Thread 96344727

Serious question to those who play as a fighter in dnd - are you masochists? The system literally shit on this class at every turn, taking away what should be in the fighter's arsenal and giving it to its golden boy mages, but you still keep playing. What's wrong with you?

Firefighters don't absorb fire by themselves, they wear protective equipment.

>>96344727 (OP)
I played as a psi warrior in a campaign recently. The 5.5e changes are pretty good. You get plenty of second winds then can use them to give a gigantic d10 to skill checks. In a bounded accuracy game a d10 is insane.

>But you don’t get spells
Then play eldritch knight…

>>96344727 (OP)
I'm playing a champion fighter, the simplest of the fighter subs, and it's fuckin' fun. I blew the hell out of what was supposed to be the toughest enemy in a fight round one with multi-attack+second wind. My last two long running characters were spellcasters, it's nice to have a character with less moving parts.

>>96344797
>Using "But in real life..." argument
>dnd

>>96344727 (OP)
Are you pointing to absorb elements as proof of this? Because I don't think I have ever once seen a caster make use of the this spell's melee damage. And even if they did manage to land a hit with their staff having dumped strength, it would barely do any damage.

That part of the spell isn't for wizards, it's for eldritch knights. So ironically the opposite of what you're saying.

>>96344727 (OP)
Anyone who's still playing D&D in 2025 is pretty retarded to begin with. Keep this in mind and it explains alot of things about their behaviors. Then thank the dice gods that D&D is keeping these people in the kiddie pool and out of games actually worth playing.

>are you masochistic
Literally yes. Because that's what the game is about, it's about hitting and getting hit, not standing 40 feet away spamming fire bolt cantrip.

>>96344884
Based

>>96344727 (OP)
Some people want to play nonmagical characters, you fucking retard. Making fighters into spellcasters with a sword runs completely counter to that.

>>96344727 (OP)
>but you still keep playing. What's wrong with you?
I can average 30dpr at level 5
Big number is big

>>96344797
>muh equipment
of course, because mages can't equip anything
because all DMs give magic items at the same rate, of course

>>96344981
Because it's never happened that a fighter in fantasy absorbed magic through willpower and endurance, retard. And all gods forbid fighters from having cool moves, it's not like fantasy is about spectacle and style.

>>96344727 (OP)
I just wanna play as a cool The Hound type :(

>>96345063
Play 4e.

>>96344727 (OP)
>What's wrong with you?
They're brain damaged, just like everyone who likes 5e.

>>96344727 (OP)
Some players like the flavor/fluff of a class, regardless of mechanics. Some players want to play a (relatively) normal dude who fights without magic. If fighter class features were just repackaged spells in martial wrapping, then they would still play fighters. It's just that simple.

>>96345821
Okay, how does that justify a mechanically stupid class that also lacks any cool moves? How stupid do you have to be to enjoy the "I don't think, I just swing a weapon without any tactics" gameplay?

>>96344727 (OP)
I fucking hate resource management and will do anything to avoid it as much as possible. Human champion fighter all the way.

>>96345857
It doesn't justify it. But that's not what OP is asking. OP is asking why people enjoy the class. So I answered OP's question.
I haven't even played D&D in over a year. I'm currently running a campaign using GURPS, where the roles are flipped and martials are even more mechanically complex than casters. I'm playing with the same players as in my D&D campaign, and the same players who play fighters in D&D chose to play fighters in GURPS, despite the huge leap in complexity.
So I'm confident in saying it's not about the mechanics. It's all about appearances.

>>96344727 (OP)
Some of find it's just fun to play a normal dude occasionally. Playing in a world where everyone and their cat is a powerwanked narcissistic godling gets boring after a while.

>>96345857
>lacks any cool moves
For many fighter players, just describing their attacks, or having the DM describe them, is enough for "cool moves", especially when they land the killing blow on a foe.
It doesn't justify the simple mechanics, but it's how most players find enjoyment when mechanics are lacking.

