I’m putting a lot more questions than answers into this thread, sorry, but what if fighters ate all of the warlord stuff that really should have been brought over from 4e?
I don't know that I would describe the 5e Wizard as a generalist class, if only because the perks that come with picking your specific subclass definitely encourage you to specialize in a certain school of magic, and a lot of the general use spells that aren't oriented around healing exist on a bunch of spell lists for other classes.
Fighter is absolutely a generalist class, but I think you need at least one of those in a game like D&D, especially when trying to sell it to new players. Sometimes it's nice just to have a class where the conceit is "You hit things real good and you're pretty hard to kill," with a minimum of class mechanics to keep track of. Plus, Action Surge is probably the most versatile class feature in the entire game right now, to the point where just multiclassing two levels of Fighter is almost always a good return on investment.
Fighters are hardly generalists, they're just limited to only fighting, and get a few early perks to reflect that. Paladins, Clerics, even Bards can also fill the role of "hit good" but are vastly more flexible because they get spellcasting
Eldritch Knight is always an option, though. It might not be the best option compared to just multiclassing into a proper spellcasting class, but it'll do in a pinch.
If the fix for a pure martial class being boring and lacking without a spellcasting equivalent is a subclass that gives them spellcasting, there is probably an issue
I mean, I think whether or not you find a pure martial class boring and lacking without some kind of spellcasting component is down to personal taste rather than some mechanical failing.
I'm just saying that I think Fighter fills a valuable niche of giving folks the option of just playing something very simple and straightfoward, with some potential for added utility later on, dependent on which subclass they end up picking.
Having said all that; Champion is by far the most boring subclass in 5e, and I don't think anyone would've been sad if WotC had cut that option out before finalizing the options for Fighter.
My issue is that, according to the publishers of the game, the three pillars of the game are combat exploration and roleplay, and fighters are competitive in one of those and bring nothing to the table in the other two (as a class)
Spell casters still out class materials in every way that matters, it only makes since that martials with spellcasting outshine pure materials
Warlord would be a good potential fighter archetype.
Really there is no reason, other than tradition, for a fighter to have less options in combat than a wizard. Instead of attack you could just give them different swings that behave differently.
The question then becomes if you want all classes to be as complex as the wizard or if you want some classes to be simpler mechanically.
I’m putting a lot more questions than answers into this thread, sorry, but what if fighters ate all of the warlord stuff that really should have been brought over from 4e?
How about bare fists deal 1d4 + Strength temporary damage and can only kill if you get the target to 0 HP and choose to be lethal, otherwise the damage is ignored after the fight.
So you could beat up the criminal and knock them out, they wake up in jail with action movie-bruises and a bust lip, but they’re not really harmed.
Or you could punch an ally for 5 temporary damage in the face during a sparring match, with that 5 HP replenished straight after when they take a rest.
What if that, you nerds?!
I think that perpetuates the harmful myth created by movies and punching sports that unarmed violence only causes fake cosmetic physical harm
I’m putting a lot more questions than answers into this thread, sorry, but what if fighters ate all of the warlord stuff that really should have been brought over from 4e?
Hmm, warlords. Discuss.
Warlord was one of my favorite utility classes in 4e, and I would love for it to return, but I think Clerics and Paladins already fill that same niche pretty well. Plus, Battle Master is basically Warlord Lite already, just without the healing utility.
i guess my ultimate point is that each class should bring something unique and meaningful to the table for all 3 pillars of the game, and that fighters don't do that
How about bare fists deal 1d4 + Strength temporary damage and can only kill if you get the target to 0 HP and choose to be lethal, otherwise the damage is ignored after the fight.
So you could beat up the criminal and knock them out, they wake up in jail with action movie-bruises and a bust lip, but they’re not really harmed.
Or you could punch an ally for 5 temporary damage in the face during a sparring match, with that 5 HP replenished straight after when they take a rest.
What if that, you nerds?!
I think that perpetuates the harmful myth created by movies and punching sports that unarmed violence only causes fake cosmetic physical harm
You're right, I should quit using DnD to teach my kids about safe roughhousing like a GI Joe PSA
i guess my ultimate point is that each class should bring something unique and meaningful to the table for all 3 pillars of the game, and that fighters don't do that
I don't disagree, but as someone who tends to favor very simple Bruiser builds or high survivability options for my characters, I think there's something valuable in just having one class who excels at one pillar, and can bring some degree of utility to the other two depending on how the player wants to build that character.
i guess my ultimate point is that each class should bring something unique and meaningful to the table for all 3 pillars of the game, and that fighters don't do that
I don't disagree, but as someone who tends to favor very simple Bruiser builds or high survivability options for my characters, I think there's something valuable in just having one class who excels at one pillar, and can bring some degree of utility to the other two depending on how the player wants to build that character.
