UA Fighter Thoughts?

[ZRN]

Thought I'd start a thread collecting thoughts on the new fighter from the current UA (https://media.dndbeyond.com/compendium-images/one-dnd/ph-playtest5/owThVp1CESZ1c91y/UA-2023-PH-Playtest5.pdf?icid_source=house-ads&icid_medium=crosspromo&icid_campaign=playtest5).

Overall I think they did a good job - it's not perfect and not even my favorite class update from this packet (that'd be barbarian), but if they plugged this fighter into 5e it'd improve the game. I'll try to go piece by piece below.

System-level changes
The changes to unarmed attack, etc. are pretty advantageous to strength-based fighters: you can grapple as an opportunity attack, which is like the Sentinel feet minus the attack damage. On the flip side, monsters can do this too, which means running past a couple mooks is a lot riskier (with a mean DM).

Fighting Styles
Unchanged, which I bring up as a missed opportunity. These are mostly fairly fiddly bonuses, and they lock you into particular weapon combos when the new weapon mastery stuff is encouraging more breadth of weapon choices. Why not make these more about style than about what types of weapon you're using? Like "Vicious: +2 on attack damage" or "Careful: as a bonus action you can take aim to get advantage on your next attack this turn" or "Accurate: +1 to hit."

Second Wind
I'm not always in favor of moving from short rest to long rest resources but this one makes sense, especially as it scales with fighter level. 4x/day at level 10 is pretty cool!

Weapon Mastery
There's been a lot of talk about this feature. I like it! Flex is terrible, but other than that most of these traits add to the game. No, it doesn't make the fighter a Tome of Battle class, but you're not losing anything in trade - what's not to like?

Weapon Expert/Weapon Adept
Now that said, the level 7 ability feels off to me. Part of the cool thing here is adding more texture to each weapon. Greatswords have "graze" and greataxes have "cleave." But your level 7 ability is just to strictly negate that and let you pick your favorite ability. I know we sort of gave up on Simulationism or whatever, but why does being an Expert mean I can no longer do the thing I've been practicing for 6 levels (until a sleep for 8 hours)?

I vote that instead of replacing your ability at level 7, you get to add an additional mastery and choose between them each attack, sort of like the current Weapon Adept (but without the ability to actually get rid of the original mastery option for the weapon).

So if I'm half-stealing Weapon Adept for level 7, what do we get at level 13? Here's my pitch: this is a playtest, go all out. At level 13, with each attack with a weapon you have Mastery in, you get to pick ANY mastery trait it qualifies for. So if you attack with a longsword, you can pick Flex, Push, Slow, or Topple with each attack. If you switch to a dagger, you can pick Nick, Slow, or Vex. Like, you're level 13 - you can probably handle 3-4 options each attack!

Indomitable
Great change.

Improved Action Surge (moved from 17 to 15)
Nice!

Unconquerable
I like it. Interesting that it lets you heal as no action - there are times you'll be rooting to fail a saving throw so that you get to heal yourself without spending a bonus action.

Champion stuff
Mild improvements, I think, but who cares, nobody plays this subclass.

Other thoughts
One other thing to consider: barbarians got some cool skill stuff. Rangers got Expertise. Fighters are starting to get pretty lonely in the Absolutely No Class Abilities Useful Out of Combat club.

[Hurrashane]

Fighting Styles
Unchanged, which I bring up as a missed opportunity. These are mostly fairly fiddly bonuses, and they lock you into particular weapon combos when the new weapon mastery stuff is encouraging more breadth of weapon choices. Why not make these more about style than about what types of weapon you're using? Like "Vicious: +2 on attack damage" or "Careful: as a bonus action you can take aim to get advantage on your next attack this turn" or "Accurate: +1 to hit."



It doesn't really lock you into any weapon type other than really broad ones. "One handed weapons" "two weapons" "two handed weapons" "ranged weapons" when I think of locking someone into a weapon type I'd think like, slashing weapons, or swords.

There's plenty of weapons to play around with within those. Like, they discourage you going from two weapon fighting to swinging a great sword but if you built a character to be a dual wielder you probably don't have any interest in two handed weapons.

[Mastikator]

Indomitable is basically legendary resistance light once per day. And Unconquerable is basically legendary resistance+ 5/day, which is insane, but also what are full casters getting at that level? Yeah it's fair.

Also getting the extra feat at level 5 instead of 6 is a nice turn of event.

The champion getting a buff is nice. Actually getting 18-20 crit at level 10 is very nice IMO. One thing I'm disappointed by is how Heroic Rally doesn't heal you beyond half max hp.

One thing I'm not happy about is weapon mastery, I think all of them should be 1/attack action, but 5th level warrior class extra attack should enable it for every attack period. No I don't think that bladelock5/fighter1 should use weapon mastery on both attacks, but I do think fighter5 should.

[Dork_Forge]

I don't like the Second Wind change personally, cuts back on potential uses when the Fighter needs it most and ends up being a net loss uses.

Indomitable used to have its own scaling uses, now it relies on burning Second Wind. I dont like this because:

- what was previously just a healing ability is now encouraged to be held back on to fuel another Indomitable
- just because you failed a save you want to use indomitable on doesn't mean you're out any hit points at all, nevermind enough to want to use Second Wind.

Reducing a Fighters resources just isn't a good move imo.