>>96345947
This. Sometimes I don't want to try to play musical chairs with the party on who gets to be the spotlight "main character". Sometimes I just want to be the guy stabbing people for profit.

>>96345952
>For many fighter players, just describing their attacks, or having the DM describe them, is enough for "cool moves"

>>96344727 (OP)
Someone's gotta do it.

>>96345947
>>96345957
>dnd fighter is a normal dude and not a disabled parody
Nerds momoent.

>>96346014
It's called a "fantasy", isn't it?

>>96345063
The assumption of wondrous things like that being "not-magic" due to the wondrous state of the world is one D&D has never used, while it being a function of how magic works would be on rewriting the spells.

The problem is not on the Fighter for not being wondrous enough, it is on the Wizard having all the strings that kept its magic from running over the not-internally-wondrous Fighter removed.

You're welcome to play properly high-fantasy TTRPGs where the meatheads wield aggressively supernatural bullshit of their own like Exalted, but forcing that on D&D breaks the back-catalogue.

>>96346051
In dnd, mages can literally bend reality, but fighters who can reach the level of Hercules is where do you draw the line? You're either autistic or have a dominance kink. Or a nerd who can't imagine doing cool things physically because he's never done it himself.

>>96346025
>nerd's fantasy is to be a worse version of a real people
The joke writes itself.

>>96346130
>nerd calling others "nerd" like it's an insult without any self-reflection on how much that represents themselves
They really do, don't they?

>>96346193
This is not an insult, but a statement of fact.

>>96346396
So it's your fantasy to be a worse version of yourself then?

>>96346407
No, my fantasy is to have a mechanically complex reality because real life is too primitive in terms of mechanics.

>>96346426
I don't think you've ever seen an actual fight between two combatants to be saying that, have you?

>>96346116
Again, the strings attached to that were removed. Things like taking multiple 6-second segments to cast during which any damage taken loses the spell, or requiring magical writings or expensive research with a sizable chance of failure to acquire new spells.

It's supposed to shake out like sword and sorcery writ large, with the Wizard being very squishy and reliant on time-consuming preparations so a clever Fighter wins by working around the preparations to arrive in face-beating range where the Wizard is doomed. Typically relying other party members having overt mechanics to counteract the preparations of a hostile Wizard is itself a major element of the original design intent; nobody is supposed to be fully self-sufficient.

>>96346497
I saw it. I found it boring. Maybe because I'm smarter than you.

>>96346116

No, it's simply how DND works and has always worked. Fighters are a NON. MAGICAL. CLASS. And that divide is strict in DND. If you don't like it, don't play DND.

>>96346557
“Smarter” certainly isn’t the word I’d use, nerd, but whatever helps you sleep better at night

>>96346560
Okay. I see you're stupid so I'll explain it to you so even a stupid retard like you can understand. The fact that fighters aren't a magical class shouldn't stop them from doing cool things. I understand that this is a mind-boggling concept for you, but you can do tricks without magic. Also, a fighter who can dispel magic by force of will is a standard fantasy tropes, I don't understand why you're so stupid and don't know this.

>>96346560
Hercules was listed as an inspiration and example for the class back in AD&D. Non-magical does not mean the class isn't fantastical or more capable than real-life humans.

Not to mention that things have never even played out that way. A 5e Fighter can swim through lava or fall off a cliff and be perfectly fine after an hour to have some lunch, but giving them some reactive form of damage reduction is a step too far?

>>96346624
>Also, a fighter who can dispel magic by force of will is a standard fantasy tropes
Which exists in D&D as a function of Saving Throws, which they were in fact exceptionally good at in the TSR days so many of the "sacred cows" come from.

>>96346711
>Hercules was listed as an inspiration and example for the class back in AD&D.
They had Exceptional Strength accordingly, which translated into several significant advantages.

>Not to mention that things have never even played out that way. A 5e Fighter can swim through lava or fall off a cliff and be perfectly fine after an hour to have some lunch
Violations of common sense due to overgeneralized HP being bloated are not an intentional game design feature.