I guess i disagree, you can build other classes the same way while still having the option to engage with more mechanics as your familiarity with the game grows. Plus i think there is value in the iconic "fight man" class being able to meaningfully participate in all parts of the game with the rules as written
I think this all comes back to that magic is too general in DnD. There's almost nothing in-game that a any class can do that a wizard can't do with magic. So fighters don't need more options, wizards need less.
EDIT: To elaborate, I think this issue comes from traditional DnD, were magic users were very limited in spellcasting, and fighters were not limited in really any way, and finding a new spell was the same as finding a new magic weapon. Now Wizards have less limited spellcasting and can learn many more spells, were the fighter really gets nothing new.
Hellbore on
0
Options
admanbunionize your workplaceSeattle, WARegistered Userregular
I don't know that I would describe the 5e Wizard as a generalist class, if only because the perks that come with picking your specific subclass definitely encourage you to specialize in a certain school of magic, and a lot of the general use spells that aren't oriented around healing exist on a bunch of spell lists for other classes.
Fighter is absolutely a generalist class, but I think you need at least one of those in a game like D&D, especially when trying to sell it to new players. Sometimes it's nice just to have a class where the conceit is "You hit things real good and you're pretty hard to kill," with a minimum of class mechanics to keep track of. Plus, Action Surge is probably the most versatile class feature in the entire game right now, to the point where just multiclassing two levels of Fighter is almost always a good return on investment.
Fighters are hardly generalists, they're just limited to only fighting, and get a few early perks to reflect that. Paladins, Clerics, even Bards can also fill the role of "hit good" but are vastly more flexible because they get spellcasting
Eldritch Knight is always an option, though. It might not be the best option compared to just multiclassing into a proper spellcasting class, but it'll do in a pinch.
If the fix for a pure martial class being boring and lacking without a spellcasting equivalent is a subclass that gives them spellcasting, there is probably an issue
I mean, I think whether or not you find a pure martial class boring and lacking without some kind of spellcasting component is down to personal taste rather than some mechanical failing.
I'm just saying that I think Fighter fills a valuable niche of giving folks the option of just playing something very simple and straightfoward, with some potential for added utility later on, dependent on which subclass they end up picking.
Having said all that; Champion is by far the most boring subclass in 5e, and I don't think anyone would've been sad if WotC had cut that option out before finalizing the options for Fighter.
My issue is that, according to the publishers of the game, the three pillars of the game are combat exploration and roleplay, and fighters are competitive in one of those and bring nothing to the table in the other two (as a class)
Spell casters still out class materials in every way that matters, it only makes since that martials with spellcasting outshine pure materials
I think focusing on Fighters as the problem is missing the forest for the trees: D&D is extremely inconsistent about mechanizing anything besides combat, especially in class features.
it's real hard to come up with shit for the fightperson to have as out-of-combat specialties, I can't think of anything
You just gotta think outside the box a little.
Fighters are the everyman of adventurers, the kind of hero you can grab a beer with. Layfolk might be suspicious or early of the mysterious wizard, but the fighter can walk up to the town guard and be earn their trust in a moment. They are alternatively more obviously heroic or villanous, people trust/fear passively as they grow in strength. Another adventurer might have to smooth talk their way into a discount at the inn, or work to intimidate an uncooperative noble, but a sufficiently powerful Fighter just radiates that Good Dude/ Don't Fuck With Me aura and can do so effortlessly
i guess my ultimate point is that each class should bring something unique and meaningful to the table for all 3 pillars of the game, and that fighters don't do that
I don't disagree, but as someone who tends to favor very simple Bruiser builds or high survivability options for my characters, I think there's something valuable in just having one class who excels at one pillar, and can bring some degree of utility to the other two depending on how the player wants to build that character.
I guess i disagree, you can build other classes the same way while still having the option to engage with more mechanics as your familiarity with the game grows. Plus i think there is value in the iconic "fight man" class being able to meaningfully participate in all parts of the game with the rules as written
And I disagree that a Fighter is somehow inherently unable to engage with all parts of the game, because that's just a matter of how you go about building them. Just because the Fighter as a class is predisposed towards excelling in combat, that doesn't necessarily mean they're useless when it comes to exploration or roleplay.
