PDA

View Full Version : D&D 5e/Next My attempt at fixing the weakest class (Fighter)



Matticusrex
2016-11-13, 07:44 AM
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MDSR8W_RAQzoVi4kpkGu3zYP1k0oO2YT5xRFm7w2jjU/edit?usp=sharing

Leuku
2016-11-13, 11:54 AM
Copying and pasting from what I wrote on your reddit post (https://www.reddit.com/r/UnearthedArcana/comments/5cpqv6/5ererebalanced_fighter_making_the_weakest_class/):

Several issues with your arguments:


The most popular class played is the Fighter, as evidenced by WOTC's survey earlier this year. Generally we should expect a negative correlation between effectiveness as class and popularity as played, but the Fighter instead tops the list as the most popularly played class. Anecdotal evidence becomes statistical data when WOTC invests in a world community survey on player experiences with each class and what players want changed and improved. Consequently, on the very low end of priority is the Fighter, alongside the Wizard and the Cleric.

While it is true that in terms of exploration/interaction features, the Fighter is at the lowest end of the volume with 1 each at 7th level for the Champion and Battlemaster (Eldritch Knight gets as pass with its access to spells), none of your rebalancing does anything to address this area of concern. Every new feature you've invented only impacts direct combat capability.

You fail to argue what the actual strengths and weaknesses of each class is; Instead, you talk about the strength of each martial without addressing any of their weaknesses, and then simply assert the Fighter is weak in comparison without any consideration for how the Fighter may compensate for differences in capability. 5e class balance is not based on absolute comparisons but on relative comparisons with how strengths and weaknesses are compensated for.


For example, Barbarians are tough, but are MAD, lack on-demand spike damage potential (instead relying on chance criticals for sudden spikes in damage), and can hardly do ranged combat for ****. Their rage is also conditional and limited use - a long adventuring day and unusual combat conditions can be killer to a Barbarian.

The Paladin has fantastic party buffs and on-demand spike damage, but also is **** at range and suffers from long adventuring days. The Paladin also suffers from competing resources: every divine smite is a Bless unused and vice versa. And I would argue that you are exaggerating Lay on Hands. It's a nice way to keep people from the brink, but is in no way a massive heal, and its opportunity cost is significant considering the Paladin's melee martial focus. Lastly, Improved Divine Smite is not the equivalent of Extra Attack 2, it is the Paladin's unique way of meeting the bare minimum of the Fighter's potential - An extra d8 on each attack does equalize with the potency of another attack in the Attack Action, especially on the Fighter chassis.

The Rogue is the king of consistent spike damage, whereas the Paladin is the king of burst spike damage. The Fighter, with its Extra Attacks and Action Surge, lies inbetween them. What the Rogue gains in terms of Sneak Attack and boosts to skills it loses in health, low starting AC, and conditional attack circumstances. The non-TWF Rogue gets one chance on their turn to land a Sneak Attack and god forbid he suffers disadvantage on his attack for any reason. The TWF Rogue suffers opportunity cost between taking that bonus action attack and using Cunning Action.

The Monk stands out as the class with the greatest number of unique features, but compensates for it by an inability to use shields, a Rogue's health, and is effectively on the lower end of the martial damage spectrum. The Monk's true combat strength lies in its single-target control effects, which is what compensates for its comparatively low tier average spike damage. In terms of adventuring day, the Monk is more like the Fighter as opposed to the Barbarian and Paladin, and so enjoys all the same benefits thereof.

The revised Ranger is playtest, and due to the WOTC's style for playtest, is on the excessive side in terms of power. It will inevitably receive a bit of nerfing when it is ready for official production. But to make a bit of a more substantial point on the Ranger - the Ranger, while more balanced for melee and ranged unlike the Barbarian, Paladin, and Monk, suffers from a complete lack of burst spike damage potential. The Ranger is very consistent combat-wise, and little else.

Finally we come to the Fighter. The Fighter serves as the mechanical foundation for all other classes - hence its general lack of flair - 3 entire levels are almost entirely dedicated to Indomitable for godsake! 7 entire levels are composed of only features and improvements to those features while 7 others have only ASIs, leaving 6 total available slots for anything else, 5 of which are subclass levels. It is the supreme generalist, with no clear weaknesses whatsoever, which consequently doesn't require it compensate for much of anything. Its greatest number of ASIs makes it highly customizable and its proficiencies and hit die makes it adaptable to most any combat style.

Addendum written to your comment assertion that "It's not all about damage, it's never been all about damage".