Other thoughts:

- I like that the ASI was moved to 5th,it was just plain weird that Fighters had the weakest 5the level.
- This weapon Mastery thing is overblown in value, with too much of the Fighter being reliant upon it. I mean in tier 3 you can have two on a weapon... But you need to still only use one at a time? And that's a tier 3 feature? Weapon Mastery just isn't good enough to warrant that and I'd rather Fighters be so dependent on something all the martials are going to be using anyway.

[Kane0]

Its an improvement, but i think they went too soft on the weapon masteries. At no point can you ever use two at the same time, for example

[Hurrashane]

I wonder how much impact the weapon masteries have in practice.

Like, topple can grant you and melee allies advantage until the foe can get up, which if someone grapples the foe could be for a while, not to mention they'd have disadvantage on everyone but the grappler.

Cleave seems real nice for taking out weaker enemies, and it's nice extra damage for grouped enemies which the fighter being able to have a push and cleave weapon could make that happen more frequently. With Great Weapon Master (new version) you could apply the bonus damage to your cleave target so you can deal close to the same damage to each. And if you drop one of them or crit you get an additional attack as a bonus action. You can potentially get three attacks off of one, that's pretty nice.

Graze works with rage damage (as it states when you damage, not when you hit) so that's a nice little bonus. And anything else that keys off damaging an opponent could activate through graze (poisons, maybe?)

I wonder what other neat little interactions there could be with these properties.

[ZRN]

I wonder how much impact the weapon masteries have in practice.

Like, topple can grant you and melee allies advantage until the foe can get up, which if someone grapples the foe could be for a while, not to mention they'd have disadvantage on everyone but the grappler.

Cleave seems real nice for taking out weaker enemies, and it's nice extra damage for grouped enemies which the fighter being able to have a push and cleave weapon could make that happen more frequently. With Great Weapon Master (new version) you could apply the bonus damage to your cleave target so you can deal close to the same damage to each. And if you drop one of them or crit you get an additional attack as a bonus action. You can potentially get three attacks off of one, that's pretty nice.

Graze works with rage damage (as it states when you damage, not when you hit) so that's a nice little bonus. And anything else that keys off damaging an opponent could activate through graze (poisons, maybe?)

I wonder what other neat little interactions there could be with these properties.

Someone running numbers on the ondnd subreddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/onednd/comments/1325w79/martials_will_be_dishing_out_the_damage_the/) claimed they're close in impact to battlemaster maneuvers, which is to say, pretty nice overall.

[Hurrashane]

Someone running numbers on the ondnd subreddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/onednd/comments/1325w79/martials_will_be_dishing_out_the_damage_the/) claimed they're close in impact to battlemaster maneuvers, which is to say, pretty nice overall.

Oh, I didn't even think how nice they'll be on top of battle master maneuvers! Provided they'll keep the battlemaster that is.

Tripping attack mixed with a push? PAM and pushing attack with slow mastery? I think Battlemasters are going to be where these masteries really shine, as long as the BM is close to what we have now.

[Amechra]

Its an improvement, but i think they went too soft on the weapon masteries. At no point can you ever use two at the same time, for example

There's also the fact that Weapon Adept is way less flexible than it seems, since each weapon only qualifies for ~3 Masteries you can actually use with Weapon Adept.

Personally, I hope that they pillage some of the weapon feats (I'd love to have a Brace Mastery that's just the "you can make opportunity attacks against creatures that enter your reach" thing from Polearm Master, for example) and stray a bit more from the "when you hit someone, thing happens" format.

[Hael]

So just to be clear, the fighter is significantly nerfed relative to 5.0s top end damage (it remains to be seen whether they are nerfed relative to other classes, since we dont know spell damage). The loss of -5/10 remains significant, and they are not compensated enough with their new features. Moreover the gains from getting things like advantage (eg champion) is minimized b/c of the loss of this feature.

Weapon mastery.. The best feature are things like topple, but this is CC, not damage and in practice people will simply go to that weapon type and use those. Still this is quite good, but the gains from using secondary features is quite low, and they waste an entire feature on it.

Second wind. This is good in the early game, and rapidly falls off, just like 5.0. Marginal feature.

Indomitable. So this is pretty good, but its not great. 1 a day is very limiting, and its late in the game. (Consider that in a recent UA they gave a rune wizard prof times legendary resistance at lvl 6).

The final legendary resistance feature is of course where it gets really good, but I mean by that point sorcerors get unlimited wish, so yea…

The champion remain mechanically pretty bad.. Even with once per turn advantage, this is simply not good enough, and the damage remains low compared to 5.0 standards eg the battlemaster.

Overall, the fighter feature set seems to deemphasize damage, and adds a lot of CC (both from the feature set as well as grappling). It also gains a small amount of survivability and slightly better level progression. The total package thus leads to a marginal but uninspiring upgrade overall, and remains pretty pedestrian compared to casters with 5.0 spells.

I consider this a middle of the road 1DnD class.

[Amechra]

it remains to be seen whether they are nerfed relative to other classes, since we dont know spell damage

I have a suspicion that they're going to try to lower damage across the board... but that they're going to screw up and not actually lower spell damage all that much.

[Kane0]

I think its more we assume a higher standard of damage optimization than the devs do. Placing your baseline with -5/+10 in mind would factor into that

[Psyren]

I like the new Fighter. Action Surge no longer more beneficial to casters than to the Fighter itself, and Improved Action Surge actually making it to a level a lot of tables might see, are great changes. Indomitable is vastly better as well, you actually have a chance for the reroll to save you on a bad save.

