>people saying that fighters in 5e are "fixed now!" because they can do the best damage ever in a fight, by blowing their load and attacking again and again and dropping all their extra damage dice for megahuge damage!
>who cares if the fighter isn't good for much else, fighters are for killing things!
Is this what D&D players believe high-level fighters should be like nowadays?
>>44022554
Most of the utility is in background and proficiencies, the non-ritual utility spells are mostly shit, and ritual casting is literally one feat away from every class.
>>44022554
Fighters get just as many skills as anyone else save Bards and Rogues, and all of the subclasses offer a degree of Out-of-Combat utility.
The Fighter isn't only great at damage either. They're great at combat maneuvers thanks to their large number of attacks.
In addition, they get more Feats than any other class, which offer a lot more utility and power than previous editions. Picking up great utility feats or spellcasting is easier than ever.
>>44022631
Not really. Non-ritual utility spells are serious business. You have Legend Lore, Suggestion, Scrying, Teleport, and Plane Shift all in there.
>>44022707
The rogue and bard are REALLY GOOD at using skills because they have Expertise, Jack of All Trades, etc.
The fighter has none of that. None.
>and all of the subclasses offer a degree of Out-of-Combat utility.
Oh sure, let me get some vague and unhelpful "data" from my Battle Master enemy scanner!
>>44022554
It's the eternal double standard. Magic users are allowed to do whatever they like, but martial characters have to be 'realistic'.
5e did a decent job of making fighters useful in combat, but it did nothing to make them fun to play or to give them interesting options to choose from.
I want to see fighters able to replicate the feats of the epic heroes, using raw might, swiftness or toughness to do impossible things. And no, 'The GM can let them' is not a good argument. The system should directly support it if it wants to have any hope of parity between casters and noncasters.
>>44022735
>Scrying
>Teleport
Have you actually read the spell descriptions
>Suggestion
Isn't actually as amazing as munchkins want it to be
>Legend Lore
Point, I thought it was a ritual
>Plane Shift
We planescape now, I hope you didn't expect the part you shifted to to be empty, yes?
>>44022758
>The fighter has none of that. None.
Neither do most classes, but this isn't like 3.5 where the Fighter was looking at 2 Skills to spread between Climb, Jump, and Swim.
>Battle Master enemy scanner!
Joke all you want, it's rather useful for a Scout, which a Fighter can do well with a Stealth Background and High dex.
>>44022800
What's wrong with Teleport and Scrying?
>>44022777
A 5e Fighter can deflect Meteors with his shield by RAW.
>>44022807
>Neither do most classes, but this isn't like 3.5 where the Fighter was looking at 2 Skills to spread between Climb, Jump, and Swim.
A cleric or a wizard doesn't get more skills and backgrounds than a fighter, no.
But a cleric or a wizard has tons of actual utility that helps outside of a fight too.
Heck, the wizard has an ability by default that makes them the best ritual casters ever!
>>44022832
Now that's actually interesting. Go on?
A level 9 fighter in AD&D 2e would have FAR more accuracy than anyone else because of the THAC0 tables, way better consistent saving throws because of the tables too (none of this "reroll a save once per day~!" tripe), more attacks per round than anyone else...
And a noble estate with a castle and an army of fully equipped, leveled followers. Free. Automatic. On top of whatever lands and followers you might have already had.
How can a 5e fighter at level 20 compete in terms of the same ability to affect the overall story?
>>44022816
Scry has huge save modifiers and isn't actually that hard to detect. Teleport's failure table doesn't even give you 50% chance of getting there if you're hoping to scry and fry and is generally unreliable as hell except for two levels of familiarity (a pre-existing circle and stealing from the target location, which means you probably have other means of getting there already).
>>44022777
They do have ridiculous undoable feats, especially Barbarian, while high level casters still only get at most one slot daily for every level above 5.
>>44022832
Not that the fighter is likely to, with that shitty Dexterity save.
Remove the Ranger, split the Fighter into three classes (Balanced with retainers, speedy, tanky with massively reduced costs for armour).
Fighters are "fixed now", because in levels 1-9 they have about as much utility as any other character besides full casters, are one of the best classes in a fight, most of their pants-on-head weaknesses like feat costs and secondary defenses were fixed, and in general they work as advertised.
If I make a Fighter, no matter what his DEX, and give him a bow, he will know how to shoot it and be competent and hit most things he shoots at and deal decent damage, the same for every other weapon.