Plus, that argument fails to take into account that part of the dynamic of the adventuring party is working to overlap skills as much as possible to cover for potential blind spots that another character might have in terms of skill or combat proficiencies.
I’m putting a lot more questions than answers into this thread, sorry, but what if fighters ate all of the warlord stuff that really should have been brought over from 4e?
Hmm, warlords. Discuss.
Warlord was one of my favorite utility classes in 4e, and I would love for it to return, but I think Clerics and Paladins already fill that same niche pretty well. Plus, Battle Master is basically Warlord Lite already, just without the healing utility.
Rally is way more useful than I was expecting it to be. Had a battle master keep multiple people alive last session by hitting them with rally before they could get knocked out. Commander strike is also pretty fuckin boss when you use it on the rogue or ranger.
For a fighter to do well in exploration in 5E, all they need is decent Wisdom, proficiency in Survival and the Outlander background feature. That really covers everything you need to engage in the exporation part of DnD.
For social, they just need Charisma and the social skills, plus relevent background features for the part of society they wish to have an 'in' with.
Mechanically what fighters do is consistently inhabit the top level of combat damage, resilience etc without having to rely on long rest resources, specific ways to fight etc. The fighter makes loads of attacks, has loads of actions, gets great stats and is very flexible. If you want to scrap without being some psychotic weirdo/magic bullshitter/sneaky fuck/whatever then the fighter will do that
If I'm honest if I changed the 5e fighter it'd be to give them stuff based on intelligence, make them feel more like they inhabit the role of tactician. Although with all the feats they get, and the battlemaster, they can already do so much as a party leader
+1
Options
Zonugal(He/Him) The Holiday ArmadilloI'm Santa's representative for all the southern states. And Mexico!Registered Userregular
While they don't get class abilities that directly tie into the exploration or social pillars, that doesn't mean Fighters can't perform in them.
If they take Athletics & Intimidation as class skills, they can still contribute in all three pillars (and their background can also help them in these areas too).
And that's before looking at how each of the sub-classes do offer something for one or both of those non-combat pillars.
Fighters also get more Ability Score Improvement than anyone else in the game, which can be used for non-combat related options like the Ritual Caster or Skilled feats.
My first character was a Human Fighter. With the Noble background and a decent Charisma, he made a great party face. When I decided he was haughty and imperious, there was the roleplay.
it's real hard to come up with shit for the fightperson to have as out-of-combat specialties, I can't think of anything
-Lifting heavy stuff.
-Pushing heavy stuff.
-Tenderizing meat.
-Opening up a small bodybuilding studio.
Being the party face cause you got persuasion as a skill from your background and gave yourself a decent charisma...
+2
Options
Zonugal(He/Him) The Holiday ArmadilloI'm Santa's representative for all the southern states. And Mexico!Registered Userregular
In our biweekly D&D game, our Battle Master Fighter is not only the group-elected party leader but also the face of the party due to them having the highest charisma score of anyone in the group (everyone just dropped an 8 or 10 in it).
these all sound like things literally anyone could do rather than something tied to the class
I don't think there's anything actually wrong with that though
there's also an element of how much each player wants on their plate in terms of roles and mechanics, it's fine to have some classes that are not doing everything unless they want to be
Yeah that's my point exactly, you can make a fighter more versatile by dedicating limited resources like ASI to playing catch up with other classes that can do the same shit but better, and at the end of the day it's despite the class as written not because of that
A story about how a fighter roleplayed good is great, but any great thing can happen with a good group/dm. Purely from a mechanical stand point, a fighter is worse at all of these things and has to dedicate resources to being average at them, probably sacrificing the effectiveness of their primary function (fighting) in the process to do so.
basically they need to finally officially incorporate baking into the fighter's core mechanics, being the master of bags of flour and all
+9
Options
StraightziHere we may reign secure, and in my choice,To reign is worth ambition though in HellRegistered Userregular
The fact that there are no logical secondary skills for a fighter is largely because the class is too generalized, if you ask me
When it just means anyone who picks up a weapon, it's hard to have a direction that would fit everyone who picks up the class
Whereas a soldier would have skills related to making a long march and pitching a tent and all that, and a brawler might have skills related to their general athleticism and maybe some of that affable local quality
+2
Options
admanbunionize your workplaceSeattle, WARegistered Userregular
also the "fighters can swing a sword all day" argument has always rung hollow for me because if the spell casters are out of slots then the party ain't fucking going nowhere unless the dm heavily forces them
+5
Options
astrobstrdSo full of mercy...Registered Userregular
It bums me out that the sticky defender abilities of 4e mostly died out. You had to work a lot harder to bum rush the squishies.