I also like the new Champion. The floating proficiency isn't as good as my proposal of an extra ASI, but it's definitely better than Remarkable Athlete was, and you get it considerably earlier which I really like. Giving yourself advantage, and the subcapstone dropping 4 levels, are great additions as well.

[Kane0]

I like the new Fighter. Action Surge no longer more beneficial to casters than to the Fighter itself,
I'm curious how much people have actually seen that occur. I remember a campaign where we were in control of a border fort and garrison, the training regime was fighter to 2 then they get to specialize by taking a subclass or multiclass.
But i havent ever seen a character in my group take fighter 2 then pivot to full caster, though that would be a fair trade IMO.

[Psyren]

I'm curious how much people have actually seen that occur. I remember a campaign where we were in control of a border fort and garrison, the training regime was fighter to 2 then they get to specialize by taking a subclass or multiclass.
But i havent ever seen a character in my group take fighter 2 then pivot to full caster, though that would be a fair trade IMO.

I've seen it in literally every burst damage caster build Colby/Treantmonk/etc have ever made. I think it was a "loophole" worth closing.

[Kane0]

I've seen it in literally every burst damage caster build Colby/Treantmonk/etc have ever made. I think it was a "loophole" worth closing.

Made, or played? All well and good for theorycrafting, ive done it plenty too. But im wondering how much of that translates to actual play

[Marcloure]

Made, or played? All well and good for theorycrafting, ive done it plenty too. But im wondering how much of that translates to actual play

I have played a Fighter Bladesinger and it's pretty busted. Blasting is the least of all concerns, being able to cast haste or some other buff _and_ attack or cast fireball on the same turn is pretty strong.

[Psyren]

Made, or played? All well and good for theorycrafting, ive done it plenty too. But im wondering how much of that translates to actual play

No one has actual play data but WotC, ans this change suggests they're seeing it often enough to warrant taking action.

Even if you're right though, and people are only ever Action Surging spellcasting in theory... theoretical uses of mechanics can still be a reason to change them.

[MisterD]

No New or changes to armor
There is no Armor 'Proficiency' anymore. It is Armor Training. Yet. Heavey Armor Mastery allows you to use Proficiency to reduce damage. HOW and WHY?

[Hurrashane]

No New or changes to armor
There is no Armor 'Proficiency' anymore. It is Armor Training. Yet. Heavey Armor Mastery allows you to use Proficiency to reduce damage. HOW and WHY?

Yeah, proficiency bonus. You know, the thing everyone gets? Starts at +2 ends at +6? As for the why you become more proficient in using your armor in such a way to reduce damage as you level.

I don't see the confusion

[Bane's Wolf]

When i first looked at the limitations placed on Action Surge, my first thought was: "Cool! don't think i've ever seen my players do anything else with it anyway."
Mostly its used to attack again.
But the spellcaster multiclass can always cast a spell first, then action surge to make an attack.
I don't think the fighter class should be overly worried that wizard cant double cast spells with a 2 level dip anymore... :smallamused:

I find myself having a lot of fun with the new weapon masteries (Theory-crafting only, so far. haven't been able to play)
They all at least give the fighter something extra, on top of his attack routine, even if some are better than others.
I think i'm the only one i've spotted who likes "Flex", even if i have to admit it's the weakest of the lot...

(i would kill for a way to Dual wield non light weapons, even if i have to pay a feat tax for it :smallredface:)

[MisterD]

Yeah, proficiency bonus. You know, the thing everyone gets? Starts at +2 ends at +6? As for the why you become more proficient in using your armor in such a way to reduce damage as you level.

I don't see the confusion

Just felt ODD that they stopped calling it Armor Proficiency due to not using your Proficiency Bonus when using armor and then update the feat to use your Proficiency Bonus.

[Hurrashane]

Just felt ODD that they stopped calling it Armor Proficiency due to not using your Proficiency Bonus when using armor and then update the feat to use your Proficiency Bonus.

There's a few things that use proficiency that aren't proficiencies; damage, or spell save DC, times you can do certain class features, etc. So it doesn't stick out that much. To me at least.

[Trask]

It's hard to gauge how impactful/good/COOL the weapon masteries will be, but I wish the Fighter had a way of using two at once. I'm imagining a fighter with a flametongue greatsword using graze + cleave at once to kill two heavily armored hobgoblins even on a miss, or using pushing + topping to send an evil necromancer flying and landing prone right next to the hiding rogue ready to stab him on the ground.

[Bane's Wolf]

It's hard to gauge how impactful/good/COOL the weapon masteries will be, but I wish the Fighter had a way of using two at once. I'm imagining a fighter with a flametongue greatsword using graze + cleave at once to kill two heavily armored hobgoblins even on a miss, or using pushing + topping to send an evil necromancer flying and landing prone right next to the hiding rogue ready to stab him on the ground.

Agreed :smallbiggrin:
The 7th level Weapon Expert, just allows you to change the mastery property, and even weapon Adept doesn't allow you to use both properties at the same time...
I'd love to make cool combinations, as "Weapon Expert" implies :smallamused:

[tokek]

I've seen it in literally every burst damage caster build Colby/Treantmonk/etc have ever made. I think it was a "loophole" worth closing.

Yes and partially because I've been getting really into Westmarches games over the last 3-4 years I've seen quite a few of these builds in play.

Agreed that its a loophole that needed fixing. I do think Eldritch Knight should have a partial expansion of options in its subclass features.

