EDIT: It seems that people are misinterpreting my original intent. I'm not talking about sub-classes at all. I'm comparing the base classes to each other.
During the open playtests I advocated for manoeuvres such as disarm, trip, charge, shield bash, etc. to be part of the core system, available to every class and monster. It seems that WotC didn't go with my suggestion no matter how loudly I shouted about it. Bad WotC, bad.
Part of my reasoning for this was that I thought fighters could have advanced manoeuvres as part of their base design. Instead of just tripping, they could trip and do something else cool and interesting and fun that I lack the imaginative capacity to think of right now.
Looks like that this kind of thing will be part of a sub-class rather than as base design. This has brought to light criticisms that the fighter is a tad... well... dull.
Now, compared to a 1st-edition fighter, the 5e one is a paragon of choice, versatility and exciting play but compared to, say, a wizard or a cleric or a rogue, getting an extra attack is a bit, well... boring.
So I'm curious to see and know what other people think on this matter and whether or not the fighter is fine as is or whether or not they could do with some sprucing up, perhaps through the means I described or through other means people can think of.
Shoving (which covers both pushing and tripping) and grappling are basic maneuvers. Charging and shield bashing will be things anyone can do by taking the relevant feat, I believe. Disarming may not be in the rules at all.
To answer your question, though, I think the fighter is fine as is. If someone wants to play a simple warrior who just swings his sword, the option is there (champion). If someone wants to play a warlord or a swashbuckler or something along those lines, the option is there (battlemaster). If someone wants to play a duskblade/bladesinger/swordmage, the option is there (eldritch knight).
In addition, people who want to be able to perform some martial maneuvers without taking at least 3 levels in the fighter class have several options that are either readily accessible via the basic combat rules (shoving and grappling are described as being examples on which you can base other maneuvers) or accessible via feats.
I recommend patience. The PHB will be out in a matter of weeks. Don't ragequit until you've had a chance to look at the available options presented therein.
You can totally do all those things with the contest rules. There's no reason why they need to be called out specially. And as Pukunui mentions, there is stuff like grappling and shoving specifically called out and not tied to the fighter.
If the playtest was any indication, the battlemaster is likely to be able to attack and trip/disarm/shove/etc. all in one attack, while also using a slightly different resolution mechanic.
Yes, I realise there are sub-classes that can do things but I'm not comparing them, I'm comparing the base classes.
What is wrong with the base fighter being a tad dull? Some people like that. One of the big complaints I heard about 4e was that it wasn't possible to play a simple character. I remember one player who briefly joined the group who was playing a paladin but he would only ever make basic attacks because he couldn't be bothered learning his character's various powers. Some people like that simplicity, and I'm glad to see that it's there in the base design of 5e for people who want it. I'm also glad to see that the sub-classes allow for more complexity for those people who desire more than the basics. That was one of the stated goals for this edition, and it looks to me like the devs have delivered.
Not using an option is different from not having the option in the first place.
The base design of wizards and clerics and rogues is interesting. Take away the subclass aspects and you still have fun things to do. Take away the subclass of the fighter and you have... extra attacks and a saving throw reroll.
Fair enough.
I like the basic fighter. I have no interest in maneuvers or anything like that. Others do. I get that. I have no problem with a fighter that can do all of that stuff.
Just give me the option of playing a simple fighter like I'm used to.
The battle master won't really do that good of a job of making the fighter interesting. Assuming you have about 16 rounds of combat per day (3-5 encounters at 3-5 rounds each) the level 5 fighter will make 36 attacks. With one short rest per day, that gives the fighter 6 total dice for maneuvers. That means you perform one maneuver every 6 attacks. So at level 5 only 17% of your attacks are special maneuvers and 83% are basic attacks.
Maneuver dice recovering with a short rest really limits the battle master barely more interesting than the "simple" subclass. On top if that, the maneuvers the battle master has are really boring. They are all really basic (ie target makes a save or falls prone, target makes a save or is pushed back). And many don't even work on huge+ sized enemies. There is simply nothing unique or wowing about the battle master.
Your fighter can do all that without it being coded in to the rules.
Improvised actions.
Lawolf wrote:
GamingGorman wrote:
akaddk wrote:
I think we need to see PHB before deciding how complex the fighter can be.
MechaPilot wrote:
GamingGorman wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
I honestly believe the balance of the game is expecting the martial characters to come up with more then playing rock em sock with a troll untill someones head pops off. And thus where some of the early complaints about difficulty in the starter set is stemming from.