>but giving them some reactive form of damage reduction is a step too far?
Specifically the part where you channel the fire you shrugged off into your sword as a damage boost.

>>96346744
It's a special sword made to absorb magic. All that's left is to add a reaction. But no, you can't do that because people like you will whine about changes. You don't care if they're good or bad, people like you always whine about changes.

>>96344727 (OP)
Fighters are one of the better classes in the game, you're just stupid.

>>96345821
>If fighter class features were just repackaged spells in martial wrapping, then they would still play fighters. It's just that simple.
*coughs* 4e *cough cough* dead game *cough*

>>96346744
>They had Exceptional Strength accordingly
Something they now lack in modern editions. Funny that.
>Violations of common sense due to overgeneralized HP being bloated are not an intentional game design feature.
Except they are. The designers didn't have to list out the exact damage dice for lava, and could easily state that beyond a certain distance, a fall would always be lethal without magical help. But they didn't. They gave damage numbers to it, and those damage numbers make it possible for high level characters to survive.
>Specifically the part
So if instead of that, it was more akin to a Barbarian's rage, where you shrug off the damage and deal extra normal damage because you're angry, you'd accept the ability without question? That's your only objection?

>>96346842
>If you stapled on a barbarian class feature to the fighter with a slightly different wording, it'd be fine then?!
Uh no for reasons I think should be obvious. You think the Fighter should get sneak attack too, retard?

>>96346874
That's odd. I looked through all of the Barbarian's class features, and they don't have a reaction that provides damage resistance while boosting damage?
But your objection was to the ability dealing fire damage, so I asked if it not dealing fire damage and having a different flavor would be acceptable. Apparently not, which means your objection isn't actually that the ability in its current form is too magical, but rather that having the ability with any sort of mundane justification wouldn't be acceptable to you.

Why is that? Why can the Fighter not have a reaction that reduces damage taken and boosts damage dealt?

>>96346796
>It's a special sword made to absorb magic.
The established handling is that this is a specific magic item the Fighter happens to have, not a Fighter class feature. And since they axed outright inability to use weapons in favor of modifiers, anyone can use it.

>You don't care if they're good or bad, people like you always whine about changes.
No, I'm attempting to explain that the suggestion of pouring bullshit into Fighters is bad because it's responding to changes causing power-creep with more changes chasing that power-creep and shifting what used to be basic numbers into fiddly bullshit.

>>96346842
>Something they now lack in modern editions. Funny that.
Because it doesn't work well with normalized ability modifiers and such design space became the Barbarian's niche.

>But they didn't. They gave damage numbers to it, and those damage numbers make it possible for high level characters to survive.
Which does not entail that it is intentional. We have multiple editions of playtesting not being a thing for higher levels on record, and of playtest characters being jank shitters, so unintended results emerging from the game math at those higher levels the designers are KNOWN to pay little attention to is to be expected.

>So if instead of that, it was more akin to a Barbarian's rage, where you shrug off the damage and deal extra normal damage because you're angry, you'd accept the ability without question? That's your only objection?
Internal world-logic is very important to me, and the Fighter's place in that has always been "roughly mundane dude, sometimes scaled beyond the real". Though as >>96346874 notes this flavoring is stuck in the Barbarian's niche, the Fighter approach would be Robilar's Gambit.

>>96346921
That's a different anon, and the point is that you directly said "akin to a Barbarian's rage" placing the hypothetical option in the Barbarian's design-space.

>>96346744
>overgeneralized HP being bloated are not an intentional game design feature.

>>96346921
>That's odd
Yeah your post was pretty fucking odd, why do you want to staple on other class features to the fighter dumbass?

>>96346938
>not a Fighter class feature
First - it should be, the whole class is literally about the ability to wield weapons. Second is that the lack of such equipment shows complete indifference to the needs of the class. In other words, fighters suck on purpose, it's not a glitch in the system.