[Saelethil]

I like the direction they’re going with this, I just feel that they’re being a little timid with them.
My preferred improvements would be:
1. Give them a couple more Weapon Masterys a they level up.
2. Have the level 7 “Weapon Expert” allow them to add a second Mastery to a weapon.
3. Have the level 13 “Weapon Adept” allow them to apply both Masterys to any attack made with that weapon.

I’m sure there’s more tweaking I would do if I were to give it a closer look but these would go a long way towards adding versatility without necessitating the golf bag of weapons. Also, by tier 3 when you hit something with a big hammer it should get knocked back and knocked prone.

[ZRN]

Agreed :smallbiggrin:
The 7th level Weapon Expert, just allows you to change the mastery property, and even weapon Adept doesn't allow you to use both properties at the same time...
I'd love to make cool combinations, as "Weapon Expert" implies :smallamused:

I can see why they don't let you double up with Adept, because that's actually taking away a round-by-round choice instead of adding one.

I don't really see a downside in just letting you use any applicable mastery at level 13. Only like 3-4 apply to most weapons anyway.

If people like doubling up, what if you could do that on any attacks made with Action Surge?

[Psyren]

For those who missed it, Treantmonk mathed out the damage changes for the Old Fighter vs. New Fighter. He has New Fighter coming out comfortably ahead in DPR, even taking the loss of power attack (-5/+10) into account, and the new fighter has much more room for quality of life things like skills, Alert/Lucky, and better defenses. The comparison is made at level 12 when both Fighters have all their build toys.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYwYeIdsi2U

The TL;DR is that assuming a base 60% chance to hit, the Old Fighter comes in around 32.34 DPR (without advantage, action surge, or opportunity attacks) and rises to 54.24 DPR with advantage, while the New Fighter comes in at around 50.44 DPR (without advantage, action surge, or reactions) and rises to ~70 DPR with advantage.

All of that is comparing Champion to Champion - we'll have to see what Battlemaster brings to the table, but I was pretty encouraged by this analysis (which starts at 16:42).

[Mastikator]

One thing that occurred to me is that battlemasters will be able to apply double riders, for example topple + trip maneuver, where an enemy will have to make two separate saving throws, targeting different abilities, to not become prone. Or disarm + push and then move forward to prevent the target from just picking up the item you removed from their hand. A battlemaster will actually be very good at combat control, maybe not wizard level good, but certainly cleric level good.

[Gignere]

For those who missed it, Treantmonk mathed out the damage changes for the Old Fighter vs. New Fighter. He has New Fighter coming out comfortably ahead in DPR, even taking the loss of power attack (-5/+10) into account, and the new fighter has much more room for quality of life things like skills, Alert/Lucky, and better defenses. The comparison is made at level 12 when both Fighters have all their build toys.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYwYeIdsi2U

The TL;DR is that assuming a base 60% chance to hit, the Old Fighter comes in around 32.34 DPR (without advantage, action surge, or opportunity attacks) and rises to 54.24 DPR with advantage, while the New Fighter comes in at around 50.44 DPR (without advantage, action surge, or reactions) and rises to ~70 DPR with advantage.

All of that is comparing Champion to Champion - we'll have to see what Battlemaster brings to the table, but I was pretty encouraged by this analysis (which starts at 16:42).

I feel for OD&D rogue, it needs a lot of love. I think the new rogue is like at half the new fighter’s DPR. Haha damn they should just delete the rogue class if things don’t change.

[Skrum]

I feel for OD&D rogue, it needs a lot of love. I think the new rogue is like at half the new fighter’s DPR. Haha damn they should just delete the rogue class if things don’t change.

I'd be shocked if the rogue doesn't get more changes. It was one of the first classes put in the One releases, right? It just got nothing. Nerf'd, even. It is troubling to see that it wasn't upgraded though. Rogue and monk are at the top of the list of underpowered classes, IMO. The fact the class was revisited and not immediately buffed is surprising.

Edit: OK no question, it was strongly nerf'd. Lol. That's absurd

[stoutstien]

I'd be shocked if the rogue doesn't get more changes. It was one of the first classes put in the One releases, right? It just got nothing. Nerf'd, even. It is troubling to see that it wasn't upgraded though. Rogue and monk are at the top of the list of underpowered classes, IMO. The fact the class was revisited and not immediately buffed is surprising.

Edit: OK no question, it was strongly nerf'd. Lol. That's absurd

Not really a surprise as they have not shown a high aptitude for dealing with anything martial adjacent that isn't "roll and add" effects.
Rogue and monks suffered a little on paper in 5e but in play there were fine because they could work around challenges thanks to the relatively open ended way the system resolved action(general use term not game actions).
As they backpedal this part of the system to make it "easier to GM" and more VTT friendly they are going to suffer because they don't have the "roll and add" as part of their core design.

[Skrum]

Not really a surprise as they have not shown a high aptitude for dealing with anything martial adjacent that isn't "roll and add" effects.
Rogue and monks suffered a little on paper in 5e but in play there were fine because they could work around challenges thanks to the relatively open ended way the system resolved action(general use term not game actions).
As they backpedal this part of the system to make it "easier to GM" and more VTT friendly they are going to suffer because they don't have the "roll and add" as part of their core design.

Idk, I have hope. There's pretty clearly some work going on for fighters, and the damage they can deal. That's high awareness of mechanics. Rogues are so demonstrably lacking.