Its called "fixed" because it works like its advertised to do. That, and because in single digit levels, the only ones anyone ever plays, they aren't really that overshadowed by the magic casting classes. Barring a few spells, up until level 9 the game really "works" with martials as reliable hammers and mages as squishy army knives.
>>44022921
Find me a DM who has ever used the fucking estate rules, I dare you.
Birthright did this shit significantly better and with significantly less gnashing of teeth, especially the retarded post level 12 druid advancement system, by not implying, for one, that every feudal lord needed to be level 9+. I'd rather make a Cerilian Regent's Companion Guide than go back to name levels.
>>44022923
>Scry has huge save modifiers
Exact same save modifiers as 3.5 Scrying, numbnuts.
>isn't actually that hard to detect
Needs to be able to see location.
>Teleport's failure table doesn't even give you 50% chance of getting there if you're hoping to scry and fry
Bring out those Legend Lores and keep using them again and again for more information.
>>44022978
To be fair, the original D&D settings were set in post-apocalyptic fantasy wildernesses, so it sort of made sense that most leaders of feudal keeps were badasses.
>>44022962
>Fighters are "fixed now", because in levels 1-9 they have about as much utility as any other character
Nnnnnnnnno?
Even the only other pure martial in the game, the rogue, has way more utility out of a fight than a fighter.
A level 11 rogue's utility is god tier with all those skill benefits.
>>44023011
Please, elaborate.
>>44022995
>Bring out those Legend Lores and keep using them again and again for more information.
How exactly are you Spamming Legend Lore again?
>>44022554
The cool thing about 5e is that you can strip characters down to just their ability scores, and you still have a fleshed out character with tons of options.
Low DCs and the advantage system mean that if a player is smart and creative, he can solve problems that in other editions would have required a maxed out skill or a spell with just a good stat and some ingenuity.
>>44023039
Level 5 slots.
>>44023018
I'd still consider BM and Totem Warrior on par with most rogue archetypes.
>>44022554
>fighter
>not being about killing things
mate, you are playing someone who has honed their skills to be the very best killer, while i agree that you should have some extra non-combat skills, why the fuck are you playing a fighter when you dont want your main skill to be "stab shit with other pointy shit", this is what you are good at,
>>44022554
>Fighters should have all the utility!
>Nevermind that their literal job description is killing things
>Nevermind that there are classes pretty much fucking dedicated to being a skill/utility monkey
>>44023018
A Rogue beats out most things for Utility. The main exceptions would be Bards and Wizards.
A Fighter has enough utility to contribute to a lot of different non-combat situations now, something that they just plain could not do in 3.5. It might not be the best, but it's something.
Hell, the Warblade was praised in 3.5 and its main out of combat utility was a few more skill points and Scent.
>>44023077
And 250gp spent per casting plus 200gp in non-consumable
You also only get two, daily, at level 11, unless you're a warlock
Did they finally fix fighters not being able to sneak and do clever/social things like any fantasy/mythological hero worth his salt?
>>44023077
Of which you get 2 per day. And it also costs a fair amount of money.
If you want to cast it 4 times, it'll take 2 days and 1000 gold.
>>44023117
They can do that now. Backgrounds in particular let Fighters stealth it up and do charms fairly well, although it may take some investment in Dex and Cha to be great at it.
>>44023117
You get ability score bonuses on everything and you can take the skills.
No, fighters can't do everything. The typical fantasy hero is closer to being a Rogue anyway, especially the clever third son.
>>44023018
Yyyyyyyyyyes?
Skills, tools, more feats than anyone in a system where that matters, optional spellcasting as a subclass and a feat, etc etc etc.
>>44023023
The original settings for Dungeons and Dragons were about going into "dungeons" in search of treasure. This treasure was things such as old art, jewelry, statues, and so on, as well as powerful magic weapons created in a bygone era.
The default "setting" of D&D is a feudal world that is built on the scrap of a more advanced fantasy world, with large stretches of wilderness punctuated with the occasional small town or fortified keep.
The reason there were so many dungeons is because those were actual ruins of the progenitor civilization [whatever it happened to be]. The reason there were so many spells with no thought as to how they fit into the setting, is because the setting was so regresses and magic had become so rare that whatever wonders you could imagine didn't exist anymore.
Detect Evil police states and teleportation sigils and Create Food and Water factories may well have existed in the stories Halls of the Ancient Dwarves, or in the days of the Elven Lords, or when Good King John still ruled the land.
So, in a world overrunning with the freak accidents of an ancient superculture [owlbears, etc], as well as powerful fauna and tons of wilderness, you'd think more leaders would be local, individually powerful, and able to draw on other people simply as part of a shared goal of surviving.
>>44022554
D&D is to pnp what /pol/ is to 4chan
>>44023018
Explain me this, why would a fighter have a lot of utility skills? Why would he have even half as much as a rogue? Of you want to play someone with a lot of out of combat skills go play a rogue, bard, ranger or something that would have a reason to have such skills
>>44023166
>The typical fantasy hero is closer to being a Rogue anyway
Not really, they were just good at both stealth and straight up fighting. Really EVERYONE who is an 'adventurer' should be able to sneak well enough.
>>44023197
I'm interested in that bit about ruins of a more advanced fantasy world. Is there a splatbook that details that a bit more?
>>44023302
Every character being able to contribute in and out of combat is a good idea and one that should be at the core of D&D.
>>44023302
Because all characters can contribute in a fight, so a character whose ONLY ability is contributing in a fight, as opposed to one whose PRIMARY ability is contributing in a fight, is dumb.
>>44023272
Always right?
>>44022554
Didn't Fighters have the best raw HP damage in 3.5 as well, if you knew how to optimize?
>>44023325
A Fighter can contribute out of combat though. He gets plenty of skills, proficiencies, and some other benefits from class skills. He can optionally spend his extra feats for more utility, or pick a casting subclass and expand things that way.
If that still isn't enough, you can dip your first level into Rogue for Expertise and extra skills.
This isn't like 3.5 where a Fighter can Jump, Swim, OR Climb. He can do all 3 now, as well as Intimidating people and being Knowledgeable about History. And that's before any background skills to customize him further.
>>44023197
>The reason there were so many dungeons is because those were actual ruins of the progenitor civilization [whatever it happened to be].
Really? Basic D&D explained it as "this is what happens when a wizard hits level 9".
>>44023325
but the fighter can contribute, just not as much as a class designed to be more usefully out of combat or semi out of combat. Why would someone comparing that a fighter, a class based around the concept of hiting things and being very good at it would have as much utility skills as a rogue or bard, classes which are based around interaction with the interment outside of combat. I dont bitch that my ranger cant dish out as much pain as a fighter in combat because to counterbalance that i get a few o
>>44023360
Doubtful, Barbarians had a bigger HD, and gained DR/-.
>>44023445
*ther things
>>44023311
Not that comes to mind, most of this I'm remembering from shit from Gygax and so forth. Its pretty interesting how a lot of the old concepts got justified.
But the general "idea" of D&D was a bunch of adventurers, that is, tomb-robbing mercenaries, would go out, search out places of historical interest, take everything that wasn't nailed down, and take it away to trade or spend.
The "ideal" was that once the players had accumulated enough wealth and personal power, they could perhaps begin to rebuild some of the glory of the former age. Or just join the battle royale of petty nobles and ninth level Fighters that already existed due to all the crazy wizards and overly devout clerics running around and nobody getting any shit done.
Honestly, this is why I like some classless systems more. Every character starts out with shitty combat, social, and exploration options, and then they can improve their character to focus on one or more of those options. That way there's no excuse when your character sucks at a given field, that's because YOU, the PLAYER, chose for them to suck at it. Most editions of D&D already do this with point-buy attributes anyway, and it's doubly true in 5E where attribute increases and character abilities / options are literally interchangeable.
If you decide to make Gronk the Barbarian a damage powerhouse with tons of hit points and nothing else, then you don't get to complain later when you can't contribute to a political intrigue story-line. If you the player knew this game wasn't going to be all combat, and you build a pure combat character, it's your own fault. The same is true for making a pure social character in a game that's mostly combat, so long as you know in advance and you still make the choice you have no-one to blame but yourself.
>>44023445
"Fighter" is a character concept that came into existence when the only three classes were Magic Guy Fighting Guy and Magic-Fighting-Religious Guy.
The idea of having a character class based JUST around fighting, in a game where now EVERYONE can fight, is dumb. The CONCEPT of the Fighter class is stupid.
The only way to make it make sense, is to make it a generic versatile toolkit.
>>44023460
He meant dealing damage, not taking it, and Barbarian still has them beat there. The only reason to take Fighter over Barbarian was if you wanted to complete your feat chains faster, or were doing some crazy feat intensive stupidity, like dual wielding. once a Barbarian has all the relevant feats of a build, the Fighter's class feature ceases to be relevant.
>>44023510
To be frank, the class system (for me) just makes it easier to pick. I also mainly play classless systems, but the class just allows you to pick the skill set that you want your character to have. Want to play a survivalist? Ranger is the way to go. Someone who can work well in citys and situations needing more of a subtle approach? Bards and rogues are for you. Need someone who dishes out a lot of pain quickly? Why not try barbarian or warrior. etc. etc
>>44023534
And that's just for single class. The real damage dealing builds will multiclass and prestige class, because there is no downside, and many crazy powerful benefits to gain, using Fighter levels as a springboard into what the build wants to do later.
>>44022554
Backgrounds, mate. Unlike previous editions you can have a sneaky fighter, a diplomatic fighter or a crafty fighter. Of course by the end of the story they are far less versatile, but at least:
1. They actually do the thing they're fucking designed to do
2. They have some utility outside of combat
Compare the 3.5e fighter, who wasn't even all that good at fighting and literally couldn't do anything else but fight.
>>44023360
Nah. Defensively barbarians were gigantic piles of hp with some DR as well as the ability to wear mythral full plate. Offensively there's rage, multiple feats that enhance rage, prestige classes that enhance rage and that alternate class feature from complete champion that allowed you to exchange some useless class feature for the ability to pounce. An optimized 3.5e barbarian was a fucking gore machine that could literally go hundreds of points into negative hp and still wreck your face.
>>44023524
no, the idea that someone picks a class labeled "dude that hits hard" and than complains that he is not all that useful outside of combat is dumb. Plus everyone can fight, but not everyone can stand in the front lines.
>>44023585
>Unlike previous editions
Except for 4e
>>44023604
Barbarian is "Fighting but also maybe naked and with some supernatural powers"
Paladin is "Fighting, but also holy magic"
Cleric is "Fighting, but also a lot of holy magic"
Ranger is "Fighting, but also nature magic"
Druid is "Fighting, but also a lot of nature magic"
What is Fighter? Fighting and more fighting?
Thats dumb. You're dumb for thinking thats not dumb.
>>44023659
This shows why the Fighter class as a whole is a problem.
You guys need pathfinder.
>>44023696
Pathfinder is a thin coat of paint for 3.5, nothing more.
>>44023481
Yeah I was aware of being a tomb raider thing, that actually explains the GP = XP thing which made the whole gameplay much different.
I should read old D&D manuals and see how everything is painted.
>>44023696
>You guys need a game where Fighters are even less useful both in and out of combat
>>44023659
Fighter should be fighting and tactics
>>44023659
Yes, he is the very base of the idea of a professional solder/mercenary. His deal is fighting, killing, murdering etc. and he is very good at it. Notice that (except the cleric who can bring out some very good buffs) none of those classes will be as good at fighting as a fighter. Here is the thing, if we were playing a classless system a fighter would be the guy who blasted most of his points into fighting related skills and had little left over for the utility skills, when playing a fighter you are sacrificing part of your out-of-combat usefulness for in-combat usefulness. If you decided to make a fighter much more usefull out of combat than there is little point of taking classes that have more out-of-combat skills because they are not as good at fighting
>>44023728
>>44023659
I could actually see a Fighters out of combat utility being that of a professional soldier. Equipment repair, practical skills, a degree of strategic insight (Although not as much as the Warlord) and so on.
>>44022933
If he's DEX specced, then he can quite reliably. I have an Eld Knight/Swashbuckler who can do a reliably okay amount of damage between cantrip/sneak attack, who has a ton of skills, and often out-tanks the Paladin.
>>44023728
I really wish they hadn't gone so half-assed with the Warlord stuff they gave the Fighter. Imagine if Commander's Strike was something they could do without using superiority die or extra actions, and just give up their full turn of attacks to have everyone else in the party take a swing. Or if Rally was actual healing instead of just Temp HP. Or if they got the Inspiring Leader Feat for free and could make speeches to bolster armies as a native feature.
>>44023116
Money is a total non-issue by that level.
>>44023117
>>44023166
>clever/social things
Rogue and bard will ALWAYS be better at that with their skill bonuses and Dex/Cha.
>>44022554
>Don Quixote is a Saber Clone
Seems legit.
>>44023749
But we're not playing a classless system, and in most versions of D&D it doesn't work like that. Paladin and Barbarian are both, in 5e, at least as good at fighting as the Fighter, or at least, close enough that in most cases it makes little sense to choose 10% more DPR over 5 levels of spellcasting.
The Fighter Class in modern D&D is a thought exercise in diminishing returns.
>>44023707
Fighters are actually better in Pathfinder in 3.5, but still suck dick
>>44023585
Ability scores still mean you'll only ever be "serviceable" in whatever background you take.