GamingGorman wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
GamingGorman wrote:
Thalion94518 wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
akaddk wrote:
To the OP:
It's a matter of preference. You don't like things simple, but there is a demand for it (at least according to WotC's survey results). If 5E is going to appeal to the broadest base possible, then a simple fighter is a must. That means that the core Fighter Class is "boring" for you. I'm not a huge fan of the simple warrior either, but at least you do have options (sub-classes, houserules, and possibly modules).
Lawolf wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Shiroiken wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
I'm trying to withhold judgement until i see the PHB. If i can't make a 3rd level 5e fighter that plays like a 1st level 3.5 Warblade or a 1st level 4e Fighter, then i'll have issues with the game design.
Alex_ wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Additional rolls and setting onerously high DCs are a very real part of why simply attacking is usually better than attempting an improvised action.
What's hard to understand about "Basic" rules? What do people think basic means?
Jenks wrote:
I would actually love to see more improvised magic in the game. Apparently that would make casters too overpowered, though.
MechaPilot wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
GamingGorman wrote:
GamingGorman wrote:
Someone on another forum pointed out that fighters get two more feats than clerics or wizards and one more than a rogue. Though that may not sound like a big deal, the fact is that it is a significant power boost and also a method of making your fighter unique and interesting. The human is also criticised as being boring but considering the variant would have another feat on top of that, you actually end up with a huge amount of customisation. Feats being so significant in this edition, I do think that makes a substantial difference to how interesting the fighter can be to a player, simply due to the level of customisation it will allow.
Yes indeed. And there will be quite a few more feats in the PHB than were in the last playtest packet too.
If we gave every character class (including basic fighter) a table of 1000 possible improvised actions, from which you could roll or choose every round, would that help?
- Yes
- No
- What a cool idea
- What a dumb idea
- None of the above
I like the approach Green Ronin took with the Dragon Age RPG and its stunt points. The game uses 3d6 for all rolls, one of which is meant to be the "dragon die". If you roll doubles on any of the three dice, you get stunt points equal to the number showing on the dragon die. You can then spend them to do cool stuff (like disarming, tripping, throwing sand in your opponent's face, making an extra attack, etc). No, you can't declare that you're going to try to disarm someone ahead of time, but the idea is that your character is simply seizing the opportunity as it arises in the heat of combat. They later added lists of non-combat stunts for social interactions and the like as well.
I'm not sure how you'd translate something like that to the d20 system but it could probably be done.
pukunui wrote:
BoldItalic wrote:
BoldItalic wrote:
I think shoving and grappling work better as cross-class mechanics, they can be inclusive without repeating them the whole time yet still favour those who build Strength.
I used to play 2e, and I didn't find the fighter boring, because we played the game as a role-playing game, and not as a tactical miniatures game.
akaddk wrote:
GamingGorman wrote:
As someone who was both a fan of the idea of maneuvers, and didn't think the playtest embraced the full potential of what they could do for the Fighter, I feel a bit ambivalent. On the one hand, if WotC are only going to have relatively simple maneuvers (trip, disarm, shove, etc.) then those should belong to the Fighter. They're the ones who've been training in arms rather than learning how to cast spells or sneak or learn woodcraft, so they're the ones who get the fancier combat options. On the other hand, I really want Fighter maneuvers to improve in scope. Just as Wizards start with casting Magic Missile and Grease and then advances to casting Fireballs and Hold Person and then advances to Meteor Swarm, Timestop, and Astral Projection, I think the same thing should happen with Maneuvers.
At low levels, Disarming an Ogre with a +1 Greatclub is a big deal; ditto Shove/Tripping a Bugbear off the Healer. But once you're up to level 5-6, Fighters should be doing more impressive kinds of things. And definitely when you're up to level 10-11, Fighters should be doing some pretty crazy stuff, let alone by level 20.
So my major reservation about the Maneuver Fighter is whether the initial burst of options and abilities that raises up the 5th edition Fighter over his peers continues building, or whether it dissipates by mid-level.
Vikingkingq wrote:
That is one of my biggest contention points with 5E, in reference to not having a class meta mechanic similar to spells that allow martial choices to expand. It may not be as many choices as a caster, but those classes have features like rituals, at-wills, and arcane recovery, then it just adds further insult to the martial side of things. If someone is calling out for a simple martial class with improvised actions then the same holds true for a caster. There is no reason the martial side of things has to rely on improvised action, or random dice roll threshold route to gain power. Casters have the flexibility to change every day and have at-wills at the same time. Feats are not going to help because they are linear choices that are locked in. Instead martial characters should have a limit on how many abilities they can use per day, encounter or at-will, but all have a reserve of ability that they can call out.