[ZRN]

For those who missed it, Treantmonk mathed out the damage changes for the Old Fighter vs. New Fighter. He has New Fighter coming out comfortably ahead in DPR, even taking the loss of power attack (-5/+10) into account, and the new fighter has much more room for quality of life things like skills, Alert/Lucky, and better defenses. The comparison is made at level 12 when both Fighters have all their build toys.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYwYeIdsi2U

The TL;DR is that assuming a base 60% chance to hit, the Old Fighter comes in around 32.34 DPR (without advantage, action surge, or opportunity attacks) and rises to 54.24 DPR with advantage, while the New Fighter comes in at around 50.44 DPR (without advantage, action surge, or reactions) and rises to ~70 DPR with advantage.

All of that is comparing Champion to Champion - we'll have to see what Battlemaster brings to the table, but I was pretty encouraged by this analysis (which starts at 16:42).

Not always a TreantMonk fan but I'm glad someone with reach is making this point - I think a lot of people are grumpy about losing -5/+10 feats but overall fighter DPS is as good or better than it was, AND you're not locked into specific weapons to get there.

I hope that they're able to make similar adjustments in boosting rogue DPS for the next round of playtesting. I'd bet you $100 the only reason they haven't just boosted sneak attack to a d8 or d10 is that most people have more d6s lying around.

[Psyren]

For Rogue, Crawford stated in the feedback video that they plan to bring back off-turn sneak attacks. If they do that, keep Pack Tactics Subtle Strikes and buff damage-oriented subclasses like Assassin they should be in pretty good shape.

Ideally they should get access to TWF fighting style without a dip as well.

[Gignere]

For Rogue, Crawford stated in the feedback video that they plan to bring back off-turn sneak attacks. If they do that, keep Pack Tactics Subtle Strikes and buff damage-oriented subclasses like Assassin they should be in pretty good shape.

Ideally they should get access to TWF fighting style without a dip as well.

Off turn sneak by itself is not going to cut it. Come on the thief subclass still needs a damage boost. A rogue has nothing else to contribute in combat other than damage. No expertise is not worth a 50% hit to DPR compared to a fighter. Especially now that rogues will still need a bonus action for TWF since they locked that behind Nick mastery.

[Psyren]

Off turn sneak by itself is not going to cut it. Come on the thief subclass still needs a damage boost. A rogue has nothing else to contribute in combat other than damage. No expertise is not worth a 50% hit to DPR compared to a fighter. Especially now that rogues will still need a bonus action for TWF since they locked that behind Nick mastery.

I don't know that I agree Thief needs a damage boost, damage isn't supposed to be their thing. Maybe more utility in fast hands and UMD, but not raw damage necessarily. I'm more interested in evaluating the likes of Assassin or Swashbuckler through that lens.

I do agree that Rogue needs a native way to access Nick and Vex.

[ZRN]

For Rogue, Crawford stated in the feedback video that they plan to bring back off-turn sneak attacks.

Man, to me that seems like a bad response. I think people were mad because they were losing DPR, not because that specific wrinkle in the rules was important.

That said, looking at the DPR on the new fighter (and barbarian), rogues might need a bit extra to stay in the game. Like, a single level of fighter (for weapon mastery and fighting style) does a LOT for rogue DPR.

[Gignere]

Man, to me that seems like a bad response. I think people were mad because they were losing DPR, not because that specific wrinkle in the rules was important.

That said, looking at the DPR on the new fighter (and barbarian), rogues might need a bit extra to stay in the game. Like, a single level of fighter (for weapon mastery and fighting style) does a LOT for rogue DPR.

I doubt telling people to take one level of fighter and your DPR problem is gone is the answer. The damage needs to be baked into the class. I think getting access to Nick and vex would probably go a long way as well as TWF style baked into the rogue class.

[ZRN]

I doubt telling people to take one level of fighter and your DPR problem is gone is the answer. The damage needs to be baked into the class. I think getting access to Nick and vex would probably go a long way as well as TWF style baked into the rogue class.

Sorry if I was unclear - I think it's a problem that a single level of fighter patches so many "holes" in rogues. I don't like the idea of giving them mastery (let it be a thing for warriors), but there are plenty of other ways to address the gap. Fighting Styles is the most obvious.

[Gignere]

Sorry if I was unclear - I think it's a problem that a single level of fighter patches so many "holes" in rogues. I don't like the idea of giving them mastery (let it be a thing for warriors), but there are plenty of other ways to address the gap. Fighting Styles is the most obvious.

I think it is fine for rogues to get access to weapon mastery as they are the group that steals from the other groups. Bards steal spells, Rangers steal fighting style, and rogues should steal weapon mastery. In fact rogues the only one expert that doesn’t steal things from any other class groups in OD&D.

[Psyren]

I wouldn't mind if Rogue could pick up the Mastery for finesse weapons natively. Besides, as Gignere said they're in the Expert group, their whole thing is supposed to be stealing signature things from the other groups.

[stoutstien]

Idk, I have hope. There's pretty clearly some work going on for fighters, and the damage they can deal. That's high awareness of mechanics. Rogues are so demonstrably lacking.

Damage is easy. It's the rest of the stuff they are struggling with budgeting and implication. As the game has evolved to be more combat centric as the primary form of progress it has made it difficult to have "experts" have any relevance without it being same but different in terms of design.

Experts are looking to be hybrids which is fine but experts is a poor grouping and it's limits different design approaches.

[ZRN]

I wouldn't mind if Rogue could pick up the Mastery for finesse weapons natively. Besides, as Gignere said they're in the Expert group, their whole thing is supposed to be stealing signature things from the other groups.

I have trouble here figuring out how rogues, rangers, and fighters are supposed to relate.