Social fighter with noble background?
Yeah, leave the talking to the sorcerer or warlock with social skills too.
>>44022554
They are called fighters. You would imagine they specialize around fighting.
>>44023758
>Eldritch Knight/Swashbuckler
Jesus Christ, how MAD.
>>44022554
How about this; since you are going to succeed in convincing exactly zero people to change their minds about 5e because you're a nameless blue box of words on the internet (which is a marginally less effective stance to start from when real people already are extremely unlikely to change someone's minds at anything), you stop bothering to try and instead find a game you actually like to play and play that instead of whining like a 5 year old?
Idiot.
>>44023815
I statted up a Don Quixote for Fate/Stay once.
He was a dude though, because fuck cloning saber over and over.
http://pastebin.com/1N3hjP0g
>>44023883
Or maybe he was just trying to create an interesting discussion? Like, y'know, the one going on in the thread that you're ignoring to post your meaningless drivel?
>>44023847
Pathfinder gave Fighters more feats, but it also gave feats more pre-reqs and expanded Feat Chains even longer before you got good benefits
>>44023815
TAKEUCHIII
>>44022849
The Shield Mastery Feat basically gives them Evasion and adds their shield bonus (+2 usually unless it's magical) to the Dex save.
Everyone else who DOES get Evasion needs to wait until 8th level at least.
>>44023606
4e had the best fighters, because the system gave them the role of armored protective fighter and made that role useful.
Yes, the paladin had religious power, but having decent movement options worked out, and it also had some hard hitting attack.
>>44023894
This is El Cid though. I wish Don Quixote was statted for Fate/Stay though
>>44023967
Shit sorry, i'm drunk. I meant to say I statted EL CID.
God, Don Quixote would be... wierd
>>44023813
You can make a Dex/Cha fighter. Battlemaster has manoeuvers that run off Cha
And the point is can the fighter do it, not can the fighter be the best class at everything, god, at this point this is basically infantile bitching.
>>44023896
If he wanted to create a meaningful discussion he wouldn't have started it the way he did.
I don't MIND discussing, but he started from a hostile and negatively slanted viewpoint with a disapproving tone, which means nothing anyone says is likely to change his mind and it's likely he simply wanted to hear his own opinion echoed back at him.
I don't even particularly care for 5e one way or another, but starting a discussion from an obviously biased standpoint is a hair away from being an actual troll because he's gonna stir up shit one way or another.
At least it's not Virt again I suppose.
>>44023877
Dex, Int
Oh wow, two ability scores in an edition that has every class work off two ability scores, how tragic.
>>44023877
>Believes that 2 stats is MAD.
>>44023659
Fightan magic?
>>44023659
Fighters should be epic heroes and villains. They should be capable of doing mythic feats that the other classes can only dream of. They may be good at just fighting, but they REALLY FUCKING GOOD at it.
>But anon that's too anime
Yeah, we all know how anime Hercules, Beowulf, Indra, Gilgamesh, and Cu Chulainn are, right?
>>44023117
Yeah, Fighters can do that.
Depends on Backround you choose and stats you get of course, but if you pick human or half-elf you can get even MORE skills then usual.
>>44023342A containment board for retards
>>44024174
Gilgamesh is my favorite BL animu
>>44023311
I dunno, any D&D setting book ever?
There's ruined civilizations aplenty in every D&D setting I've seen; it's a staple of the genre.
I know one classic module has them investigating ruins that are actually a crashed alien ship (displace beasts originate from the module I believe, as well as that Froghemeoth creature Pathfinder uses) and the traps are the ship's defense mechanisisms.
>>44024174
Well, at least one of those was a Barbarian.
Riastrad FTW.
>>44024174
>>44024174
The problem is all of those could be said to be Barbarians, but I agree with your point 100%
>>44024268
I've heard about that module, but I thought that doppelgangers came from it. I mean, that's the explanation of why they look like aliens.
>>44024174
Cu Chulainn is a Barb, Beowulf is on the edge, Hercules works fine as a straight champion, Indra and Gilgamesh are somewhere between Battlemaster and Holy Warrior classes.
>>44022962
>because in single digit levels, the only ones anyone ever plays
What? I thought every group rolled up 20s to fight a one shot encounter with the craziest items once in while? The demonlords from OotA are dank.
>>44024388
They did, yes.
Aliens and advanced tech (albeit isolated examples and only the weirder monsters) have been a thing in D&D since forever, as back when D&D was first created all fantasy got lumped into the "Weird Fiction" label, which often had lots of scifi in it too.