It all boils down to a class tool box, and the martial side has a single box and lid, while casters have a multi-door rolling tool chest to rely on. If you add magic, it does nothing ot help, because everyone will want magic items so it is neutral, like ability score increases or even feats.
Let's all try to be careful this thread doesn't slide into edition wars, which it very easily could. After all, fewer options and resources makes the fighter more like 2E, more options and resources is more 4E.
Personally I'm happy with the balance of options fighters get, especially if you go Battle Master.
Actually more resources and options should be a 5E thing, because they have already done that for casters. The big difference with 4E was different types of options like attack AC, Dex, WIsdom, or Fortitude or adding utility power or daily effects. Otherwise it was more limiting that previous editions when considering multiple attacks, and that is not the route to expand martial ability. Multiple attacks just allows the martial character to spam the same thing over and over, similar to caster at-will spells like flaming hands.
ankiyavon wrote:
1eejit wrote:
Vikingkingq wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
akaddk wrote:
1eejit wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
akaddk wrote:
The main thing i'm missing that will not be reproduced by DM fiat is the defender mechanics from 4e. I'm going to seriously miss locking down multiple foes by getting up in their face and attacking. Now, once someone is adjacent, they're free to walk all the way around me to hit the wizard and i can't even do anything minor to stop that unless i have a the shield feature.
GhostStepper wrote:
Ashrym wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
hunterian7 wrote:
akaddk wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Bluenose wrote:
It takes years of combat training to make use of trip, disarm, etc. without exposing yourself by lowering your defense or becoming a victim of a counter attack. So depending on the level of abstraction, which 5E is pretty simple and less defined, it does not make sense that every class can do detailed maneuvers (trip, disarm, etc.) that should be reserved for martial characters. But if every class can do those types of maneuvers then it makes sense to loosen the restrictions on magic, where every class may have access to rituals, utility magic, etc. What is difficult with these discussions is keeping the level of abstraction, realism, simulation, etc. consistent accross all the classes. Otherwise, you see a host of double standards come into play. And probably the biggest one martial classes have to contend with is the drive to keep them simple. Then any chance to include a complex class or subclass for martial ability is constrained before it leaves the gates, and the only way to address it is to create hybrids like a paladin or ranger with spells.
Uchawi wrote:
Uchawi wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
LFK wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
Ashrym wrote:
akaddk wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Uchawi wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
GhostStepper wrote:
GamingGorman wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Ashrym wrote:
GhostStepper wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
DLfan wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
GhostStepper wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
Note: damage scaling exists for the same reason HP scaling does.
As you get higher level, you get better at avoiding taking damage. This is represented by your HP Increasing. As you get higher level, you get better at striking your targets weak spots. This is represented by your damage increasing.
Using your environment works the exact same way. As you become more skilled, you are better at knocking your enemies into the braizer, but the damage it deals on its own remains the same. That is why I linked damage to the proficiency bonus. Your skill impacts how well you can use terrain to hurt someone.
Of course, the guidelines I gave are just that, guidelines. If you don't like scaling damage, don't use that part. They only exist as a suggestion for the DM/player on how to resolve an action.
OP, you only need to accept that some people genuinely enjoy playing simple, straightforward classes. They really do.
To each his own.
MechaPilot wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
Ashrym wrote:
Know this. No matter what combination of feats you have, no matter what subclass you choose, no matter what level you are, a 5e fighter will never be 1/4 as good at defending as a level 1 4e fighter or knight. That simply isn't something the 5e fighter is designed for. You will just have to live with that if you want to play 5e.
You guys who want a tactical fighter on par with a spellcasters spells will be fine, happy even, with what you will get in another sub-class of the fighter. Just chill.
Mistwell wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
I think Mistwell was referring to the Battlemaster Fighter, not the Eldritch Knight Fighter, Lawolf. And while the document you are referring to does feature a number of manuevers and it seems there's actually quite a bit of tactical play with it, I imagine future splat books may have more Maneuvers added to them.
Marandahir wrote:
The battlemaster is going to have to far better than the playtest weaponmaster to even start to approach the 3.5 warblade or 4e fighter at level 1. 2 attempts at tripping someone per fight is not going to cut it. I still have my fingers crossed.
GhostStepper wrote:
Ashrym wrote:
LupusRegalis wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
GhostStepper wrote:
Ashrym wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
MechaPilot wrote: