into the base class.
I say let Barbarians be the boring class.
Are you saying a level 3 champion plays the same as a level 3 rune knight as a level 3 samurai as a level 3 echo knight? That there’s really no appreciable difference between them? Because if that’s the case, I’m going to have to disagree.
When they’re not actively using their subclass feature, or can’t, then yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying.
I second that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I can’t remember what’s supposed to go here.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The whole idea of a class for the new players is a contradiction unto itself. When you reach level 20 in a class, are you still a new player? How long do you stay "new"?
Many many people play D&D with their 7 year old children, and those kids deserve to have fun without you shaming them for not memorizing 50 rules or making perfectly optimal choices in combat. Gatekeepers like you would kill D&D. And honestly, you should stop believing you are a slave to the mechanics written in the book. In my long running game we've had martials:
- use a grapple hook to catch a giant sea monster and tie it to a stone column.
- hop into an enemy vehicle, kill the driver and ram the vehicle into the BBEG
- climb up the back of a dragon to stab it in the face
- lasso an enemy that was fleeing to they can be interrogated.
The most important rule in D&D is that the rules are just suggestions. Good DMs allow martials to do all the things you are asking for without the necessity of a dictionary of rules about how exactly they should work.
That's more than most straight-classes, if the DM wants a simple game and you want a complex one then you need to find another group to play with. Newbie DMs should be supported as much as Newbie players because it is only by constantly attracting new players and new DMs that D&D will survive.
You're forgetting who the target audience is. Sure, dumb it down for 7 year olds. Then adults won't buy kids' books of a kids' RPG for themselves. Neither would a 7 year old kid, actually. And here you are with a watered down product that tries to grasp all the audience while appealing to none. DnD survived persecution by religious fanatics, it will survive if another 9yo TikToker would lack attention span to play it.
Also, imagine helping a kid understand the rules - which are quite simple, it's nowhere near Pathfinder math. Naah, it's ridiculous, who would want to teach a new player and help them live their fantasy, right? Force them to play champion fighter because they are too dumb to even try a wizard, throw PHB their way and wait until they figure it out themselves somehow. It's not like it was DM's job to process players' actions and tell them what to roll and when.
According to statistics, the vast majority of campaigns end before the party hits 6th level for one reason or another.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Then D&D is doomed because there are a finite number of people and only a fraction of them have the interest, resources, and time to play a game like D&D. It’s because of the people who have been playing the game for years that it has survived for 50 of them.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
On the contrary - spellcasters especially have many more straight-class options than fighters. And I disagree with your final statement - D&D is a constantly evolving game, so it could easily survive by appealing to its player base instead of appealing to new players. D&D is supposed to attract more players by itself by finding groups, not be dumbed down to appeal to the maximum number of new players, IMO.
And I don’t have the issue of DMs wanting a simple game and me wanting a complex one; I’m playing with a group of new players at the moment and not one of them has picked a ‘simple’ class, because we had a Session Zero one-shot where I actually taught them the rules. It was merely an example of simple always being an option, but complex being dependent on the DM due to the nature of the rules.
I can’t remember what’s supposed to go here.
Perhaps a skill tree of increasing specialisation over levels? It could function similarly to eldritch invocations like Yurei suggested earlier.
I can’t remember what’s supposed to go here.
But a fighter is a fighter even if you keep it as it is, so people can still play a fighter with the current rules.
No one has offered any evidence that a more complex fighter will actually make the game better and examples of D&D that had more complex fighters (3E) and more balanced fighters ($E) were both worse in play. That doesn't mean 5E would automatically be worse, but it provides anecdotal evidence that it might be and no one has offered any evidence (anecdotal or not) that it won't be.
This is objectively not true. Even if you are only limited to the PHB there are still 3 subclasses and 5 fighting styles. That is 15 different builds right there using only the PHB and the fighter class features.
If you use all official sources you have 11 fighting styles and 10 subclasses. So that provides 110 different basic fighter frameworks to draw from and then you can customize each of these 110 further with which subclass options you take, what your ability scores are, what your race is and backgrounds. Together this results in tens of thousands of different build combinations, if not more. That is before you consider the optional feat and multiclass rules.
I have played far more than 4 fighters in 5E (probably about 20 total) and none of them have been the same build or even very similar builds to any other one.
Love how folks assume I'm a literal war criminal for saying that people should try and know the rules of a game they play. "Shame on you!" the calls come. "Don't you know that seven year olds play this game?! They don't need to know the rules at all!"
