Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 mr.troutz Apr 20, 2015 9:41:08	Hi everyone, so I was talking it over with a friend of mine on the "boring fighter" conundrum (because I'm a diehard fighter fan), so we looked over the class, and eventually came to the conclusion, that they are quite sound mechanically. So much so that it's hard to say if one should add anything to the fighter at all. I then looked over other classes to see what (outside of spell casting) gave them options in combat. Fighters are supposed to be good at fighting after all, and I came up with something, I call it "combat surge" based of the rogue's cunning surge.   Combat surge allows you to attempt a shove,grapple,disarm, as a bonus action. So in most cases its an athletics vs athletics or acrobatics contest. In addtion, you can use your reaction to parry (which adds your Proficeny bonus to ac for an attack)   I figured this would allow a fighter to have at least one tatical option each round without taking away his ability to attack (especailly at low levels when it really hurts to trade up an attack for  one of these actions). The parry idea I got from the monster manual, as fighter-like things such as hobgoblins can do it I figured it would be interesting to allow fighter's to have it too. It is conflictive with the defensive duelist feat, but honestly that feat is so restrictive and seemingly not useful, that I dont think it will matter much if the feat was not included in the list of feats all together.   I think that combat surge allows a fighter to make tatical options every round, and will differentiate the fighter's playstyle from other martial classes. all of the other martial's have abilities that differentiate their playstyle, for exmaple, pally's can smite, barbarians can rage, rangers can cast, monks us ki, so i think that it would be cool to have fighter's specialize in special attack options, and give him some versatility that is still within the figher's mundane theme. waht do you guys think?
#2 Tempest_Stormwind Apr 20, 2015 10:06:40	mr.troutz wrote:
#3 SterlingRat Apr 20, 2015 10:05:01	Well... if the fighter were at all lacking in options as compared to the other classes, I would agree. However, they are not lacking options compared to most of the other classes... in fact, ask a Barbarian and they will tell you that the Fighter is spoiled with how many feats they can use getting options and versatility in combat. Short Rest maneuvers absolutely rock.    okay... actually, the Champion could use a boost. Maybe limit Combat Surge to Champions? Actually... I kinda like that. Maybe add this to the champion at Level 3 and only improve the critical hit range at 18.
#4 mellored Apr 20, 2015 11:29:49	Fighter's give you extra feats. Shield master let's you shove as a bonus action. Tavern brawler let's you grapple as a bonus action. Defensive Dualist let's you parry.   Fighter's can shove and grapple as a bonus action, and parry as a reaction, and still have as many feats as others. Just not at level 1.
#5 mr.troutz Apr 20, 2015 11:19:00	Those are all actually really soild points, interesting idea aout giving it to the champion fighter, I kind of like that. It is true that those feats would allow you to do all of that, and feats are fighter's speciality, so thats a really good call. I totally missed the parry manuever on the battle master fighter xD.   Thanks for your quick responses, this community is very helpful when it comes to the obvious oversight I seem to lack lol xD
#6 Tempest_Stormwind Apr 20, 2015 12:19:24	mr.troutz wrote:
#7 OnionDruid Apr 20, 2015 20:05:02	The lack of Fighter options is quite disturbing. The last time we saw a Fighter who's main options were centered around feats was 3.5 and look how wonderful that class is...    If 4e taught use and wotc anything it is that to have an interesting and diverse class you need to actually give them decent class features. As of right now the Fighter is a pretty lazy class with pretty lazy and dull class features. Sure they can deal damage and they make for a wonderful dip for any class... But so was the 3e Fighter.   As far as I'm concerned the balance issues in games that I've seen deal with the Fighter being based around lazy mechanics. Just giving "moar attacks" or "moar saves" doesn't really keep up with all the other things other classes can do.   The 3e Fighter had the same issue. They could get a ton of attacks and had the slots for feats (most of which others could take or emulate somehow) and they were still quite boring and broken (in a under powered way). Just doing HP damage really isn't enough when everyone else can do HP damage PLUS other things. Especially when the game is balanced around having so many spells per day and you typically won't ever run out of spells. Out of all the classes the Fighter is the outlier and needs to be fixed.   I say just use the Rogue and allow them to trade Sneak Attack with Extra Attack, Choice between a popular save (Con or Dex) and a unpopular save (Str or Int), and a wider variety of armor and starting weapons.   I made a first level strength based Rogue that is a "Fighter". I want a mobile and awesome fighter so I ended up using a different class. Str: 16, Dex: 14, Con: 14, Int: 12, Wis: 12, Cha: 8   HP: 10 Initiative: 2 AC 15 (leather armor and shield) Background: Outlander (fluffed as a wondering knight that lost his way long ago) Skills: Athletics, History, Investigation, Insight, Perception, Survival, and Persuasion Expertise: Athletics and Investigation   Sneak Attack: 1d6 (fluffed as a tactical strike more so than how sneak attack is already fluffed) Rapier: +5 Attack, 1d8+3 piercing damage.   Feat: Moderately Armored (medium armor and shield) Level 4 (Later): Feat: Shield Master (JC tweet says that BA shove can come before the attack)   Rapier and Rotella style fighting with daggers and a shortbow as back up.   Eventually I'll get better armor, I'm not really a stealth kinda Knight so I don't care if I have disadvantage on a stealth roll. 15 + 2 (dex) + 2 (shield) = 19 will be worth it (same as an adult red dragon). Uncanny dodge and Evasion will allow me to "block" attacks with my shield (at least that is how I'm fluffing it) so I can get that iconic fighter image (think Peter Griffon versus Cybill Shepard). At level two I'll be able to become really mobile and just ignore the attacks of creatures when I need to position myself better on the battlefield or go to help an ally.    I actually got my DM to allow me to trade my Thieve's Tools proficiency for a Healer Kit Proficiency, which she would have also allowed the Herbalism Kit if I wanted that choice.   So far in the games I played this "Fighter" has been both fun and engaging. I have a lot better chance of actually landing a Shove/Grapple due to expertise in Athletics and I keep up with damage as a sword n board character.    I haven't told anyone at the table I'm playing a rogue, they still haven't fgured it out and think I'm just a fighter and fluffing my dueling style (what is really sneak attack) in a weird way.   The Fighter just doesn't stack up to this.