On one hand rangers seem to be kind of skillsy-fighters or fighty-rogues, which works with the current setup: they get fighting styles from fighters and expertise from rogues.

Would it really make sense for rogues but NOT rangers to get weapon mastery?

Personally I'd rather keep it warrior-exclusive, just like expertise is expert-exclusive. But that said, I think it's a real issue that two big roadblocks for rogue DPS (fighting style and weapon mastery) are both available as a single-level dip. Like, they can't just find some other way to boost rogue DPS because then the people who DID dip a level of fighter would be overpowered.

My preferred solution would be to kill off or fix fighting styles, but your mileage may vary.

[Psyren]

Would it really make sense for rogues but NOT rangers to get weapon mastery?

I would say no, Rangers should. And they should have more options for it than Rogue.

So either both of them deserve it or neither (dip-forced).

[ZRN]

I would say no, Rangers should. And they should have more options for it than Rogue.

So either both of them deserve it or neither (dip-forced).

Well, yeah, and if they both get it, then paladin players are going to be wondering why they're the only weapon-based class out in the cold.

Clearly the point of weapon mastery is to give "warrior" classes their own thing - an answer to the question "why should I play a fighter archer instead of a ranger?" Immediately giving it away to every other martial(ish) class doesn't help. On a basic level if the rogue wants weapon mastery he can do what the fighter does if he wants expertise: multiclass or spend a feat.

[Gignere]

I would say no, Rangers should. And they should have more options for it than Rogue.

So either both of them deserve it or neither (dip-forced).

I don’t think rangers should get it mainly because it would mess up the pattern. Spell casters no weapon mastery unless you burn a feat. Rogues are not a spell caster so they should get weapon mastery baked into the class. At least for finesse weapons and maybe non-heavy range weapons.

[Psyren]

AAABattery and Starlyghtz on the OneD&D subreddit also calculated the math for NuFighter vs. 2014 Fighter and concurred with Treantmonk's conclusion (i.e. new Fighter does substantially higher DPR). This analysis covers levels 1-20 rather than just level 12. He also threw in the Nulocks because why not.

Full explanatory post (https://www.reddit.com/r/onednd/comments/1325w79/martials_will_be_dishing_out_the_damage_the/)

https://i.imgur.com/awafoMH.png

Couple of excerpts from the conclusion section:


While the base Barbarian class is frontloaded and doesn’t scale super well... Berserker does scale well! Tying a number of damage dice to the Rage modifier is a really neat solution, and I hope they use that more in the future.
...
New Fighter outperforms old Fighter pretty handily. Barbarian is a little worse, but still absolutely trounces everyone else in One D&D.

[Kane0]

Rogues also not getting a fighting style leaves them open to picking a weapon mastery.

[Mastikator]

Well, yeah, and if they both get it, then paladin players are going to be wondering why they're the only weapon-based class out in the cold.

Clearly the point of weapon mastery is to give "warrior" classes their own thing - an answer to the question "why should I play a fighter archer instead of a ranger?" Immediately giving it away to every other martial(ish) class doesn't help. On a basic level if the rogue wants weapon mastery he can do what the fighter does if he wants expertise: multiclass or spend a feat.

It's possible that weapon masteries didn't exist when the paladin UA came out, and that paladins will get it. I agree that they should.

[Trask]

It makes sense for Paladins and Rangers to get it, but those classes are already strong. Paladin always ways, but the playtest Ranger looks really strong too. If weapon masteries are as big a DPR increase as its suggested, they might need to be tuned down in other ways to make space for it.

As for the rogue, its natural that the rogue's damage doesn't approach the fighters, it shouldn't. This is a multifaceted roleplaying game after all, and the rogue's main strength isn't "moar power" but their expertise and ability to push at the upper limits of bounded accuracy.

[Aimeryan]

For those who missed it, Treantmonk mathed out the damage changes for the Old Fighter vs. New Fighter. He has New Fighter coming out comfortably ahead in DPR, even taking the loss of power attack (-5/+10) into account, and the new fighter has much more room for quality of life things like skills, Alert/Lucky, and better defenses. The comparison is made at level 12 when both Fighters have all their build toys.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYwYeIdsi2U

The TL;DR is that assuming a base 60% chance to hit, the Old Fighter comes in around 32.34 DPR (without advantage, action surge, or opportunity attacks) and rises to 54.24 DPR with advantage, while the New Fighter comes in at around 50.44 DPR (without advantage, action surge, or reactions) and rises to ~70 DPR with advantage.

All of that is comparing Champion to Champion - we'll have to see what Battlemaster brings to the table, but I was pretty encouraged by this analysis (which starts at 16:42).