>responding to changes causing power-creep
But you don't care that mages can literally replace any class these days. Admit it, you don't care about balance, you just love playing mages and are afraid that other classes will stop sucking so you'll get less spotlight.

>>96347002
Because classes suck and don't make any sense, and only create unnecessary limitations that make the system worse. Also I think that classes shouldn't be unique and do what others can't, classes should do their own thing better than others. Think about it like in real life - there are assault rifles, and there are sniper rifles, at first glance they are the same things, but their roles are diametrically opposed even if at certain moments these two things can replace each other.

>>96346548
Are we pretending they used to be evenly matched now
>>96346560
>Fighters are a NON. MAGICAL. CLASS
>f you don't like it, don't play DND
>are
>is
>works
I'm not sure how long/how many editions it's been since you last played DnD, but for the past decade+ exactly half of the fighter's subclass options became magical. All the best ones are the magic ones too. That divide is no longer strict at all, present tense has no business being in your post.
>>96346744
>Which exists in D&D as a function of Saving Throws,
*Existed. Current saving throws are something fighters aren't notably good at, but several non-fighter classes get really good at.
>several significant advantages.
But not the ability to do what most people would consider "fantastical" feats of strength. And you only got IF you already had an 18

>>96347054
If you don't like classes fair enough, but if you're going to have them the entire point of them is having unique features. It'd be silly to keep them and remove the ability to do/have unique things, a lane should be picked.

>>96347162
First - not all classes deserve to exist, half of them are just builds/subclasses. Second is that there should be logic, and if having a feature is logical for a class then that class should have it even if it has other classes. Third is as you can see from the example above even if things are similar it doesn't mean they are the same, nuances are more than enough to distinguish one thing from another.

>>96347162
By that logic we'd need to scrap half the spellcasting classes in the game. You might as well say that Wizards can't have the Mage Armor spell because other classes already have armor. A Fighter having a reaction-based version of what the Barbarian does as a long-term buff is unique enough in the context of the game.
And really, if the Barbarian existing is what causes the issue where the Fighter can't have features like extraordinary strength or damage resistance, then that's probably an indication that there isn't enough design space for both classes.

A lane should be picked, but Absorb Elements being reworked into an exclusive Fighter feature would be far more 'unique' than just handing it out as a spell to half the classes in the game.

>>96346987
I repeat:
>Violations of common sense due to
The second or more order consequences of how that interacts with environmental damage are not.

>>96347011
>First - it should be, the whole class is literally about the ability to wield weapons.
No it shouldn't, getting items as a class feature is the Artificer's thing as they actually have an in-setting logic of producing them. What would be sensibly an OPTION for the Fighter would be the likes of PF1e's Iron Magic, where the skill at using weapons that are typically magic items is extended to twisting the magic to other ends.

>Second is that the lack of such equipment shows complete indifference to the needs of the class.
It's not a need, because the 5e Fighter doesn't have durability or DPR problems. It has area coverage and non-combat problems that this does nothing to address.

>But you don't care that mages can literally replace any class these days.
I refer back to >>96346548; I have in fact noted that making Wizards better is the problem.

>Admit it, you don't care about balance, you just love playing mages and are afraid that other classes will stop sucking so you'll get less spotlight.
Fuck no, I'm a 3.5 obsessive with a bloody chart for which Fighter Bonus Feats correspond to what at-will "magic" who believes the Book of Weaboo Fightan Magic did not go far enough. I just insist on a very firm differentiation between Extraordinary and Supernatural, with the stock Fighter living exclusively on the side of the former.

>>96347054
No, their limitations serve the vital role of keeping a fresh retard from bricking their character by forcing a coherent party niche. Stripping to the bare necessity for that ends up looking a whole lot more like early D&D.

>>96347054
>Because classes suck
Nah, they're fine, most of the world agrees that they're fine. If you take umbrage with them it's because you're shit, not the other way around.
>Also I think that classes shouldn't be unique
And this is why nobody takes your advice.

