# Fighters if superiority dice was something all fighters get



## Kobold Avenger (Apr 29, 2022)

I never liked that Superiority Dice has mostly been siloed off into a single subclass of fighter, except for some feats and an alternate rule fighting style that has shown up later.

But assuming that in the revision they want Superiority Dice to become a more central part of the fighter, and they go with having at least 4 subclasses of fighter in a revised PHB, what would the Fighter be like?

First with all Fighters getting Superiority Dice I'd see there as been less of a reason for there being a Battlemaster in the first place. The Champion might be gone too, as both the Battlemaster and Champion were different subclasses because they were about different mechanics and less about a different story "hook" that generally all subclasses have gone on to have.

But maybe the Champion isn't gone though, there is a need for a "Tutorial" subclass that's relatively simple for many players, and it could have a more significant story hook of being someone who isn't necessarily well-trained but just naturally good at fighting. They'd have standard Superiority Dice for a fighter with either a limited selection of maneuvers or their maneuvers picked out for them. Some of the things we're seeing with the Knights of Solamnia feats in the revised UA might provide a clue of how it goes down.

Assuming the standard amount is Prof bonus Superiority Dice per Long Rest, with d6 going to d8 or d10 at later levels as the die size, with an ability to regain some Superiority Dice expended between encounters or a short rest for either some or all Fighters.

The Battlemaster I'd see then gets split up into at least 2 subclasses, perhaps a Duelist which is the closest to what the Battlemaster is where they double down on maneuvers and Superiority Dice. They get the highest die increase amount of Fighters and bonus dice and manuevers. They get features related to how they're trained in fighting styles and maneuvers with maybe the ability to change some things every long rest. The other subclass to split off from the Battlemaster would be the Warlord, the idea is to take some of the teamwork related maneuvers and to expand on them getting abilities to affect an area. Though no healing like in 4e, but maybe add a Superiority Die amount of temp HP to allies in a 10 foot radius around the Fighter or in a designated area.

The Eldritch Knight would still be left as the 4th subclass, and maybe they still get spell slots like they do, or maybe it's spend Superiority Dice (equal to the spell level) to cast a spell. Or perhaps it's spell slots, but a Superiority Die does things to cantrips they cast.

And if there's more subclasses they want to bring in, maybe the 5th one is something like Arcane Archer, Rune Knight or Cavalier. Then there's the question of should other classes like Monks or Rogues get superiority dice. Any other thoughts on such a approach?


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Apr 29, 2022)

I would give all fighters 1d4 at 1st level a 2nd d4 at 2nd level (at that point I would tie it to prof) and upgrade to d6's at 3rd level.   teh base class they come back on a long rest (yeah I know that means not alot) but also at like level 5ish or 6ish have the ability to recover 1 per short rest

all fighter get 'brutal blow' add the die as no action on a hit and 'parry' reduce damage from an attack you can see equal to the die. 

champions would ONLY ever get those 2 (unless they took a feat or fighting style) and still get the increased crit stuff and basically just be the 'simple' fighter

battlemasters the dice go up and you would get more choices of maneuvers as you level and have ways to regain some more dice on short rests

eldritch knights would get maneuvers that are mystical... something like 'firey burst' you deal fire damage to an adjacent enemy equal to the die...

the important part is to give non combat manuvers and higher level manuvers...


----------



## Vaalingrade (Apr 29, 2022)

Ah, the fighter we were promised.

Let the Champion spend SD to perform actual awesome feats with bonuses instead of advantage and it can finally be a real subclass!


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Apr 29, 2022)

Vaalingrade said:


> Ah, the fighter we were promised.
> 
> Let the Champion spend SD to perform actual awesome feats with bonuses instead of advantage and it can finally be a real subclass!



counter proposal... make the fighter work like the warlock.

at level 1 you choose champion, eldritch knight or battlemaster (static bonus, magic, and superiority dice) then at level 3 you get a more flavorful subclass like duelest, knight, huntsman, ect)


----------



## Oofta (Apr 29, 2022)

No thanks.  I personally don't care for the superiority dice concept or the artificial limitation of X times per some type of rest.  If I can attempt to trip someone in combat, why can't I always try to trip someone?  If it's a question of having the right set of circumstances, why is that set of circumstances artificially limited?

If anything were added I would want some other mechanism.  Something along the lines of always allowing a trip attack [edit: as a bonus action] but if you fail the enemy gets a free opportunity attack with advantage because it's a dangerous maneuver.  Well, that and having everyone fall over constantly could get old.

Then again I don't have a problem with fighters in combat.


----------



## Horwath (Apr 29, 2022)

just have all characters have superiority dice and maneuvers know based of proficiency bonus

You have a number of superiority dice equal to your proficiency bonus.
You known a number of combat maneuvers equal to your proficiency bonus.
your superiority dice is d4.
at level 5 it is d6
at level 9 it is d8
at level 13 it is d10
at level 17 it is d12

recharges on long rest.


----------



## Horwath (Apr 29, 2022)

Oofta said:


> No thanks.  I personally don't care for the superiority dice concept or the artificial limitation of X times per some type of rest.  If I can attempt to trip someone in combat, why can't I always try to trip someone?  If it's a question of having the right set of circumstances, why is that set of circumstances artificially limited?
> 
> If anything were added I would want some other mechanism.  Something along the lines of always allowing a trip attack but if you fail the enemy gets a free opportunity attack with advantage because it's a dangerous maneuver.  Well, that and having everyone fall over constantly could get old.
> 
> Then again I don't have a problem with fighters in combat.



you can always trip someone, it's called Shove attack and uses Athletics.


----------



## TwoSix (Apr 29, 2022)

Much like this, I imagine.









						Alternate Fighter by laserllama
					

Alternate Fighter by laserllama - Created with GM Binder.




					www.gmbinder.com


----------



## Oofta (Apr 29, 2022)

Horwath said:


> you can always trip someone, it's called Shove attack and uses Athletics.



True, probably a bad example or make it a trip attack as a bonus action.  Thing is most people forget about things like that and I don't personally care for superiority dice, not that I necessarily have any better ideas.


----------



## Jer (Apr 29, 2022)

Oofta said:


> No thanks.  I personally don't care for the superiority dice concept or the artificial limitation of X times per some type of rest.  If I can attempt to trip someone in combat, why can't I always try to trip someone?  If it's a question of having the right set of circumstances, why is that set of circumstances artificially limited?



I'd like to see a variation where the Battle Master can use their maneuvers whether they have superiority dice or not, but if they have the dice they get to roll them to get the bonus to the maneuver.



Horwath said:


> you can always trip someone, it's called Shove attack and uses Athletics.



It's annoying that there are two sets of rules for these things though - if you Shove it's an opposed ability check but if you use a maneuver they make a saving throw.  It should be consistent.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Apr 29, 2022)

Oofta said:


> No thanks.  I personally don't care for the superiority dice concept or the artificial limitation of X times per some type of rest.  If I can attempt to trip someone in combat, why can't I always try to trip someone?  If it's a question of having the right set of circumstances, why is that set of circumstances artificially limited?



in this case (if you missed it) you CAN always try to trip... the artificial limit is how many times you can attack for damage AND get a trip off... like a minor action surge


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Apr 29, 2022)

Jer said:


> It's annoying that there are two sets of rules for these things though - if you Shove it's an opposed ability check but if you use a maneuver they make a saving throw.  It should be consistent.



I agree the SHove should be a save


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Apr 29, 2022)

Oofta said:


> No thanks.  I personally don't care for the superiority dice concept or the artificial limitation of X times per some type of rest.  If I can attempt to trip someone in combat, why can't I always try to trip someone?  If it's a question of having the right set of circumstances, why is that set of circumstances artificially limited?



It's not artificial, I know in fighting you can't try to do something "special" all the time, like sidestepping and bending backwards to dodge a thrust and riposte with a rapier, without someone seeing that you're doing the same thing over and over again, and then hitting you for it because you've done something totally predictable that they figured out how to avoid after the 2nd or 1st time. Sure maybe 3e had the better idea with, "everything unusual that you do, provokes an opportunity attack". But X times per some amount is reasonable allowance for abstracting such things.


----------



## Azzy (Apr 29, 2022)

I'm not opposed to it, but I think that the fighter manuevers need to be expanded upon and beefed up. Maybe level-gate (or require multiple SD for) some options and give more options so that at higher levels you're not simply picking the manuevers that simply liked less than the ones you initially chose.


----------



## Oofta (Apr 29, 2022)

Kobold Avenger said:


> It's not artificial, I know in fighting you can't try to do something "special" all the time, like sidestepping and bending backwards to dodge a thrust and riposte with a rapier, without someone seeing that you're doing the same thing over and over again, and then hitting you for it because you've done something totally predictable that they figured out how to avoid after the 2nd or 1st time. Sure maybe 3e had the better idea with, "everything unusual that you do, provokes an opportunity attack". But X times per some amount is reasonable allowance for abstracting such things.



Against _that particular opponent_ sure.  It's more the "Even though generic orc #412 just entered the room and had no chance to see what you had done, you can't do it again." or "It's a new encounter but because you used up all your dice last encounter and you haven't had a short rest yet, you can't fool generic goblin #376".

For me it would have to be against a specific opponent, at the DM's discretion of whether or not generic orc #413 was paying enough attention when you pulled the trick on #412.  I'm not saying I have a better idea, just stating what my issue is.  There could also be some sort of stamina cost or check at some point as well if the maneuver is particularly strenuous.


----------



## The Old Crow (Apr 29, 2022)

I would tie the number of superiority dice, dice size, and number of maneuvers to total martial levels, like the spell slot table for multiclassing. Full levels count for martials without spellcasting, third casters count for two thirds, half for half, and full spellcasters count for zero.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Apr 29, 2022)

x per encounter can easily be explained as timing and the confluence of opportunity


----------



## Quickleaf (Apr 29, 2022)

I may be an outlier, and don't mean to knock the idea (I support all the homebrewing), but on those rare occasions I get to play, I love to play fighters. The thing is, I wouldn't be excited to play a battle master fighter – certainly lower down on the fighter subclasses I would play – because I enjoy more simplicity. The efforts to 4e-ify / Book of Nine Swords-ify / wizard-ify the fighter class felt really weird to me... if I wanted to be a spellcaster, I'd play a spellcaster. It's the simple yet adaptable part that draws me in.

EDIT: But if you were to implement a fighter-wide superiority dice rule, I wonder about swapping in Hit Dice instead. It's already a resource the player will be tracking or will learn to track, so why not double up on it? Less complexity, no need for another system.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Apr 29, 2022)

Vaalingrade said:


> x per encounter can easily be explained as timing and the confluence of opportunity



yeah... we are giving the player control of when teh opportunity presents itself, not the character.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Apr 29, 2022)

Quickleaf said:


> I may be an outlier, and don't mean to knock the idea (I support all the homebrewing), but on those rare occasions I get to play, I love to play fighters. The thing is, I wouldn't be excited to play a battle master fighter – certainly lower down on the fighter subclasses I would play – because I enjoy more simplicity. The efforts to 4e-ify / Book of Nine Swords-ify / wizard-ify the fighter class felt really weird to me... if I wanted to be a spellcaster, I'd play a spellcaster. It's the simple yet adaptable part that draws me in.
> 
> EDIT: But if you were to implement a fighter-wide superiority dice rule, I wonder about swapping in Hit Dice instead. It's already a resource the player will be tracking or will learn to track, so why not double up on it? Less complexity, no need for another system.



this is also why I want a NEW class.  I want a martial flavor, the ability to have the same concept as your simple fighter... but play more complex like the wizard.  

casters run the gambit... you want simple go warlock, somewhere between go sorcerer complex wizard or cleric... warriors not so much


----------



## Jer (Apr 29, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> casters run the gambit... you want simple go warlock, somewhere between go sorcerer complex wizard or cleric... warriors not so much



Yes - trying to shove all of the non-magical martial mechanics into essentially two classes is a mistake in design for this edition IMO.

You can see it in the Tasha's Fighter writeup where they try to create a whole bunch of "builds" for the Battlemaster to cover all kinds of different fighters.  No other class does things like that - the other classes use _subclasses_ instead of _builds_.  So the Battlemaster essentially gets its own set of subclasses because it's actually not defined enough to be a subclass - it's more like a class that is crying out for some subclasses.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Apr 29, 2022)

Jer said:


> Yes - trying to shove all of the non-magical martial mechanics into essentially two classes is a mistake in design for this edition IMO.
> 
> You can see it in the Tasha's Fighter writeup where they try to create a whole bunch of "builds" for the Battlemaster to cover all kinds of different fighters.  No other class does things like that - the other classes use _subclasses_ instead of _builds_.  So the Battlemaster essentially gets its own set of subclasses because it's actually not defined enough to be a subclass - it's more like a class that is crying out for some subclasses.



yeah, I like the idea of a battlemaster CLASS that would then have subclasses more flavorful


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Apr 29, 2022)

Jer said:


> Yes - trying to shove all of the non-magical martial mechanics into essentially two classes is a mistake in design for this edition IMO.
> 
> You can see it in the Tasha's Fighter writeup where they try to create a whole bunch of "builds" for the Battlemaster to cover all kinds of different fighters.  No other class does things like that - the other classes use _subclasses_ instead of _builds_.  So the Battlemaster essentially gets its own set of subclasses because it's actually not defined enough to be a subclass - it's more like a class that is crying out for some subclasses.



That part there seems like they're actually begging to have more uses of the superiority dice mechanic. And it's not only the most recent UA with it's Knights of Solomnia feats, but also previously rejected subclasses from UA where they tried to have other subclasses use superiority dice in limited ways.

At least Monks, Bards, Druids, Sorcerers and others get a built-in resource that can be adapted to different subclasses depending on the need, but Fighters had this problem where they need to invent new mechanics for new subclasses all because they don't get something like Bardic Inpsiration or Ki Points that can be adapted for different uses.


----------



## NaturalZero (Apr 29, 2022)

Kobold Avenger said:


> Sure maybe 3e had the better idea with, "everything unusual that you do, provokes an opportunity attack". But X times per some amount is reasonable allowance for abstracting such things.



I was just looking back at 3e and thinking about how wacky some of the mechanics were and how I don't miss them. Everything used to provoke an Attack of Opportunity.

Try to trip a foe? Attack of Opportunity.
Try to grapple a foe? Attack of Opportunity.
Try to stand up? Attack of Opportunity.
Try to disarm a foe? Attack of Opportunity.
Make a ranged attack? Attack of Opportunity.
Cast a spell? Attack of Opportunity.
Sneeze? Attack of Opportunity.
Look sideways? Attack of Opportunity.
Think bad thoughts? Attack of Opportunity.

I remember building a fighter, using up 2 feats and pumping up Int in order to do something like just trip someone without provoking an attack and not losing an attack, a trick that the battlemaster can just do. There are a few things from 3e that I miss, but they way fighters worked (or more generally how characters were built) is something I don't look back on fondly.


----------



## Li Shenron (Apr 29, 2022)

There is no strict need for a "tutorial class". If you're a beginner, play a 1st level character. By the time you get to 3rd level, you've learned enough to manage maneuvers. 

Combat superiority is definitely the best about Fighters and could have been a base class feature. Then perhaps the _number _of known maneuvers could depend on subclass so that you can have a low-complexity subclass which grants as few as 1 known maneuvers, and others which grant many. 

The complexity is mainly when you have to choose which to use between many options. If you have ONE option, you only need to choose when, "do I use it now, or do I save it for later?".

Same idea could have been used for spellcasters. Have a Wizard subclass that knows ONE spell per slot level. Now you have a low-complexity Wizard.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Apr 29, 2022)

Li Shenron said:


> There is no strict need for a "tutorial class". If you're a beginner, play a 1st level character. By the time you get to 3rd level, you've learned enough to manage maneuvers.



I am in no way the target audiance of the 'basic fighter'   I dislike (to the point of it annoying me when OTHER people take that subclass at my table) however there are fans of it, and there is a reason to keep something basic... or as you say 'tutorial' in the game


Li Shenron said:


> Combat superiority is definitely the best about Fighters and could have been a base class feature. Then perhaps the _number _of known maneuvers could depend on subclass so that you can have a low-complexity subclass which grants as few as 1 known maneuvers, and others which grant many.



100% agree


Li Shenron said:


> The complexity is mainly when you have to choose which to use between many options. If you have ONE option, you only need to choose when, "do I use it now, or do I save it for later?".



look at teh 4e slayer... that could have been the 5e fighter, then just have options to trade out the powerstrikes for more complex powers.


Li Shenron said:


> Same idea could have been used for spellcasters. Have a Wizard subclass that knows ONE spell per slot level. Now you have a low-complexity Wizard.



I think that sorcerer and warlock have that covered.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Apr 29, 2022)

Oofta said:


> No thanks. I personally don't care for the superiority dice concept or the artificial limitation of X times per some type of rest. If I can attempt to trip someone in combat, why can't I always try to trip someone?



You can.

I don't why people use this example. It doesn't make sense.

You can.

It's called Shove. It's the same thing as a normal trip - literally you can prone people with it. Trip Attack is a "powered up" version of it.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Apr 29, 2022)

Ruin Explorer said:


> I don't why people use this example. It doesn't make sense.



becuse people on the internet can't say something is good, fun, well designed, but not for them (I mean I can't say that about 3.5... so I am no better but I try) so instead we have this


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Apr 29, 2022)

NaturalZero said:


> I was just looking back at 3e and thinking about how wacky some of the mechanics were and how I don't miss them. Everything used to provoke an Attack of Opportunity.
> 
> Try to trip a foe? Attack of Opportunity.
> Try to grapple a foe? Attack of Opportunity.
> ...



My main group is literally scarred for life by 3E's awful AoO rules.

They just think everything is going to trigger one. It's been two editions, guys, you'd think they'd get better, and I continually reassure them that it's quite hard to trigger one in 5E, but...

I can't complain too much as I thought 5E had a 5' step movement-action disengage until a couple of years ago.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Apr 29, 2022)

Ruin Explorer said:


> My main group is literally scarred for life by 3E's awful AoO rules.
> 
> They just think everything is going to trigger one. It's been two editions, guys, you'd think they'd get better, and I continually reassure them that it's quite hard to trigger one in 5E, but...
> 
> I can't complain too much as I thought 5E had a 5' step movement-action disengage until a couple of years ago.



same


----------



## Vaalingrade (Apr 29, 2022)

NaturalZero said:


> I was just looking back at 3e and thinking about how wacky some of the mechanics were and how I don't miss them. Everything used to provoke an Attack of Opportunity.
> 
> Try to trip a foe? Attack of Opportunity.
> Try to grapple a foe? Attack of Opportunity.
> ...



Don't forget the -4 for trying without the feat tax!


----------



## TwoSix (Apr 29, 2022)

Ruin Explorer said:


> My main group is literally scarred for life by 3E's awful AoO rules.
> 
> They just think everything is going to trigger one. It's been two editions, guys, you'd think they'd get better, and I continually reassure them that it's quite hard to trigger one in 5E, but...
> 
> I can't complain too much as I thought 5E had a 5' step movement-action disengage until a couple of years ago.



The amount of time we still call for Spot or Diplomacy checks is sadly all too frequent.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Apr 29, 2022)

TwoSix said:


> The amount of time we still call for Spot or Diplomacy checks is sadly all too frequent.



for years we have said "Perception, spot, notice What ever it's called"


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Apr 29, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> I am in no way the target audiance of the 'basic fighter'   I dislike (to the point of it annoying me when OTHER people take that subclass at my table) however there are fans of it, and there is a reason to keep something basic... or as you say 'tutorial' in the game



I find the entire concept of the "basic Fighter", especially the laughable idea that they're for "new players", foolish at best, and actively disingenuous is more like it.

I've started quite a few new players in 4E and 5E, and how many them wanted to be a Fighter at all, let alone a "basic Fighter"? Let me tell you.

Exactly ZERO.

Not one. No-one has even been remotely interested in a playing a Fighter as their first character. The least-nerdy most basic/mainstream person I've played D&D with, who is definitely a non-nerd, and only played D&D a few times (though he swears he enjoyed it), picked a goddamn Swordmage in 4E. He didn't pick a Fighter. Yeah he was a towering Dragonborn (IIRC), but his attitude was that Fighters sounded "boring". And that was in the edition when they were arguably least boring!

Other people aged between and 10 and 45, what have they picked? Mostly the same three classes:

Ranger - a large part of this is because it sounds exactly like what people want, it's just the mechanics suck - also people love the idea of the pet.
Warlock - This seems to have more "basic appeal" than other caster classes, and given its more straightforward to  play as well, that's probably a good thing.
Druid - I don't really understand this but new people seem to instantly gravitate to it, albeit not as much as Ranger and Warlock. One of my friends was forced by his daughter to buy whatever sourcebook it was which had the Circle of Spores Druid in, because she'd read about it online and would not play anything else in the game he was intending to run (she's been keenly observing our D&D games since a young age when allowed!).

Paladin, Cleric, Rogue are probably the next three. As noted no new-to-D&D or new-to-RPGs player has wanted to play a Fighter, and I think only one wanted to play a Wizard and cited Harry Potter in making that choice.

This is all experience not fact but I am just incredibly skeptical about the whole "simple Fighter" option.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Apr 29, 2022)

TwoSix said:


> The amount of time we still call for Spot or Diplomacy checks is sadly all too frequent.



Oh god, I had to argue with a 5E DM that Diplomacy no longer existed a couple of years ago. He was very sure it did. I was like "Look at our character sheets, I promise we're not gaslighting you!". It was a situation where it would have made sense to roll Diplomacy but not really to roll Persuasion too.


----------



## Minigiant (Apr 29, 2022)

Counter proposal.

Maneuvers should have be a base optional _variant_ system. Similar to spells but not core like multiclassing. 
Superiority dice let you do maneuvers better.  
Warrior classes can get superiority dice easiest by trading out Action Surge, Second Wind, etc...
Subclasses like Battlemaster (and Hunter) advances and accumulates superiority dice fastest.
Basically Maneuvers should have been in the PHB right after Feats. This way everyone can attempt to trip or disarm, and everyone knows how it works but there is a path to do it better.


----------



## TwoSix (Apr 29, 2022)

Ruin Explorer said:


> Not one. No-one has even been remotely interested in a playing a Fighter as their first character. The least-nerdy most basic/mainstream person I've played D&D with, who is definitely a non-nerd, and only played D&D a few times (though he swears he enjoyed it), picked a goddamn Swordmage in 4E. He didn't pick a Fighter. Yeah he was a towering Dragonborn (IIRC), but his attitude was that Fighters sounded "boring". And that was in the edition when they were arguably least boring!



Agreed.  I'm thinking back on hundreds of characters I've seen over the last few years among a dozen groups, and I've seen exactly 3 fighters.  And one of them was a 4e fighter, which broke the "simple fighter" mold anyway.


----------



## Oofta (Apr 29, 2022)

Ruin Explorer said:


> I find the entire concept of the "basic Fighter", especially the laughable idea that they're for "new players", foolish at best, and actively disingenuous is more like it.
> 
> I've started quite a few new players in 4E and 5E, and how many them wanted to be a Fighter at all, let alone a "basic Fighter"? Let me tell you.
> 
> ...



I like playing basic fighters, my first PC was a champion fighter.  If I had more opportunities to play I'd consider playing another one.  Just because it's not for you doesn't mean it's not for everyone.


----------



## Oofta (Apr 29, 2022)

TwoSix said:


> Agreed.  I'm thinking back on hundreds of characters I've seen over the last few years among a dozen groups, and I've seen exactly 3 fighters.  And one of them was a 4e fighter, which broke the "simple fighter" mold anyway.



I've had a fighter or two in every home game I've played or run.  According to DndBeyond they're quite popular.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Apr 29, 2022)

TwoSix said:


> Agreed.  I'm thinking back on hundreds of characters I've seen over the last few years among a dozen groups, and I've seen exactly 3 fighters.  And one of them was a 4e fighter, which broke the "simple fighter" mold anyway.



Same. We've got two Fighters in 5E, both very experienced players, one of them has complained that his character is "boring" a number of times. 4E we had one (but I played really only in one group in 4E), and he was Battlerage Vigor and totally out-of-control insane awesome.

Interestingly looking at the groups  I've played 5E in Paladin is the most popular "melee" class by some margin. And most of those are not old-fashioned "holy" Paladins, but other kinds.


Oofta said:


> I like playing basic fighters, my first PC was a champion fighter. If I had more opportunities to play I'd consider playing another one. Just because it's not for you doesn't mean it's not for everyone.



"Not for you or anyone you've played 5E with", you mean?

I mean, there is no subclass that no-one loves. No matter how bad or obscure or pointless. Someone loves it, and will play it by preference. Even Purple Dragon.

I'm not saying no-one likes it. I'm saying the logic that it's "for new players" or "training wheels" or indeed that it "needs to be in the PHB" is really faulty. Even you are an ultra-experienced veteran player, and you like it, not some new player. New players aren't into that kind of thing, in my experience. Especially younger ones. It's grogbait.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Apr 29, 2022)

Ruin Explorer said:


> I find the entire concept of the "basic Fighter", especially the laughable idea that they're for "new players", foolish at best, and actively disingenuous is more like it.
> 
> I've started quite a few new players in 4E and 5E, and how many them wanted to be a Fighter at all, let alone a "basic Fighter"? Let me tell you.
> 
> ...





TwoSix said:


> Agreed.  I'm thinking back on hundreds of characters I've seen over the last few years among a dozen groups, and I've seen exactly 3 fighters.  And one of them was a 4e fighter, which broke the "simple fighter" mold anyway.



same...

You know who i find DOES play champion fighters... 30-40 year old players (who all brought beer to game... I don't know that matters but it is a thing) who played pre 4e and want 'simple fighters' or people who are level dipping for increased crit to go with extra attack and action surge (okay that is only 1 time... but he brings beer too...)


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Apr 29, 2022)

Ruin Explorer said:


> I mean, there is no subclass that no-one loves. No matter how bad or obscure or pointless.



I dislike champion... and I dislike beastmaster... but GODs do I HATE wildmagic... all three from the PHB no less.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Apr 29, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> same...
> 
> You know who i find DOES play champion fighters... 30-40 year old players (who all brought beer to game... I don't know that matters but it is a thing) who played pre 4e and want 'simple fighters' or people who are level dipping for increased crit to go with extra attack and action surge (okay that is only 1 time... but he brings beer too...)



To be fair the guy who always plays funky-ass Warlocks/Sorcerers (until 5E he always played Rogues, but he loved 4E's Rogue so much 5E's Rogue "broke him" and now he just plays Warlocks/Sorcerers) in my main group is 100% reliable as bringing beer and good beer at that.


----------



## Oofta (Apr 29, 2022)

Ruin Explorer said:


> Same. We've got two Fighters in 5E, both very experienced players, one of them has complained that his character is "boring" a number of times. 4E we had one (but I played really only in one group in 4E), and he was Battlerage Vigor and totally out-of-control insane awesome.
> 
> Interestingly looking at the groups  I've played 5E in Paladin is the most popular "melee" class by some margin. And most of those are not old-fashioned "holy" Paladins, but other kinds.
> 
> ...




Well, my experience that the people who _should_ be playing the base fighter are exactly the ones that levitate to the most complex classes.  Personally I think _any_ class can be boring if you fall into a repetitive pattern, we certainly see it with warlocks.

But that's not what this thread is about.  Even if you "spiced up" the fighter class it wouldn't matter.  We have plenty of alternative archetypes, so if people aren't playing it now they won't play it.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Apr 29, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> I dislike champion... and I dislike beastmaster... but GODs do I HATE wildmagic... all three from the PHB no less.



Beastmaster is weird for me. Conceptually, I like the idea, and in my experience, newer players (especially female ones, but not exclusively) like the idea, but I loathe the poorly-implemented and poorly-patched mechanics of it. Just let their pet hit things without some elaborate "action economy" for god's sakes. Make it have a pile of HP and sad damage and they'll love it and it won't be a problem.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Apr 29, 2022)

Oofta said:


> Even if you "spiced up" the fighter class it wouldn't matter.  We have plenty of alternative archetypes, so if people aren't playing it now they won't play it.



i promise you if tomorrow WotC put out a book with 4e style (or Bo9S style) warlord and fighter (names don't matter) I would see a HUGE uptick in martial non magic useing characters at my tables for however long we play this edition.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Apr 29, 2022)

Ruin Explorer said:


> Beastmaster is weird for me. Conceptually, I like the idea, and in my experience, newer players (especially female ones, but not exclusively) like the idea, but I loathe the poorly-implemented and poorly-patched mechanics of it. Just let their pet hit things without some elaborate "action economy" for god's sakes. Make it have a pile of HP and sad damage and they'll love it and it won't be a problem.



let me rephrase... the reason I dislike/hate those subclasses is becuse they match concepts I want to play/run players with but have mechanics that make doing so too much of a chore.


----------



## Oofta (Apr 29, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> i promise you if tomorrow WotC put out a book with 4e style (or Bo9S style) warlord and fighter (names don't matter) I would see a HUGE uptick in martial non magic useing characters at my tables for however long we play this edition.



And ... I guarantee that it wouldn't affect my table.  Experiences differ.

Now if we brought back avengers I might be interested.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Apr 29, 2022)

Oofta said:


> Well, my experience that the people who _should_ be playing the base fighter are exactly the ones that levitate to the most complex classes.



But those people wouldn't be interested in playing D&D if you made them play that. Because they don't want vanilla. They want strawberry chocolate fudge.

And let's be real, very few 5E classes are significantly hard to play for a modern, moderately intelligent (like average) person. Maybe Wizards are a bit fiddly and odd? That's about it.


GMforPowergamers said:


> i promise you if tomorrow WotC put out a book with 4e style (or Bo9S style) warlord and fighter (names don't matter) I would see a HUGE uptick in martial non magic useing characters at my tables for however long we play this edition.



I have no doubt that we'd see fewer Paladins and Barbarians and more Fighters if they were distinctly 4E-style. Warlords, not so sure, I never actually saw one played for more than a couple of sessions in 4E.

That said 5E is also missing a properly-designed "Swordmage"-type class (and Booming Blade and Greenflame Blade are both sad, silly and confusing to newer players), and if that existed it would also draw a lot of players. Just like a guy who wears light armour, but is utterly deadly with a sword, and maybe doesn't cast spells, but has magic abilities - 4E had a bunch of classes like that, and people loved them.


----------



## TwoSix (Apr 29, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> i promise you if tomorrow WotC put out a book with 4e style (or Bo9S style) warlord and fighter (names don't matter) I would see a HUGE uptick in martial non magic useing characters at my tables for however long we play this edition.



Exactly this.  There's no reason that their shouldn't be a warrior-type class with resource-gated exception-based abilities just like magical types get.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Apr 29, 2022)

Oofta said:


> Now if we brought back avengers I might be interested.



Yeah thumbs up to this.

People in 4E LOVED that class. I've had people join 5E from 4E and they're really confused that it didn't make the transition and there's this weird Paladin pretending to be an avenger like bad cosplay ("we have avengers at home"). It combined like cool/badass magic without being a "spellcaster", and chopping people up with a 2h weapon whilst wearing light armour. It appealed to like a whole broad swathe of players from quite traditional types who had sort of "Severian with more magic" as their mental archetype, to people who quite clearly saw it as an "anime Fighter".


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Apr 29, 2022)

Ruin Explorer said:


> But those people wouldn't be interested in playing D&D if you made them play that. Because they don't want vanilla. They want strawberry chocolate fudge.



yeah... I would just stop TTRPGs if my only choice was fighters


Ruin Explorer said:


> I have no doubt that we'd see fewer Paladins and Barbarians and more Fighters if they were distinctly 4E-style. Warlords, not so sure, I never actually saw one played for more than a couple of sessions in 4E.
> 
> That said 5E is also missing a properly-designed "Swordmage"-type class



I still would do anything for a 4e fighter, a swordmage AND a Warlord


----------



## TwoSix (Apr 29, 2022)

Ruin Explorer said:


> Yeah thumbs up to this.
> 
> People in 4E LOVED that class. I've had people join 5E from 4E and they're really confused that it didn't make the transition and there's this weird Paladin pretending to be an avenger like bad cosplay ("we have avengers at home"). It combined like cool/badass magic without being a "spellcaster", and chopping people up with a 2h weapon whilst wearing light armour. It appealed to like a whole broad swathe of players from quite traditional types who had sort of "Severian with more magic" as their mental archetype, to people who quite clearly saw it as an "anime Fighter".



Yea, avenger and warden are the two best 4e classes that they tried to shove into the "paladin" box and totally missed what made them badass.


----------



## Oofta (Apr 29, 2022)

Ruin Explorer said:


> Yeah thumbs up to this.
> 
> People in 4E LOVED that class. I've had people join 5E from 4E and they're really confused that it didn't make the transition and there's this weird Paladin pretending to be an avenger like bad cosplay ("we have avengers at home"). It combined like cool/badass magic without being a "spellcaster", and chopping people up with a 2h weapon whilst wearing light armour. It appealed to like a whole broad swathe of players from quite traditional types who had sort of "Severian with more magic" as their mental archetype, to people who quite clearly saw it as an "anime Fighter".



Yeah, I'm playing a vengeance paladin right now.  Fun for RP aspect reasons, but not the same.


----------



## Quickleaf (Apr 29, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> same...
> 
> You know who i find DOES play champion fighters... 30-40 year old players (who all brought beer to game... I don't know that matters but it is a thing) who played pre 4e and want 'simple fighters' or people who are level dipping for increased crit to go with extra attack and action surge (okay that is only 1 time... but he brings beer too...)



<< is 41, does not drink beer (more of a whiskey and red wine in moderation type of gentleman), played every edition since Basic D&D, disdains level dipping, and enjoys a "simple fighter."


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Apr 29, 2022)

Quickleaf said:


> << is 41, does not drink beer (more of a whiskey and red wine in moderation type of gentleman), played every edition since Basic D&D, disdains level dipping, and enjoys a "simple fighter."



beer joke aside (I think it is just a funny coincidence)  but you fit exactly... people who want 'simple fighters' are a subset of older players not newer (not that no new player will... but in general)


----------



## Minigiant (Apr 29, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> You know who i find DOES play champion fighters... 30-40 year old players (who all brought beer to game... I don't know that matters but it is a thing) who played pre 4e and want 'simple fighters' or people who are level dipping for increased crit to go with extra attack and action surge (okay that is only 1 time... but he brings beer too...)






Quickleaf said:


> << is 41, does not drink beer (more of a whiskey and red wine in moderation type of gentleman), played every edition since Basic D&D, disdains level dipping, and enjoys a "simple fighter."






GMforPowergamers said:


> beer joke aside (I think it is just a funny coincidence) but you fit exactly... people who want 'simple fighters' are a subset of older players not newer (not that no new player will... but in general)



I think the age is more 40+ for that good chunk of the simple fighter fans who aren't just playing it because they are too tipsy to run anything else. 

The main factor of similarity of a lot of the simple fighter (and simple mage) lovers is having an experienced (and above average) DM/GM who have fairly and skillful adjudicate combat actions which match the expectations of the players in the group. Older groups. Long term groups. Veteran D&D groups. Friend, club, or hobby circles.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Apr 29, 2022)

No dice, or consumable resources.  

More situationally dependent abilities (e.g. Shove, or Rogue Sneak Attack), and risk/reward abilities (e.g. Barbarian's Reckless Attack).


----------



## DND_Reborn (Apr 30, 2022)

Kobold Avenger said:


> Any other thoughts on such a approach?



Yes... see here:









						D&D 5E - Another Fighter: the "Heroic" Fighter
					

So, here is yet another attempt (or revision from prior attempts) at a "heroic" fighter class. By "heroic" I mean things that are feasible by real world standards, even if they really stretch the bounds of plausibility. While extreme potentially, they are not meant to be "super heroic", but can...




					www.enworld.org


----------



## Minigiant (Apr 30, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> No dice, or consumable resources.
> 
> More situationally dependent abilities (e.g. Shove, or Rogue Sneak Attack), and risk/reward abilities (e.g. Barbarian's Reckless Attack).



The dice and consumables should have been a bonus to regular default actions.


Crush: Target makes CON save or target is knocked prone. Roll superiority dice to deal weapon damage plus dice damage.
Disarm: Target makes STR save or target is disarmed. Roll superiority dice to deal weapon damage plus dice damage.
Distract: Target makes INT save or target is distracted (next attack has advantage). Roll superiority dice to deal weapon damage plus dice damage
Envenom: Target makes CON save at disadvantage or target is poisoned. (Must have poisoned weapon) Roll superiority dice to deal weapon damage plus dice damage.
Feint: Target makes WIS save or target falls for feint. Roll superiority dice to deal weapon damage plus dice damage.
Hamstring: Target makes STR save or target's speed is halved until end of their next turn. Roll superiority dice to deal weapon damage plus dice damage.
Goad: Target makes WIS save or target is marked. Roll superiority dice to deal weapon damage plus dice damage.
Knock Down: Target makes STR save or target is knocked prone. Roll superiority dice to deal weapon damage plus dice damage.
Menace: Target makes WIS save or target is frightening until end of your next turn. Roll superiority dice to deal weapon damage plus dice damage.
Sand: Target makes DEX save or target is blinded until the end of their next turn. (Must have sand, mud, or dirt) Roll superiority dice to deal weapon damage plus dice damage.
Trip: Target makes DEX save or target is knocked prone. Roll superiority dice to deal weapon damage plus dice damage.


----------



## Peter BOSCO'S (Apr 30, 2022)

Azzy said:


> I'm not opposed to it, but I think that the fighter manuevers need to be expanded upon and beefed up. Maybe level-gate (or require multiple SD for) some options and give more options so that at higher levels you're not simply picking the manuevers that simply liked less than the ones you initially chose.



They could do these the same way that  they do Warlock Invocations and just call them Martial Maneuvers. Fighters would have the same number as a Warlock of their level has invocations. Other characters would have a few, maybe none unless they took a feat to gain some. Some Martial Maneuvers would be class restricted (Rogues should be able to take Dirty Trick, but not Divine Deflection, etc.)
If you are concerned about caster/non caster balance maybe anyone who can cast has their number of maneuvers reduced by the highest level spell they can cast.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Apr 30, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> The dice and consumables should have been a bonus to regular default actions.
> 
> 
> Crush: Target makes CON save or target is knocked prone. Roll superiority dice to deal weapon damage plus dice damage.
> ...