There are a few issues with Chris' analysis, however:


Cleave is overestimated here in my opinon; in a world with cleaving weapons only the dumbest enemies are going to stand right next to each other if they can at all help it (which is pretty easy with turn-based combat) - a single space apart stops this.
The chance to hit is off. For example, the average AC for a single enemy CR13 encounter (which is what the comparison seems to be against) is 18, while the Fighter's hit is +10 (+5 Prof., +5 Mod), which gives a hit chance of 65% base, not 60% - this favours -5/+10 while devaluing Graze. Furthermore, no Cleave in this situation.
If you are against multiple opponents (which Chris factors in for the new Fighter with Cleave) they tend to have less AC than a single enemy - this means your chance to hit is greater, which favours -5/+10 over Graze even more.
Archery. The better choice was always Archery due to the +2 to hit, which really helps the -5/+10 while devaluing Graze. It is also more reliable in general since you can pick targets and not have to factor lost turns to movement. This is the comparison that should be being done. For example, in that CR13 single enemy encounter the chance to hit is now 75% base. Against an AC of 16 this would be 85% base. These differences are huge for -5/+10 and Graze.
Elven Advantage. The Archery builds are Dex based. EA can apply here, and really boosts the -5/+10 while devaluing Graze. This favours games starting at higher levels due to the 5e level 1 Feat not being in play as an Elf - which would otherwise be amazing for level 1 start campaigns.
This is comparing at 13+, when most campaigns end. While the D&Done free level 1 Feats are nice, they are restricted - which is not the case for 5e. A level 1 Fighter with XBE is far better off than the the D&Done Fighter. At level 4, 5e Fighter adds Sharpshooter - D&Done Fighter can now get XBE, but doesn't have the additional Weapon Adept yet. The additional Weapon Adept (the one that lets you choose for each attack) is not until level 13.
Chris also applies a divine knowledge of when something will miss or hit, and thus choose Graze. He uses the explanation that you may be able to choose after the dice are rolled but before the result is announced. However, he is still acting as if the result was announced, when in reality he can still be wrong from just the dice. And it may not be intended at all that you get to choose after the dice are rolled.


TL;DR - The chance to hit is being misrepresented for the -5/+10 build, and the early levels are not compared. Arguably, D&Done Fighters may specifically be stronger than 5e Fighters when playing at high levels AND when getting Advantage is not possible (solo play, and you aren't knocking them over or multiclassing). While the 5e and D&Done Fighters may be quite comparable against single enemies or maybe duo enemies, the 5e Fighter is likely a fair bit better at dealing with slightly spread (or largely spread if using ranged) enemies due to the lower AC and thus better use of GWM/SS.

---

Is the weapon mastery system more interesting than GWM/SS? Maybe at 13+, although even then maybe not. GWM/SS required figuring out when was best to use. The Weapon Mastery system you just always apply it. At 13 you can choose between two options, which might or might not be options worth thinking about in any one situation (it may be completely obvious).

Personally, I like ZRN's thoughts on making Weapon Adept the level 7 feature and then having freeform mastery of weapons as the level 13 feature. This would mean at level 13 the options may become more interesting to consider, which would go some way to winning me over. I would likely need an interested subclass to go with it; 5e Battlemaster is the bottom I would accept here (could never play Champion).

[ZRN]

TL;DR - The chance to hit is being misrepresented for the -5/+10 build, and the early levels are not compared. Arguably, D&Done Fighters may specifically be stronger than 5e Fighters when playing at high levels AND when getting Advantage is not possible (solo play, and you aren't knocking them over or multiclassing). While the 5e and D&Done Fighters may be quite comparable against single enemies or maybe duo enemies, the 5e Fighter is likely a fair bit better at dealing with slightly spread (or largely spread if using ranged) enemies due to the lower AC and thus better use of GWM/SS.

I think it's fair to say that a group putting a moderate amount of effort into min-maxing DPS for their fighter will be better off under the old system. That's kind of the reason for the change: GWM/SS were basically the only player-selected way of reducing your attack bonus to improve damage, which meant that any way of improving your accuracy became disproportionally powerful. (Let's remember that in a non-optimized setup, using the -5/+10 is typically not a huge upgrade to your damage - it's only when you start stacking +hit and advantage that it gets crazy.)


Is the weapon mastery system more interesting than GWM/SS? Maybe at 13+, although even then maybe not. GWM/SS required figuring out when was best to use. The Weapon Mastery system you just always apply it. At 13 you can choose between two options, which might or might not be options worth thinking about. Personally, I like ZRN's thoughts on making Weapon Adept the level 7 feature and then having freeform mastery of weapons as the level 13 feature. This would mean at level 13 the options may become far more interesting to consider, which would likely win me over.

1. I agree that my idea is good. ;) Thank you!

2. Even if they'd just replaced GWM/SS with a blanket +3 to damage or whatever, you could argue that it would create a "more interesting" ecosystem, because weapon-users all the sudden have so many more "viable" options rather than only ever using hand crossbows or a polearm. That said, yes, it's weird they put in all this work specifically for fighters changing up masteries to create a system where you don't actually get any round-by-round decision making until level 13.

[Psyren]

There are a few issues with Chris' analysis, however:

1) I agree that just comparing at level 12 doesn't present a full picture, but my previous post on this page contains 1-20 DPR analysis as well.

2) To be clear, Cleave only adds a tiny bit of DPR, in fact he estimated he would only trigger it half the time much less hit with that attack. You can remove it entirely without changing the math much. He also ran the numbers with a 70% to hit, and while that improves the results for -5/+10 the nuFighter still comes out ahead, just less dramatically.

3) I don't think there's a point in comparing Sharpshooter + EA builds yet. It may very well be that archery as a whole, which is the strongest style by far in 5e, gets intentionally taken down a peg in 1DnD. I don't see that as a bad thing.

[Amechra]

Honestly, Graze is probably better than GWM unless you're frequently fighting stuff with really low AC, simply because of the consistency.

By 6th level, you've basically hit the point where you will deal 10 damage whenever you take the Attack action, before taking into account that you can, you know, hit something and deal the rest of your weapon damage.

...