>>96347290
>By that logic we'd need to scrap half the spellcasting classes in the game.
This is like thinking the Fighter and Barbarian are stepping on eachother's toes because both have HP and use the Attack action: Pure nonsense.

The only point of a class system is to force players into a specific role with defined strengths and weaknesses to they have to work together as a team. If your class system doesn't do this it's 100% useless and should be dropped in favour of freeform. D&D has an awful class system because casters are essentially playing freeform where they can pick and choose whatever role they want, which wouldn't be a problem if they dropped classes and made the whole system like that but instead it's a fucked up hybrid with the worst of both worlds.

>>96347313
As if a child who needs to be led by the hand through a class system can understand advice.

>>96347319
Yeah, that's what I said. Wizards are allowed to have Mage Armor despite other classes having ways to increase AC.
Which is like thinking the Fighter would be stepping on the Barbarian's toes if it had a way to resist damage: Pure nonsense.

>>96347331
>D&D has an awful class system because casters are essentially playing freeform where they can pick and choose whatever role they want
Incorrect, the recovery spells remain restricted and utility magic is either so throttled as to be marginal or outright absent from several, to say nothing of how the resource mechanics play out when the DM has any intent of attrition.

>>96347340
>Which is like thinking the Fighter would be stepping on the Barbarian's toes if it had a way to resist damage
No, we're saying that giving the Fighter a way to resist damage SPECIFICALLY because of "Get Mad" following through to more damage "Because Mad" is Barbarian territory. The flavor is in fact important, and you chose it very poorly. Do you know what "Robilar's Gambit" is or do you need me to explain to you what reactive damage the Fighter has historically had?

>>96347398
>No, we're saying that giving the Fighter a way to resist damage SPECIFICALLY because of "Get Mad"
Okay. I'd like to propose a new feature for Fighter. It's the thing we've been discussing, except the flavor is now martial skill.
No more objections then?

>>96347299
>No it shouldn't
Dude, have you ever heard of King Arthur? And he's not alone, there are a bunch of myths about heroes finding/earning right to a mythical weapons that only they can carry. So it's safe to say that weapons should be the core of fighters.

>t's not a need, because the 5e Fighter doesn't have durability or DPR problems.
I don't care about numbers, I want mechanics and the ability to do cool things myself, not be at the mercy of a DM. Other classes can do that, while fighters are 0 in terms of fun, this class is as primitive as a brick.

>I just insist on a very firm differentiation between Extraordinary and Supernatural, with the stock Fighter living exclusively on the side of the former.
Depends on the setting. 0 reasons for a fighter not to use magic in a world where magic is everywhere. Likewise 0 logic to have a mage in a party if you're playing in a low fantasy setting. This is a problem with dnd 5e, the system is a jack of all trades, master of none, and tries to be as primitive as possible to superficially fit any setting.

>by forcing a coherent party niche
You can achieve this with builds. Being dependent on each other through the constraints of builds is more organic and feels natural.

>>96347340
>Yeah, that's what I said.
Ok so you're retarded, congratulations.

>>96347431
I'm agreeing with you, you illiterate fuckwit

>>96347412
Flavoring is half of it, but also the same mechanics. Your entire point is moot because "Wow all casters cast spells!" is as much a critique as saying the Fighter and Barbarian both attack things. It's not.
However, taking the distinguishing mechanics of one class and stapling onto another with slightly different flavor text, is. It's the type of shit you see in terrible 3rd party books and homebrew from people too dumb to just play the game normally or create anything original.

>>96347435
Nah you just demonstrated that you're retarded.

>>96347439
>Your entire point is moot because "Wow all casters cast spells!"
It's not that all casters cast spells. It's that they often share and cast the same spells. Spellcasters don't all have unique spell lists. They share distinct mechanical abilities that are identical across classes.

This is not different at all from two classes having a similar class feature, because spells are class features, as much as people like to pretend that they aren't.