Your assertion that, "it's never been all about damage" is completely undercut by the fact that instead of improving the Fighter's general utility in your rebalancing you instead doubled down on strictly increasing the damage output of the Fighter perceptively three-fold. That amounts to asserting that the Fighter has weak legs and then committing the Fighter to a year of upper-body workouts.

You justify this by saying,


Utility is a huge power in this game as it is inherently group-based and fighters dont have much of it in their main body, their raw power is not making up the difference, Their archetypes dont scale very well or dont give them enough tools, they are incredibly bad at handling problems you cant just hit and they are bad at supporting their party as a whole, taking on a more singular support of themselves, but they dont need to be perfect at everything, they just need what they do best to be more prominent. Wizards of the Coast is not perfect and no edition of DnD has ever been balanced.

But the existing fighter is already the best at what it does: Fight in most any kind of circumstance. Long day or short day, melee or range, burst and consistent, and so on. If the Barbarian scores a 10 in survivability, an 8 in average damage, and a 1 in ranged attacks, then the Fighter scores 7s and 8s across the board. I iterate: The Fighter is the supreme martial generalist, just as how the Wizard is the supreme spellcasting generalist.

The Fighter is the white bread upon which you can build any kind of sandwich.

My conclusion is that you have insufficiently argued that, "in the big picture, [the Fighter] seriously need[s] some help." I am a big proponent of class balancing, being heavily invested in helping people with their homebrew classes. Class balancing requires a comprehensive sober analysis of the comparative strengths and weaknesses of any given class. As far as I can presently tell, the Fighter sufficiently compensates for any and all of its perceived comparative strengths and weaknesses in consideration for its role as the foundation for all other classes.

Matticusrex
2016-11-13, 12:02 PM
Copying and pasting from what I wrote on your reddit post (https://www.reddit.com/r/UnearthedArcana/comments/5cpqv6/5ererebalanced_fighter_making_the_weakest_class/):

Several issues with your arguments:


The most popular class played is the Fighter, as evidenced by WOTC's survey earlier this year. Generally we should expect a negative correlation between effectiveness as class and popularity as played, but the Fighter instead tops the list as the most popularly played class. Anecdotal evidence becomes statistical data when WOTC invests in a world community survey on player experiences with each class and what players want changed and improved. Consequently, on the very low end of priority is the Fighter, alongside the Wizard and the Cleric.

While it is true that in terms of exploration/interaction features, the Fighter is at the lowest end of the volume with 1 each at 7th level for the Champion and Battlemaster (Eldritch Knight gets as pass with its access to spells), none of your rebalancing does anything to address this area of concern. Every new feature you've invented only impacts direct combat capability.

You fail to argue what the actual strengths and weaknesses of each class is; Instead, you talk about the strength of each martial without addressing any of their weaknesses, and then simply assert the Fighter is weak in comparison without any consideration for how the Fighter may compensate for differences in capability. 5e class balance is not based on absolute comparisons but on relative comparisons with how strengths and weaknesses are compensated for.


For example, Barbarians are tough, but are MAD, lack on-demand spike damage potential (instead relying on chance criticals for sudden spikes in damage), and can hardly do ranged combat for ****. Their rage is also conditional and limited use - a long adventuring day and unusual combat conditions can be killer to a Barbarian.

The Paladin has fantastic party buffs and on-demand spike damage, but also is **** at range and suffers from long adventuring days. The Paladin also suffers from competing resources: every divine smite is a Bless unused and vice versa. And I would argue that you are exaggerating Lay on Hands. It's a nice way to keep people from the brink, but is in no way a massive heal, and its opportunity cost is significant considering the Paladin's melee martial focus. Lastly, Improved Divine Smite is not the equivalent of Extra Attack 2, it is the Paladin's unique way of meeting the bare minimum of the Fighter's potential - An extra d8 on each attack does equalize with the potency of another attack in the Attack Action, especially on the Fighter chassis.

The Rogue is the king of consistent spike damage, whereas the Paladin is the king of burst spike damage. The Fighter, with its Extra Attacks and Action Surge, lies inbetween them. What the Rogue gains in terms of Sneak Attack and boosts to skills it loses in health, low starting AC, and conditional attack circumstances. The non-TWF Rogue gets one chance on their turn to land a Sneak Attack and god forbid he suffers disadvantage on his attack for any reason. The TWF Rogue suffers opportunity cost between taking that bonus action attack and using Cunning Action.