Part of me wonders if the reason behind the Ranger's Multiattack being nerfed to just "you have Conjure Barrage prepared as a 1st level spell" because the idea of combining it with Cleave made the development team's heads hurt. :p

[SociopathFriend]

I'm personally willing to ask my 5e DMs to bring over those weapon expertise perks even if we don't shift to 5.5e.

They just sound genuinely fun and I've long lamented that the mastery of multiple weapons (what should be the Fighter's niche) hasn't been used all that well in D&D for some time.

[Psyren]

Part of me wonders if the reason behind the Ranger's Multiattack being nerfed to just "you have Conjure Barrage prepared as a 1st level spell" because the idea of combining it with Cleave made the development team's heads hurt. :p

Having now seen the Weapon Mastery changes the removal of the melee options from Hunter make a lot more sense now. Pity they couldn't have actually included that context in the playtest or anything....

[ZRN]

As others have touched on, weapon mastery starts to look better in terms of complexity added when you consider it alongside better subclasses and non-PHB feats.

Like, let's take a level 13 Rune Knight dual-wielding a morningstar and warhammer. That would have been a straight-up bad choice in 5e, but here, the RK can put Vex and Slow on the morningstar and Topple and Push on the warhammer. He can also take the Crusher feat for an extra free 5ft push every round. Then his runes let him restrain or charm enemies, redirect their attacks, etc. Toss on Sentinel so nobody gets away? Why not, feats are better than ASIs now, and by level 13 this character has 5 of them not counting his starting feat(s).

At that point, this relatively straightforward single-class fighter is knocking enemies around, locking them in place, knocking them over, sapping or cursing or binding them, growing huge, using his reaction to magically ward attacks against his allies, and so on. He has 4 attacks per round and can set up basically any combination of vex, slow, topple, and push that seems optimal. Probably more round-by-round options than a 4e fighter, which is impressive. And again, not a particularly optimized character.

[Trask]

As others have touched on, weapon mastery starts to look better in terms of complexity added when you consider it alongside better subclasses and non-PHB feats.

Like, let's take a level 13 Rune Knight dual-wielding a morningstar and warhammer. That would have been a straight-up bad choice in 5e, but here, the RK can put Vex and Slow on the morningstar and Topple and Push on the warhammer. He can also take the Crusher feat for an extra free 5ft push every round. Then his runes let him restrain or charm enemies, redirect their attacks, etc. Toss on Sentinel so nobody gets away? Why not, feats are better than ASIs now, and by level 13 this character has 5 of them not counting his starting feat(s).

At that point, this relatively straightforward single-class fighter is knocking enemies around, locking them in place, knocking them over, sapping or cursing or binding them, growing huge, using his reaction to magically ward attacks against his allies, and so on. He has 4 attacks per round and can set up basically any combination of vex, slow, topple, and push that seems optimal. Probably more round-by-round options than a 4e fighter, which is impressive. And again, not a particularly optimized character.

This post makes me excited to try the exact character you describe. It also sounds like a nice niche for two weapon fighting.

[MadBear]

This post makes me excited to try the exact character you describe. It also sounds like a nice niche for two weapon fighting.

I honestly hadn't thought of this and kinda love it. Now, you'll have characters twf specifically for different masteries that they can use.

The only thing I wish they'd change about the fighter would be adding some sort of out of combat abilities that help with the other 2 pillars. Something like:

Commanding Presence: Add a bonus to your intimidation/persuasion check equal to your fighter level a number of times equal to your proficiency bonus. These reset on a long rest

Reading your opponent: choose a creature you can see within 30 ft. you know its creature type, resistances, and vulnerabilities. You can does this a number of times equal to your proficiency bonus. These reset on a long rest.

I'm sure others can think of other fighter type abilities that could be given to a fighter as a way of giving them out of combat utility of some kind.

[ZRN]

I honestly hadn't thought of this and kinda love it. Now, you'll have characters twf specifically for different masteries that they can use.

To be fair, you can hot-swap two-handers between attacks if you want to. I will say, though, that having Sap, Topple, and Push all unavailable on light weapons means that the Dual Wielder feat is actually looking way less terrible that it used to.


The only thing I wish they'd change about the fighter would be adding some sort of out of combat abilities that help with the other 2 pillars. Something like:

Commanding Presence: Add a bonus to your intimidation/persuasion check equal to your fighter level a number of times equal to your proficiency bonus. These reset on a long rest

Reading your opponent: choose a creature you can see within 30 ft. you know its creature type, resistances, and vulnerabilities. You can does this a number of times equal to your proficiency bonus. These reset on a long rest.

I'm sure others can think of other fighter type abilities that could be given to a fighter as a way of giving them out of combat utility of some kind.

Agreed that fighters should probably get SOME non-combat core class benefits. Literally every other class that we've seen does.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

So I'll have more opinions as things go, but I'm play testing the new Fighter for the most part. I am running an Echo Knight because of one little rule I saw in the playtest.

Nick: possessed by Dagger, Light Hammer, Sickle, Scimitar: When you make the extra attack of the Light property, you can make it as part of the Attack action, instead of as a Bonus Action. You can still
make this extra attack only once per turn.

So congratulations, so long as you're using certain weapons with one of the above you get your Dual Wielding without giving up your Bonus Action. Yay Creating and manipulating Echoes AND dual wielding.

[ZRN]

One weird benefit of the level 13 Adept feature is that a lot of the weapon mastery traits (topple, sap, slow, cleave) are only once per round or once per target per round, so at level 5+ you have to either swap out your weapon between attacks or miss out on mastery benefits after your first hit. Adept fixes this.