>Flavoring is half of it, but also the same mechanics
Except it isn't the same mechanics. Absorb Elements and Barbarians' Rage aren't mechanically the same. They're similar, in the sense that they both provide resistance and increase damage dealt by attacks, but that's a very broad similarity.
And again, by that logic, we'd need to remove Absorb Elements entirely as a spell, because it's already stepping on the Barbarian's toes.

So with all that said, what problem do you actually have? The flavor is now fixed, the mechanics aren't anything that doesn't already exist in the game. What is your actual hang-up?

>>96347470
>It's not that all casters cast spells. It's that they all cast spells
Yawn.

>>96347470
>It's not that all casters cast spells. It's that they often share and cast the same spells.
And? Again, you might as well bitch and whine that Barbarians and Fighters both use Attack and wield weapons (They can even wield the same weapons!!!! See literally the same class!!!)

>Except it isn't the same mechanics. Absorb Elements
Absorb elements itself wouldn't work for reasons already discussed thoroughly. Rehashing the same failed arguments will not make them any less incorrect.
What you argued for was having Barbarian Rage stapled onto the fighter with minor changes because you thought that'd be fine instead of your other ideas, and aren't grasping that: No, it's not fine either, it would be dumb and suck.

>>96347412
So you are in fact clueless on Fighters having reactive damage as an option in the past and how that worked to understand what approaches to the mechanic actually make some sense?

>>96347421
>Dude, have you ever heard of King Arthur?
This is narrative of happening across items with varyingly specific requirements, not class-internal dictating the DM MUST provide such an item. Class features arbitrarily bending the world-state without a causal mechanism like this has quite the history of criticism.

>I don't care about numbers, I want mechanics and the ability to do cool things myself, not be at the mercy of a DM.
Then play a subclass with an options list like Battlemaster or Eldritch Knight, or another class with them as a baseline function, or another game where the core combat rules have such complexity like several of the earlier editions. Dumb number sticks serve an important role in onboarding new players.

>0 reasons for a fighter not to use magic in a world where magic is everywhere.
The nearest to this in the 50 year backlog is Eberron, which has "wide magic" via items.

>Likewise 0 logic to have a mage in a party if you're playing in a low fantasy setting.
Incorrect, it's quite mild exceptionalism to have a pair of nominally-rare force-multipliers doing their thing to grease the wheels as an explanatory factor to going from zero to hero.

>You can achieve this with builds.
Take a long hard look at optimization forums like Giant in the Playground's and tell me you still want this shit front and center for new players.

>>96347498
>What you argued for was having Barbarian Rage stapled onto the fighter
Wrong. Come back when you want to discuss things rather than yell at a strawman.

>>96347506
>Wrong.
Alright you were wrong and retarded then, amazing point there anon.

>>96347506
Sure seems like you were in fact wishing a clear derivative:
>>96346842
>it was more akin to a Barbarian's rage, where you shrug off the damage and deal extra normal damage because you're angry,

>>96347516
See >>96347470
>Except it isn't the same mechanics. Absorb Elements and Barbarians' Rage aren't mechanically the same.

>>96347421
>Dude, have you ever heard of King Arthur?
Ah yes, I remember the part of the story where King Arthur crafts his +1 longsword because he hit level 3 and that was a class feature.

>I don't care about numbers, I want mechanics and the ability to do cool things myself
All you've really argued about are numbers and rehashing existing mechanics, so not really.

>not be at the mercy of a DM. Other classes can do that, while fighters are 0 in terms of fun, this class is as primitive as a brick.
All classes are at the mercy of the DM. And all classes are equally lame and boring if the person playing them is lame and boring. You have a skill issue, not a mechanical issue. It's just much easier to pretend shifting the game rules around a little will fix things since fixing yourself is much harder.

>0 reasons for a fighter not to use magic in a world where magic is everywhere
You don't sound very creative, because I can think of several off the top of my head.
>Likewise 0 logic to have a mage in a party if you're playing in a low fantasy setting
Also the opposite of true. In a setting where magic is rare and intrusive it makes *more* sense for a character who has a direct connection with such things to take center stage.