The Monk stands out as the class with the greatest number of unique features, but compensates for it by an inability to use shields, a Rogue's health, and is effectively on the lower end of the martial damage spectrum. The Monk's true combat strength lies in its single-target control effects, which is what compensates for its comparatively low tier average spike damage. In terms of adventuring day, the Monk is more like the Fighter as opposed to the Barbarian and Paladin, and so enjoys all the same benefits thereof.

The revised Ranger is playtest, and due to the WOTC's style for playtest, is on the excessive side in terms of power. It will inevitably receive a bit of nerfing when it is ready for official production. But to make a bit of a more substantial point on the Ranger - the Ranger, while more balanced for melee and ranged unlike the Barbarian, Paladin, and Monk, suffers from a complete lack of burst spike damage potential. The Ranger is very consistent combat-wise, and little else.

Finally we come to the Fighter. The Fighter serves as the mechanical foundation for all other classes - hence its general lack of flair - 3 entire levels are almost entirely dedicated to Indomitable for godsake! 7 entire levels are composed of only features and improvements to those features while 7 others have only ASIs, leaving 6 total available slots for anything else, 5 of which are subclass levels. It is the supreme generalist, with no clear weaknesses whatsoever, which consequently doesn't require it compensate for much of anything. Its greatest number of ASIs makes it highly customizable and its proficiencies and hit die makes it adaptable to most any combat style.

Addendum written to your comment assertion that "It's not all about damage, it's never been all about damage".

Your assertion that, "it's never been all about damage" is completely undercut by the fact that instead of improving the Fighter's general utility in your rebalancing you instead doubled down on strictly increasing the damage output of the Fighter perceptively three-fold. That amounts to asserting that the Fighter has weak legs and then committing the Fighter to a year of upper-body workouts.

You justify this by saying,



But the existing fighter is already the best at what it does: Fight in most any kind of circumstance. Long day or short day, melee or range, burst and consistent, and so on. If the Barbarian scores a 10 in survivability, an 8 in average damage, and a 1 in ranged attacks, then the Fighter scores 7s and 8s across the board. I iterate: The Fighter is the supreme martial generalist, just as how the Wizard is the supreme spellcasting generalist.

The Fighter is the white bread upon which you can build any kind of sandwich.

My conclusion is that you have insufficiently argued that, "in the big picture, [the Fighter] seriously need[s] some help." I am a big proponent of class balancing, being heavily invested in helping people with their homebrew classes. Class balancing requires a comprehensive sober analysis of the comparative strengths and weaknesses of any given class. As far as I can presently tell, the Fighter sufficiently compensates for any and all of its perceived comparative strengths and weaknesses in consideration for its role as the foundation for all other classes.


way to miss the entire point of the post, good job writing all that for nothing

Leuku
2016-11-13, 12:13 PM
way to miss the entire point of the post, good job writing all that for nothing

I believe I addressed your primary point in my addendum:


Addendum written to your comment assertion that "It's not all about damage, it's never been all about damage".

Your assertion that, "it's never been all about damage" is completely undercut by the fact that instead of improving the Fighter's general utility in your rebalancing you instead doubled down on strictly increasing the damage output of the Fighter perceptively three-fold. That amounts to asserting that the Fighter has weak legs and then committing the Fighter to a year of upper-body workouts.

You justify this by saying,


Utility is a huge power in this game as it is inherently group-based and fighters dont have much of it in their main body, their raw power is not making up the difference, Their archetypes dont scale very well or dont give them enough tools, they are incredibly bad at handling problems you cant just hit and they are bad at supporting their party as a whole, taking on a more singular support of themselves, but they dont need to be perfect at everything, they just need what they do best to be more prominent. Wizards of the Coast is not perfect and no edition of DnD has ever been balanced.

But the existing fighter is already the best at what it does: Fight in most any kind of circumstance. Long day or short day, melee or range, burst and consistent, and so on. If the Barbarian scores a 10 in survivability, an 8 in average damage, and a 1 in ranged attacks, then the Fighter scores 7s and 8s across the board. I iterate: The Fighter is the supreme martial generalist, just as how the Wizard is the supreme spellcasting generalist.

To be fair, you weren't very good at establishing and explaining your point from the very get-go, nor does your Re-balancing do anything to resolve your point.

Nifft
2016-11-13, 12:19 PM
I wish that my 5e homebrew material could get Leuku-tier critiques.

:frown:

JoshuaZ
2016-11-13, 12:26 PM
way to miss the entire point of the post, good job writing all that for nothing

Can you explain then what point Leuku missed? Because I also don't see it.