The fact that there are no logical secondary skills for a fighter is largely because the class is too generalized, if you ask me
When it just means anyone who picks up a weapon, it's hard to have a direction that would fit everyone who picks up the class
Whereas a soldier would have skills related to making a long march and pitching a tent and all that, and a brawler might have skills related to their general athleticism and maybe some of that affable local quality
This is something backgrounds are for, with both Soldier and I guess either Gladiator or Folk Hero covering your two examples.
That's useful but doesn't address the issue with the class
+2
Options
Zonugal(He/Him) The Holiday ArmadilloI'm Santa's representative for all the southern states. And Mexico!Registered Userregular
edited January 2019
Here is a sample 3rd-level Fighter that can contribute to all three pillars of the game:
McFighter ‘Cloistered Scholar’ V.Human 'Eldritch Knight' Fighter 3 AC: 18 (chain mail & shield); HP: 28; Speed: 30 ft.; Saving Throws: Strength +5 & Constitution +4 Str 16 (+3), Dex 12 (+1), Con 14 (+2), Int 14 (+2), Wis 10 (+0), Cha 8 (-1) Skills/Feats: Arcana +4, Athletics +5, History +4, & Investigation +4; War Caster Senses: passive Perception 10, darkvision 60 ft.; Languages: Common, Draconic, Dwarven, & Elven Special Abilities Racial Abilities: --- Background Abilities: Library Access Class Abilities: Fighting Style (Dueling), Second Wind (1d10+3/rest), Action Surge (1/long rest), Martial Archetype (Eldritch Knight), Spellcasting, & Weapon Bond (Longsword & Maul) Actions Dagger. Melee weapon attack: +5 to hit, reach 5 ft., range 20 ft./60 ft., one target. Hit: 7 (1d4+5) slashing damage; finesse, light, thrown (range 20/60) Longsword. Melee weapon attack: +5 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: 9 (1d8+5) slashing damage; versatile (1d10) Maul. Melee weapon attack: +5 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: 9 (2d6+3) bludgeoning damage; heavy, two-handed Longbow. Ranged weapon attack: +3 to hit, range 150 ft./600 ft., one target. Hit: 5 (1d8+1) piercing damage; ammunition (range 150/600), heavy, two-handed
--- Eldritch Knight Spells -- McFighter’ spellcasting ability is Intelligence-based (spell save DC 12) Cantrips Known (at will) -- Booming Blade & Move Earth 1st-level Spells Known (2/long rest) --- Find Familiar, Shield, & Thunderwave
--- Equipment: a belt pouch (10 gp), a borrowed book on the subject of your current study, chain mail armor, two daggers, an explorer’s pack (included in a backpack: a bedroll, a mess kit, a tinderbox, 10 torches, 10 days of rations, and a waterskin. The pack also has 50 feet of hempen rope strapped to the side of it), a longbow (with twenty arrows in a quiver), a longsword, the scholar's robes of your cloister, a shield, & a writing kit (small pouch with a quill, ink, folded parchment, and a small penknife)
This build can actually contribute more to exploration & social challenges than a Barbarian of equal level.
Zonugal on
+1
Options
Zonugal(He/Him) The Holiday ArmadilloI'm Santa's representative for all the southern states. And Mexico!Registered Userregular
By the way, I feel confident I could do that with the Champion as well (I know I could do it with the Battle Master).
The Fighter doesn't have as many obvious or spectacular ways to contribute to all three pillars, but that isn't to say they have none.
It isn't particularly difficult to achieve competency in all three pillars with them.
Posts
Hmm, warlords. Discuss.
My issue is that, according to the publishers of the game, the three pillars of the game are combat exploration and roleplay, and fighters are competitive in one of those and bring nothing to the table in the other two (as a class)
Spell casters still out class materials in every way that matters, it only makes since that martials with spellcasting outshine pure materials
Aasimar monk does sound tempting for my next character though...
Really there is no reason, other than tradition, for a fighter to have less options in combat than a wizard. Instead of attack you could just give them different swings that behave differently.
The question then becomes if you want all classes to be as complex as the wizard or if you want some classes to be simpler mechanically.