Naw.  

If I want consumable resources that refresh on a rest I'll play a caster.


----------



## Eubani (Apr 30, 2022)

Oofta said:


> No thanks.  I personally don't care for the superiority dice concept or the artificial limitation of X times per some type of rest.  If I can attempt to trip someone in combat, why can't I always try to trip someone?  If it's a question of having the right set of circumstances, why is that set of circumstances artificially limited?
> 
> If anything were added I would want some other mechanism.  Something along the lines of always allowing a trip attack [edit: as a bonus action] but if you fail the enemy gets a free opportunity attack with advantage because it's a dangerous maneuver.  Well, that and having everyone fall over constantly could get old.
> 
> Then again I don't have a problem with fighters in combat.



The answer is that you can always always do things like trip, it's just that the Battlemaster is better at it thus gets a mechanical bonus. Just because one class/subclass gets a bonus to something that does not mean others cannot attempt that action, they can just without said bonus.


----------



## Minigiant (Apr 30, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> Naw.
> 
> If I want consumable resources that refresh on a rest I'll play a caster.



The idea is to decouple the resources from the action.

Disarm, Feint, Knockdown, Trip, etc can all be don't without dice. So everyone could do it. Wanna trip. Go Trip. No feat needed for access or to un-nerf it.

Dice are just used to deal damage (or raise the saving throw DC).


----------



## TwoSix (Apr 30, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> Naw.
> 
> If I want consumable resources that refresh on a rest I'll play a caster.



Yea, but it doesn't need to be either/or.  There's plenty of room in the game for a class with martial tropes with limited/no resources and a separate one with more complex resource management.


----------



## Eubani (Apr 30, 2022)

I call foul on the designer side. If they gate maneuvers to a subclass they do not have to support it like they do with spells for spell casters. Some level gated improved maneuvers would be nice. Weapons are non granular and maneuvers are subclass gated, meaning they have an excuse to do as little as possible for Fighters, little to no effort for Fighters has been their historic behavior over the last 40 odd years except 4e.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Apr 30, 2022)

TwoSix said:


> Yea, but it doesn't need to be either/or.  There's plenty of room in the game for a class with martial tropes with limited/no resources and a separate one with more complex resource management.



Sure, but that’s not what the title of this thread says.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Apr 30, 2022)

Eubani said:


> The answer is that you can always always do things like trip, it's just that the Battlemaster is better at it thus gets a mechanical bonus. Just because one class/subclass gets a bonus to something that does not mean others cannot attempt that action, they can just without said bonus.




Speaking only for myself, I don't need the design principle explained.  I get it; I just am not interested in playing it.

I don't really enjoy playing classes where the gameplay requires deciding whether to spend a resource now, or save it for later.  I much prefer trying to figure out what is the optimum decision in the moment.  Both are a kind of gambling, I suppose, but I prefer the latter.

For that matter, I'd like to see Action Surge relegated to a subclass.

Or I can just keep playing rogues.


----------



## GreyLord (Apr 30, 2022)

Make it simpler with Champion instead of SD.

Treat them a little like the NPC warrior, but they still get the fighting style.  Then they can also get a +2 somewhere between 3rd and 5th level which they can add to as a bonus to hit or a bonus to damage.

This increases to a +3 at 9th level, a +4 at 13th, and a +5 at 17th level.  Make it something static so easier to understand with limited options.  

Or, a similar idea, is to simply give them expertise, but instead of having it with a skill like the Rogues, give it with a weapon or weapon class.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Apr 30, 2022)

GreyLord said:


> Make it simpler with Champion instead of SD.
> 
> Treat them a little like the NPC warrior, but they still get the fighting style.



And then move them to the MM, right?


----------



## Leatherhead (Apr 30, 2022)

Superiority dice for an Eldritch Knight would work like the Arcane Archer's arrows. Or elemental smites, both could work.

What gets me the most about people arguing if a Fighter should be simple or not: The Barbarian exists, if any class should be simple, it's the Barbarian with allure of the SMASH playstyle.


----------



## kapars (Apr 30, 2022)

Isn’t the best option for an introductory class the Warrior sidekick class? If they place that in the new PHB it would allow them to implement a Fighter with more options.


----------



## Minigiant (Apr 30, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> Speaking only for myself, I don't need the design principle explained.  I get it; I just am not interested in playing it.
> 
> I don't really enjoy playing classes where the gameplay requires deciding whether to spend a resource now, or save it for later.  I much prefer trying to figure out what is the optimum decision in the moment.  Both are a kind of gambling, I suppose, but I prefer the latter.
> 
> ...




I don't think 5e is complex enough at base to run a fighter with "no buttons". Once you give the fighter Extra Attack, there are not enough passive bonuses that wont break the fighter.


----------



## MarioEvilDM (Apr 30, 2022)

IMHO the fighter class bugs is damage output, vs magic-users, and fun combat manoeuvres.
In _my game_ the magic weapons give +1 dice of damage. IE: longsword +1 (2d8/2d10) this make the fighter class extremely dangerous with magic weapons (they are better at using weapons then everyone, that is call trainings).

And the Fighters will have advantage to special manœuvre (trip, shove, disarm, throw a body into multiple attacker's)
I use the Athletic skill, and the opponents roll a save, because it's an attack move!
my players fighter's now always trying to make special manœuvre and the game is not just a long boring combat of HP, it a melee that feal good and very dynamic and I use the same thing vs them.
oh yes, the fighter gets to multiply everything on a CRIT dices and bonuses 
IE: STR +3 Longsword +1 two hands CRIT = (2d10 +8)
Yes, I'M EvilDM


----------