GalacticAxekick
2016-11-13, 12:46 PM
way to miss the entire point of the post, good job writing all that for nothing

Leuku honestly gave the most thorough response I've seen on this board. I don't see what they missed, my guy.

Grod_The_Giant
2016-11-13, 12:59 PM
It's not wrong to say that the Fighter could use more utility, but you really didn't do anything on that front. It is, I think, fairly wrong to say that they don't do good damage, because they certainly do, and you did things on that front. Specifically, your version of the Champion. You give it not one, not two, but three enormous damage boosts, all of which work in tandem and two of which will be used on pretty much every attack.

faustin
2016-11-13, 01:06 PM
The Tome of Battle: Book of Nine Swords actually fix the fighter, giving him spell-like moves, wuxia style.

Nifft
2016-11-13, 02:17 PM
Leuku honestly gave the most thorough response I've seen on this board. I don't see what they missed, my guy.
Indeed. I'm somewhat jealous of the thoughtfulness.


The Tome of Battle: Book of Nine Swords actually fix the fighter, giving him spell-like moves, wuxia style.
What you say is technically true, but you're talking about a different edition from the one that this thread is discussing.

faustin
2016-11-13, 03:31 PM
What you say is technically true, but you're talking about a different edition from the one that this thread is discussing.

Still it would be easier to adapt it to the lastest edition rather than trying to build "fixes".

Lalliman
2016-11-13, 03:55 PM
Still it would be easier to adapt it to the lastest edition rather than trying to build "fixes".
I think it would be fun having ToB-like classes in 5e, but I strongly doubt that it's easier. Adding or tweaking a few class features takes a lot less time than rewriting and rebalancing every ToB maneuver for 5e.

Besides, we're talking about a different environment here. In 5e, casters may on average be better than martials, but they aren't 10 times better like they are in 3.5. So applying the exact same approach to 5e that ToB applied to 3.5 is going to be overkill.

Inchoroi
2016-11-13, 10:23 PM
I think it would be fun having ToB-like classes in 5e, but I strongly doubt that it's easier. Adding or tweaking a few class features takes a lot less time than rewriting and rebalancing every ToB maneuver for 5e.

Besides, we're talking about a different environment here. In 5e, casters may on average be better than martials, but they aren't 10 times better like they are in 3.5. So applying the exact same approach to 5e that ToB applied to 3.5 is going to be overkill.

I'm curious! What specific things made Tome of Battle so nice? For the brief time I DMed 3.5, it never really got used, before switching to PF and, eventually, to 4e and then 5e.

JoshuaZ
2016-11-13, 10:31 PM
I'm curious! What specific things made Tome of Battle so nice? For the brief time I DMed 3.5, it never really got used, before switching to PF and, eventually, to 4e and then 5e.

It gave melee more options so they weren't just "I full-attack" every round and could do creative and interesting things. Also, the ToB classes also had some options that were useful in non-combat situations. The system's crunch also supported the fluff of skill combatants very well.

Grod_The_Giant
2016-11-14, 09:15 AM
I'm curious! What specific things made Tome of Battle so nice? For the brief time I DMed 3.5, it never really got used, before switching to PF and, eventually, to 4e and then 5e.
Hmm... It's a very mythic-kung-fu book, somewhere between spellcasting and 4e's per-encounter powers. You had lots of maneuvers which were generally analogous to spells, doing things like letting you hit multiple targets, parry attacks, throw enemies, rally allies, mark enemies... Some classes had access to explicitly supernatural stuff too. Unlike spells, all this stuff could be regained under certain common circumstances, or at any point outside a fight. The maneuvers were effective at combat, but better then that they added VARIETY to combat-- you could do different things every round, instead of just relying on full attacks. And some of those things would be useful in exploration, especially supernatural schools like Shadow Hand that let you climb sheer walls and teleport through shadows. And all the classes had nice high optimization floors. It was a fun book.

Arkhios
2016-11-15, 12:09 AM
way to miss the entire point of the post, good job writing all that for nothing

Point of the post being "nth attempt at fixing the fighter" he did astounding job to prove that fighter. DOES. NOT. NEED. FIXING.

Inchoroi
2016-11-15, 06:01 PM
Point of the post being "nth attempt at fixing the fighter" he did astounding job to prove that fighter. DOES. NOT. NEED. FIXING.

I saw the thread on reddit. He had the same reaction when his brew was not automatically praised...