Yeah 4e had the best take on fighter
I think that perpetuates the harmful myth created by movies and punching sports that unarmed violence only causes fake cosmetic physical harm
Warlord was one of my favorite utility classes in 4e, and I would love for it to return, but I think Clerics and Paladins already fill that same niche pretty well. Plus, Battle Master is basically Warlord Lite already, just without the healing utility.
You're right, I should quit using DnD to teach my kids about safe roughhousing like a GI Joe PSA
I don't disagree, but as someone who tends to favor very simple Bruiser builds or high survivability options for my characters, I think there's something valuable in just having one class who excels at one pillar, and can bring some degree of utility to the other two depending on how the player wants to build that character.
I guess i disagree, you can build other classes the same way while still having the option to engage with more mechanics as your familiarity with the game grows. Plus i think there is value in the iconic "fight man" class being able to meaningfully participate in all parts of the game with the rules as written
Oh and it should be that they do non lethal unless you crit
EDIT: To elaborate, I think this issue comes from traditional DnD, were magic users were very limited in spellcasting, and fighters were not limited in really any way, and finding a new spell was the same as finding a new magic weapon. Now Wizards have less limited spellcasting and can learn many more spells, were the fighter really gets nothing new.
I think focusing on Fighters as the problem is missing the forest for the trees: D&D is extremely inconsistent about mechanizing anything besides combat, especially in class features.
Lovin'
You just gotta think outside the box a little.
Fighters are the everyman of adventurers, the kind of hero you can grab a beer with. Layfolk might be suspicious or early of the mysterious wizard, but the fighter can walk up to the town guard and be earn their trust in a moment. They are alternatively more obviously heroic or villanous, people trust/fear passively as they grow in strength. Another adventurer might have to smooth talk their way into a discount at the inn, or work to intimidate an uncooperative noble, but a sufficiently powerful Fighter just radiates that Good Dude/ Don't Fuck With Me aura and can do so effortlessly
And I disagree that a Fighter is somehow inherently unable to engage with all parts of the game, because that's just a matter of how you go about building them. Just because the Fighter as a class is predisposed towards excelling in combat, that doesn't necessarily mean they're useless when it comes to exploration or roleplay.
Plus, that argument fails to take into account that part of the dynamic of the adventuring party is working to overlap skills as much as possible to cover for potential blind spots that another character might have in terms of skill or combat proficiencies.
Rally is way more useful than I was expecting it to be. Had a battle master keep multiple people alive last session by hitting them with rally before they could get knocked out. Commander strike is also pretty fuckin boss when you use it on the rogue or ranger.
-Lifting heavy stuff.
-Pushing heavy stuff.
-Tenderizing meat.
-Opening up a small bodybuilding studio.
For social, they just need Charisma and the social skills, plus relevent background features for the part of society they wish to have an 'in' with.
If I'm honest if I changed the 5e fighter it'd be to give them stuff based on intelligence, make them feel more like they inhabit the role of tactician. Although with all the feats they get, and the battlemaster, they can already do so much as a party leader
If they take Athletics & Intimidation as class skills, they can still contribute in all three pillars (and their background can also help them in these areas too).
And that's before looking at how each of the sub-classes do offer something for one or both of those non-combat pillars.
Fighters also get more Ability Score Improvement than anyone else in the game, which can be used for non-combat related options like the Ritual Caster or Skilled feats.
Being the party face cause you got persuasion as a skill from your background and gave yourself a decent charisma...
I don't think there's anything actually wrong with that though
there's also an element of how much each player wants on their plate in terms of roles and mechanics, it's fine to have some classes that are not doing everything unless they want to be
A story about how a fighter roleplayed good is great, but any great thing can happen with a good group/dm. Purely from a mechanical stand point, a fighter is worse at all of these things and has to dedicate resources to being average at them, probably sacrificing the effectiveness of their primary function (fighting) in the process to do so.
When it just means anyone who picks up a weapon, it's hard to have a direction that would fit everyone who picks up the class
Whereas a soldier would have skills related to making a long march and pitching a tent and all that, and a brawler might have skills related to their general athleticism and maybe some of that affable local quality
I was wondering who would break first. I'm not sure if I'm happy or sad it wasn't me.
This is something backgrounds are for, with both Soldier and I guess either Gladiator or Folk Hero covering your two examples.
This build can actually contribute more to exploration & social challenges than a Barbarian of equal level.
The Fighter doesn't have as many obvious or spectacular ways to contribute to all three pillars, but that isn't to say they have none.
It isn't particularly difficult to achieve competency in all three pillars with them.