1.) Yes they do. They don't need to know all the rules, but if they want to play D&D they have to know what all the dice are and what to do when the DM tells them to do something. Obviously a parent running a game for their young child is not likely to get into the minutiae of every single rule, but man - I bet that seven year old knows what a d20 is.
2.) It's not like teachers across the globe use D&D as a way to teach reading, arithmetic, social skills, and numerous other things in a way that students find fun and engaging or anything, right? The rules of the game toooootally aren't important when you're using the game as a vehicle to teach kids how to work effectively in a team under a set of rules, guidelines, and mandates...kinda like they'd encounter when they got out into the cold, uncaring, brutal and oppressive workplace, ne?
Knock it off. Anybody can come up with singleton examples of "the rules don't matter!", and for every person who does I can come up with an example the other way. No, the rules don't matter - but only if you understand why they don't matter. It's like painting. The 'rules' of painting don't matter for spit to a trained, accomplished artist, but the only way you get to be a trained and accomplished artist that flouts the rules of painting with style and panache is by learning the rules in the first place, what they're doing, and why they're there.
I am not keeping any gates. Stop hiding behind New Players and Young Players and Dumb Players and Stressed Players and whatever other "I know a friend who knows a guy who knows a dude who knows..." excuses y'all keep inventing to hide the real argument you're all trying to make - you don't want 'advanced' players to be able to play D&D. Not "better" than a rank rookie, at least. Any rule somebody can use to make a decision that's better than another decision is one you want pulled, because only when no decision is better than any other decision and absolutely everything is a randomized fifty-fifty coin flip will there truly be no pressure on anybody to stop being a slapass yaybo with no idea what they're doing who're actively trying to get their party killed with Hilarious Comedy Antics(TM).
Please do not contact or message me.
I don't think this is true, I don't think they want more options, they want more power and abilities built into the frame.
I have mentioned several times that one option to a more complex fighter is to make extra attack an optional fighter feature with other options available instead, kind of like Ranger does with primal awareness or primeval awareness - pick one at the approriate level. That would be the easiest way to implement optional fighter features on the current class chassis, especially since they get extra attack multiple times. Most of the people stating they want a more complex fighter don't want that though or don't find that acceptable. They want extra attack along with all these other "complex" features added in on the side.
Are you saying a level 3 champion plays the same as a level 3 rune knight as a level 3 samurai as a level 3 echo knight? That there’s really no appreciable difference between them? Because if that’s the case, I’m going to have to disagree.
And my larger point still stands that there’s lots of other options for people who want complex melee characters.
The thing with barbs is, while rage by itself is pretty simple, the subclasses start layering more and more things on to the rage. I suppose that’s fixable and you could make a simple barb subclass akin to the barb version of the champion. Maybe it exists, I’ll admit I don’t know a lot about barbs. I play the hell out of fighters, but barbs don’t appeal to me much.
Also, the armor situation makes them a bit less flexible as far as a character concept. Fighters can be leather clad, dex-based light on their feet, or walking hunks of iron and a shield, or something in between. Barbs don’t have as many choices. They have choices, yes, but you can’t put them in plate mail and go for the classic knight aesthetic. And you can’t pull off a barbarian archer.
I mean, if we're ascribing ulterior motives to people, I think you just don't care to consider any options that would change the status quo, but here we are.
Here's the thing about making "Extra Attack" the thing to swap out for optional features: It is the Fighter's most powerful class feature, without a doubt. In order to allow the fighter to break even with that trade, the new features would have to be on par with applying a x2, x3, or x4 damage multiplier to every round. I'm not going to even bother trying to come up with such a feature, because I already know it will be dismissed on the grounds of being too powerful, too physics breaking, or too like some other edition that you personally don't like.
All I really want are some additional options on the Fighter that give me tactical abilities that aren't "Attack" or "Forgo an Attack or something that is not remotely worth it." As I said, I would like some interesting round-by-round decisions to make in any given combat, some abilities that have an impact beyond the span of a single attack or single round. But if you think changing a Champion's fighting style from Dueling to Defense makes for a completely different build, I can tell we aren't even in the same ballpark in terms of what constitutes a meaningful choice, so there's really no chance of having a productive discussion. You'll just keep saying "We have tactical options at home," when the "tactical options," are a half-a-dozen armors that represent different paths to the same numbers, and the like.