Jack Vance's Dying Earth novels (a huge influence on Gygax) had fantasy but ancient advanced sciences too leftover from the previous civilization.
Kinda like Thundarr the Barbarian.
>>44024133
>MULTI
>ATTRIBUTE
>DEPENDENT
Yes, requiring 2 scores means you're MAD. 2 is more then one, fuckstick.
>>44024405
>Beowulf is on the edge
He is, but most straight Norse heroes aren't berserkers (except Arngrim), and frequently are sons of Jarls/Kings/Chieftains.
Beowulf himself was sort of a knight and a son of a great champion, though that really is a hard comparison considering the vastly different cultural connotations of knight and his "sword-thane" title.
>>44024016
The Dex melee fighter has no feat support at all.
The Battlemaster Charisma maneuvers are complete and utter ass, holy shit.
>>44024045
>>44024133
Swashbuckler uses Charisma.
>>44024620
Every class has 2 stats they generally need.
>>44024710
And you can ask your DM to refluff EK to cue off Cha
>>44024682
>The Dex melee fighter has no feat support at all.
Dual wielding, Duelist (which admittedly would be nicer with a riposte option which iirc it had in the playtest). But true it's not the most supported style.
You're whining about being MAD, though, and it's a viable option. No class is going to get to be the very best.
>>44024727
Yes, then they all be MAD.
>>44024727
>Eldritch Knight: Str/Int or Dex/Int
>Swashbuckler: Dex/Cha
That's not just refluffing. That's house ruling.
Dual Wielding and Duelist are shit. Just look at the competition: Great Weapon Master, Sharpshooter, Shield Master.
>>44023018
>levels 1-9 they have about as much utility as any other character
>A level 11 rogue's utility is god tier with all those skill benefits
>A level 11 rogue's utility
>A level 11 rogue
>level 11
What's it like to have brain problems?
>>44025388
You can bypass the need for Int as an Eldritch Knight by taking Utility spells and those that don't need to make attacks or saves.
Dex/Cha is completely Viable
>Sharpshooter, Shield Master.
Both of these can be taken by a Dex fighter. In fact, they might even be better for them compared to other types.
>>44022631
So nothing changed from 4e
>>44025397
Actually, at levels 1-9, the rogue is still better at utility because of Expertise and more proficiencies.
>>44025523
What is Charisma doing for the fighter here, if at all?
Isn't the fighter's Eldritch Knight side going to be utter ass like this?
>>44025968
The assumption was that you'd be multiclassing Swashbuckler for some more Cha based stuff.
And you can play an Eldritch Knight without taking any spells that require high Intelligence.
>>44023783
In the D&D Next Playtest there was a point where all martial classes were going to have Superiority Dice. It's been a while so I may not be 100% correct on this, bear with me. Martial classes could spend these dice for basic combat benefits (like extra damage) or for class-specific tactical options. The Fighter's 'thing' was that they got more dice and more tactical options than any other class, plus they regained spent dice much faster.
They ended up scrapping the idea and making it a Fighter customization option. I think it was awesome, but I understand if it made combat too complicated for martial characters, and making Fighters easy to play was probably their #1 design goal for the class.
>>44026339
I remember that from the original playtests. Basically, the Fighter had a pool of d6 that refreshed each turn, and he could roll them for extra damage on an attack as the 'simple' option.
Alternatively, he could use them for other effects or maneuvers, and it was a great way to proposition your DM for cool effects (Hey, can I spend a die to throw that table into those two guys?)
>>44025653
The power level is down from "a level 10 character will literally solo all of Ming era China at its height" to "a level 20 character will die faced with 500 saracens".
>>44026425
I really liked that idea. But, like everything else interesting and cool in the playtests, it was stripped out in favour of grog appeal.
>>44022921
>a noble estate with a castle and an army of fully equipped, leveled followers. Free. Automatic.
No, that's immersion breaking. Build your own empire.
>>44026627
Something I really miss from the Playtests was the Sorcerer concept. The idea of them slowly becoming more like their bloodline as they used up sorcery points, to the point where a Dragon sorcerer was a full on tank once he was out of spells.
>>44026698
Yeah, that was such an amazing concept.
>>44026559
Ture but I kind of like that myself. Keeps the heroes as heroes rather then Gods Among Men.
Beside 'Bounded accuracy' also applies to the monsters. A level 1 party can still hope to hit a level 10 monster even if they would be fools to try it.
>>44026698
Truly but the caster getting more power has he ran out of spells was must of been hard to balance out.
>>44027106
I'm not saying I don't like it honestly. My main beef with 4e, unlike 3rd edition fans, was that it kept the ridiculous power levels of 3e and made them even moreso to some extent.
I'm totally okay to have 5e as a slightly more down to earth 4.5.
>>44027106
>Truly but the caster getting more power has he ran out of spells was must of been hard to balance out.
That's not why they ditched it though. They ditched it because grogs complained that the Dragon Sorcerer could wear heavy armor and was good in close combat, almost as though it had the abilities of some giant armored reptile.
>>44027106
I don't think it would be that hard if you used Spell Points. Example Draconic Sorcerer:
>While you have 3/4 your maximum Spell Points or less your skin hardens into chromatic scales. Your Armour Class increases to 13 + your Dexterity modifier, unless it would otherwise be higher.
>While you have 1/2 your maximum Spell Points or less your scales harden and gain a brighter, glossy sheen, especially over your hands. In addition to the above benefit you gain resistance to Acid, Cold, Fire, Lightning, or Poison (depending on your type of dragon heritage) and you gain a natural attack that deals 1d8 + your STR damage.
>While you have 1/4 your maximum Spell Points or less your scales completely envelop your body, giving you the appearance of a draconic being. Your Armour Class improves to 15 + your Dexterity modifier (unless it is already higher), you become Immune to Acid/Cold/Fire/Lightning/Poison damage instead, and your natural attack deals 2d6 + your STR damage.
You can give this to Sorcerers at 3rd level; before then their power wasn't strong enough to manifest their heritage. By that point they'll have at least 6 Spell Points, and calculating thresholds shouldn't be too hard.
>>44027209
This was the main reason for its removal, because some very loud people complained that it was different and the 5E team lacked the balls to take real risks.
>>44022921
Please, PLEASE give me source on that bird man image. I can't get over how nice it looks, I'm going to make a race that looks just like that. Smugness and all.
>>44022554
Thats exactly how high level fighters should be, and that's how it was back when Gygax ran the show too.
if you need something harder to do with your ninth lvl + fighter start building a keep and quit being a damn murderhobo.
>>44022843
>But a cleric or a wizard has tons of actual utility that helps outside of a fight too.
But the fighter would claim to be better in a fight, particularly if the wizard or cleric is using spells on outside of battle utility.
>Heck, the wizard has an ability by default that makes them the best ritual casters by default!
Best ritual caster ever is still a Warlock with a book of shadows.
>>44023510
>Every character starts out with shitty combat, social, and exploration options, and then they can improve their character to focus on one or more of those options.
Or every player at the table could play the same game and be differentiated by specializations that don't consistently sideline one character or another.
>>44023848
Even just having a Noble background gives them an advantage over the Hermit who talks to fairies
>>44023927
It gives evasion (classic, not 5E evasion) but the Dex save bonus is only against spells and effects that target specifically the shield user. It's good against Beholder eye rays, but not fireballs.
>>44024405
>Cu Chulainn is a-
Fighter
He was listed as an Iconic Fighter in AD&D.
As what D&D thought Fighters should be.
Also, equating the warp spasm to Barb rage is pants on head retarded.
>>44022554
OP, you must realize, WotC, Wizards of the coast, has a mild dislike for non-caster. They are a collection of lard piles who look for any way to shove how useless (or at least un adaptable) those who focus on physical prowess are. They neutered the Fighter from the moment they got their hands on the game.
>>44027675
>Or every player at the table could play the same game and be differentiated by specializations that don't consistently sideline one character or another.
D&D isn't a game where every character is designed to contribute equally to every kind of challenge. Heck, some characters can't contribute AT ALL to certain kinds of challenges. That's in large part because of how the game is designed, and somewhat due to the player's decisions and priorities in character creation. If you think that every character should always be able to meaningfully contribute to every situation or challenge then you're out of your goddamn mind.
>>44027755
AD&D doesn't have core barbarians in either edition.
>not equating the warp spasm to rage
>>44027755
>Also, equating the warp spasm to Barb rage is pants on head retarded.
Why?
>>44027306
That's http://ovopack.tumblr.com
>>44027306
Ovopack.
>>44023117
I wonder what type of games people play where a fighter is entirely worthless outside of combat...
>>44026627
3.5, a system so shitty it ruined 5 as well.
>>44023334
Why can't a fighter contribute outside of a fight? Do you just make shitty unsociable fighters?
>>44026425
What was their reason for removing it?
>>44029253
I don't know if they gave one. It was there right up until it went into the non-public playtest, and then came out with the gutted version we got. 5 superiority dice per short rest. 6 with a feat!
>>44023848
>using Charisma rolls for talking
>>44029473
Yes. That's what you're supposed to do.
>>44029473
>using strength rolls to lift heavy things
>>44029253
Having looked back at the playtest:
>dealing damage with the dice is better than the maneuvers 99% of the time
>having that damage each turn causes dice roll bloat which slows down the game
>contributes to single-attack damage bloat that everything in that playtest had (martials got a static +5/+10/+15 to damage as they leveled up)
>having to manage a pooled resource that refreshes each round is a pain in the ass
>people didn't like it and said so in their playtest feedback
Ultimately the "trade off one attack to do a thing, no damage" in 5e proper is more or less functionally equivalent without adding another resource to the mix outside action economy.
>>44022758
Yes, but neither the rogue or the bard can *consistently* do as much damage as the Fighter in combat.
Things aren't perfect. but they all skew a little closer to fair now.
>>44023790
>I haven't played this game actually and talk out my ass dot jay peg
money is fairly tight in 5e. Not quite "4e only gives you 3 magic items" tight, but still pretty hard up at times. Of course, your mileage may vary, consult your physician, if Monty Haul is the only style of campaign you know etc. etc. etc.
>>44024779
>You're whining about being MAD, though, and it's a viable option. No class is going to get to be the very best.
Yet a mage is capable of being useful in and out of combat and are often the best type of characters to play throughout DnD.
>>44030373
Dude, have you SEEN the treasure tables in the DMG?
They hand out pure coins like nobody's business, holy shit.
Having the balance such that some classes are worse at different aspects than others is how it should operate.
Fighters should be gods of combat, but fall behind in utility and out-of-combat applications. Meanwhile, Rogues should have the best skill applications and casters should have the best utility. You don't balance something by making every single class functionally identical with different flavor. You give them all different functions that balance out in their usefulness.
The problem with classes like Ranger is that they lose usefulness in one aspect to help with another aspect, but don't gain enough to make up for the loss. However, Fighter is perfectly fine with being raw combat-focused. And it's fine in non-combat situations. It can do well enough in specific circumstances that you build towards with proficiencies.
>>44031071
What's the difference between skill applications and utility?
>>44030700
Everyone is capable of being useful in and out of combat in 5e. Spells to replace skills? Most of them are a trap.
>>44031177
Typically, skill applications have no drawbacks besides the chance to fail. For example, Charm Person takes a spell slot and will make the victim HATE you after the time is up, but it will always work for its intended purpose. Meanwhile Persuasion can be used infinitely and will make the target like you by the end (typically), but has a chance to fail dependent upon the difficulty of the task and your skill.
Usually skills are more desirably, in my experience. Spells that do their function are more trouble than they're worth, and I only see them used when literally nobody in the party has the particular skill necessary.
>>44031071
5e was touted as being about "three pillars of gameplay," and yet the more martial classes are pretty much combat-only.
Why?
>>44031482
Champion and Barb are the only combat-only martials though.
>>44031676
Even Totem Warriors technically get some rituals and some non-combat stuff (i.e. Wolf Totem's second thing).
>>44031676
>>44031813
What they do get for noncombat utility is really minor.
The Battle Master's Know Your Enemy is laughably bad.
>>44031841
Which I think is fine. Fighter is obviously supposed to be a combat specialist, and it fulfills that role really well in 5e.
>>44029931
Ah yes, because 5e has such an involved action economy with so many weighty choices to pick from every round as a martial.
Wanna know what the best utility is?Killing shit and not dying.
>>44032040
Pretty hard to do that when you are Forcecaged, slowmo.
>>44032031
WotC wanted combat to be FAST. It didn't need lots of cool tactical options like 4E, it just needed to be quick. That means reducing the variety and total number of actions characters could take. It also meant rolling fewer dice when possible.
>>44025653
>So nothing changed from 4e
Main thing that changed is that 5E is a role-playing game and 4E was a board game.
>>44023077
At that point, you might as well fucking walk.
>>44032635
I'd rather spend a day letting the wizard use spell slots to get us to the other side of the world than months sitting on a boat for a voyage.
Most of D&D's problems in every edition are fixed or at least diminished if you just don't fucking play high level campaigns. I'm honestly bafffled that anybody actually wants to play god-killing ultra high fantasy schlock-fests anyway.
>>44032066
>forcecaging the guy with prof on the relevant save
>>44033546
>Forcecage
What save?