#8 mr.troutz Apr 20, 2015 20:54:55	Thats an a good, idea, i think 7th level seems like an optimal time to get it, im not sure how it should interact with aforementioned feats, I think that it might just be a redundancy that ill live with, you still get the other benefits of the feat. As for the rogue re-fluffling thing, there are a lot of good points brought up, but i just wanted to make the fighter have a reliable tatical option each round, maybe my intentions got convoluted. But i can say that as a die-hard fighter fan, both agree and disagree with the "lazy" fighter stuff. I think it all makes sense themetaically, fighters being the most atheltic and better at fighting with weapons. Maybe a way to really reinforce those thematics would be to let the champion fighter be the "base fighter" so all fighters would get 19-20 crit, remarkable athelte and a second fighting style, but not the 18-20 crit or teh regeneration. With that and a potential for something like combat surge would probably be fine. i cant imagine it would break anything, and it would give the fighter some options
#9 OnionDruid Apr 20, 2015 21:21:31	The biggest issue with the fighter is that it is so generic that it doesn't really have a focus. Because of this you can't really balance with all the classes that have a Big Focus and then multiple Small Foci. ++++ Even the base Wizard can have a focus because even before you take a subclass you know what specifically that wizard is. Might be a necromancer or a conjurer, either way they have a focus.++++ The Fighter just doesn't have it. It has no real focus. Being "good with weapons" is way too broad because Paladins and Rogues can be just as good at fighting with weapon and dealing damage with those weapons. Sure the rogue has a narrower selection of weapons, but they don't need a large selection to be great at stabbing someone.++++ The fighter is the outlier. The fighter needs to have a specific fluff so that specific mechanics can be balanced.++++ A Samurai, Knight, or Sellsword are all fighters when they have such different fluff and focus. The base class for a samurai (no shield) doesn't work for a Knight (sword n board). The samurai shouldn't even have an option to use said shield.++++ The fighter is an example of when you try to do so much with so little.++++ Really there isn't much difference between a "rogue" and a "fighter". They are both martial weapon users who use tactics and skills to put the sharp end of a metal stick into their enemies. I really see no reason why we have two different classes when they more or less do the same thing.++++ I love the idea of a build your own class design for a game, but not in a system that doesn't really support it. D&D has grown past the need for a generic fighting man.
#10 mr.troutz Apr 21, 2015 9:18:18	Now that is a very interesting idea. Maybe fighter should work like a wizard or a cleric, in the sense that the base is unchanged, but they have like 9 different archetypes that encourage certain styles of play.    Rather than resource based abilities, they could get combat based stuff much like the ranger (hunter) does. However the abilities would encourage the thematics of the type. For example, a duelist archetype might get int to AC or damage of using a finesse weapon and light/no armor.    That has has some really cool potential I think. Maybe I'll make another post about the idea at a later date
#11 Captain_Kobold Apr 21, 2015 10:51:17	OnionDruid wrote:
#12 mellored Apr 21, 2015 11:09:45	Captain_Kobold wrote:
#13 supreme_slayer Apr 21, 2015 20:36:14	I'm on the same boat as a few in this thread, in that I think that Fighters indeed DO have a lot of options. Levels 1 and 2 are fairly barren, but 3 they can gain access to maneuvers or spells, which can allow for utility and a variety of builds. You only get skunked if you deliberately pick the Champion, which sacrifices getting to do a number of different things for pure power. Then they get a feat at level 4, an extra attack at level 5 (one of which could be used on a shove or grapple still), then ANOTHER feat at level 6. Action Surge also allows for comboing that other classes couldn't hope for.   You only don't get options if you deliberately build yourself to be pure power. You can't expect to get it all. All of their extra attacks they gain (FIVE in total) can be used on grappling, shoving, etc etc already, giving them more chances to do so than any other class as it is, so I don't see how giving them another opportunity to do it would be adding any real variety.   It was brought up to give the low Champion abilities to ALL fighters, but how in the world does that solve the problem? It just makes the options you already could have taken even better, and they weren't bad to begin with. I don't feel the class as a whole needs a boost, at least not from my experiences with it. What you're worried about is options, of which you have access to if you so choose them.