That doesn’t mean there is 110 builds. The builds I was referencing were (+1, as I’ve thought of another unique one)
1. Ranged Fighter (will nearly always take the archery fighting style, crossbow expert/gunner, sharpshooter, use a heavy crossbow or longbow in games without firearms, and focus dexterity, and take other feats which allow for mobility, better initiative or more damage)
2. Melee Two-Handed Fighter (prioritises strength and constitution, almost always will take the defence or great weapon fighting style, great weapon master, and use a greatsword/greataxe and take other feats which aid defence)
3. Melee Sword and Board Fighter (prioritises strength or dexterity and constitution, will almost always take dueling or defence, wear medium or heavy armour)
4. Sentinel/PAM Fighter (prioritises strength and constitution, will almost always take defence or great weapon fighting, wield a glaive, halberd, or pike, and take other feats which aid defence and/or battlefield control)
5. Grappling Fighter (prioritises strength and constitution, will almost always take the unarmed fighting style, grappler feat, and feats that aid grappling and/or defence)
These were grouped and named based on what they were most likely to do in combat. They also include multiclassing, eg the Ranged Fighter will likely multiclass into rogue, ranger, or warlock, the grappling and two-handed melee into barbarian (if at all), and so on.
You are talking about character concepts - I’m talking about builds, which dictate what your character does in combat, not what race they have and how that is any way relevant in more than a couple of edge cases. And what takes place in combat with these builds is in all but one case no more complicated than ‘HITTIN WITH MUH HITTING STICK’, the one being the grappling fighter. Which again is only marginally more complex.
I can’t remember what’s supposed to go here.
Right. If you zoom out and look at Fighter builds at a macro level, you have some variety, and from that perspective you can say "See? This is a mechanically flexible and versatile class." When you zoom in and look at how those different Fighters perform on a round-by-round basis, though, they generally spend the vast majority of their time using the Attack action, and where they have alternatives to that, the alternatives are rarely worth forgoing an Attack. That micro level perspective is where I'm looking from when I say I would like to see more options, more versatility.
tl;dr: build variety at the character creation layer is not the same thing as tactical variety at the play layer.
Nobody's commented on your "Give up a foundational class feature of the fighter for a variety of crappy mostly-pointless 'variety' fluff pieces explicitly and intentionally designed to be drastically worse than Extra Attack" idea because it's an obvious nonstarter. You're asking if people would be willing to lose the primary differentiator that makes something a "Martial" character in the first place in favor of fluffy nothingburger abilities that have no impact or effect in battle, and when they say "No", you're assuming that's because they're a bunch of powermongering munchkin ******** instead of folks who'd simply like to not lose ground when they're already so far behind spellcasters.
If you ask me "would you be willing to give up a fighter's third and fourth attacks in favor of class features that allow you to make interesting tactical decisions on the battlefield with the two attacks you get by fifth level?" The answer would be "I'm certainly willing to consider it. Let's see what you got" and a willingness to see what the trade was about. if you ask me "Would you be willing to play a fighter that didn't get Extra Attack at all, ever, but instead got the ability to don or doff armor as an action, the ability to recognize heraldry on enemy shields without a roll, and the ability to drink 20% more alcohol without requiring a Constitution saving throw?" my answer is going to be "Uhhhh...no?" followed by wondering why the question was even asked in the first place.
Please do not contact or message me.
When they’re not actively using their subclass feature, or can’t, then yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
He's not really wrong, though. One, single, subclass feature is a toy, no matter how "cool" that subclass feature is. And at third level, yeah - most fighters play the same save for one single combat per day where they get to use their one-off subclass toy.
Not really. Not to any appreciable extent. Certainly not comparable in any remote way to spellcasters.
Mmh....it's almost like being able to play cool ideas you like is important to you, and people tryin'a tell you to just play something else because the "something else" better fits their prebuilt notion of what a class should be is upsetting...
Lolno. Dex fighters are sad memes that get laughed off tables. Nobody's allowed to play a Dex-based fighter. Any time some poor sod tries, the entirety of the Internet rises up to punch them in the tenders and bellow "YOU HAVE HEAVY ARMOR PROFICIENCY USE IT", and they get to put their cool idea for a nimble bow-centric skirmisher back in the bin because every last single fighter must at all times be absolutely identical to and interchangeable with every other fighter ever made, and that means a sword, a board, a steel business suit, and a history of soldiering. It's even worse if you try to make a Dex paladin, the game doesn't even let you with its shitty multiclass requirements. The ONLY classes allowed to be Dexy are rangers, rogues, and monks, none of which are allowed to have a Strength score higher than 9 according to the very same exact people currently arguing that the R5e Fighter is a perfect flawless paragon of supreme and undeniable Ultraperfection that cannot possibly be improved on in even the slightest, tiniest of ways. Because it's popular.
Please do not contact or message me.
I second that.
I can’t remember what’s supposed to go here.