>>96347290
>classes should have unique features
>OH SO YOU THINK CLASSES SHOULD NEVER INTERACT THE SAME PARTS OF THE SYSTEM AND IF THEY DO THEY GET ERASED
Fuck off, why are you being so obnoxious? I specifically didn't mention the reaction shit the other anon was on about because I wasn't talking about it.

>>96347541
This in no way refutes what was just said about you wishing for a clear derivative.

>>96347558
See >>96347412
>Okay. I'd like to propose a new feature for Fighter. It's the thing we've been discussing, except the flavor is now martial skill.

>>96347578
>See the post where I do exactly what you said you did?
Ok... And? You wanted a derivative of Barbarian Rage for fighters.

>>96347261
>not all classes deserve to exist
Sure, never said they did. I get the feeling the ones you think shouldn't exist aren't the ones I think shouldn't exist, though.
>half of them are just builds
All classes are builds, anon.
>having a feature is logical for a class then that class should have it even if it has other classes
That really depends. There's lots of features that would make sense for lots of different classes, you could create dozens if not hundreds of abilities for different archetypes that they could feasibly or even logically have. But you aren't putting hundreds of abilities in the game, so if you're going to cut down on options why not cut down on options that replicate what already exist? Regardless, your response is an exaggeration of my point because I said classes should have unique features, I didn't say they should never have any overlap.
>as you can see from the example above even if things are similar it doesn't mean they are the same,
Literally never said that was the case.

>>96347593
>different flavor
>different mechanics
>based on a spell
Explain how that is derivative of Barbarian Rage.

>>96347601
>Different flavor
Not really.
>Different mechanics
Not really.
>Based on a spell
Originally that was what you wanted, the problems of which have already been discussed to death and you changed it to just making a derivative of barbarian rage instead to "solve" the problems (it didn't solve the problems).

>>96347500
>not class-internal dictating the DM MUST provide such an item
Cool story, bro, next time take the thief's lock picking tools away.

>Class features arbitrarily bending the world-state without a causal mechanism like this has quite the history of criticism.
Next time, start a campaign where all the PCs don't have the tools they need. I'm sure the players will like that, like, so what you're playing as a warlock, I don't have to give you a patron.

>Dumb number sticks serve an important role in onboarding new players.
If it was a baby class, there would be no issues. But there are creatures that continue to play as fighters even after their first campaign.

>it's quite mild exceptionalism to have a pair of nominally-rare force-multipliers
Only as NPCs mentors/bosses.

>Take a long hard look at optimization forums like Giant in the Playground's and tell me you still want this shit front and center for new players.
The problem is lazy authors who don't want to balance the game, that's all.

>>96347548
>I remember the part of the story where King Arthur crafts his +1
>there are a bunch of myths about heroes finding/earning right to a mythical weapons that only they can carry
And there's also the option of a magical sword that's passed down through generations. But you clearly can't even read, so I don't see the point in arguing with you.

>>96347612
>Not really.
See >>96347578
>Not really.
See >>96347541

>Originally that was what you wanted, the problems of which have already been discussed to death
The problems discussed was that it made no sense for the Fighter to deal fire damage after taking fire damage. My proposal was to simply have it be extra damage (now flavored as martial skill).
Again, explain how that made it a derivative of Barbarian Rage.

>>96347613
>>96347629
>>96347613
>Cool story, bro, next time take the thief's lock picking tools away.
Thief isn't a class in 5e.

>Next time, start a campaign where all the PCs don't have the tools they need.
I've run that before. It was pretty fun although we kept the overall campaign brief since the progression from having basically nothing to actually being well equipped was the main draw and highlight.
Idk what your point is, maybe you've tried that and you couldn't get your players to enjoy it?

>If it was a baby class, there would be no issues. But there are creatures that continue to play as fighters even after their first campaign.
And the problem is, what, exactly? You getting buttmad over how other people play the game isn't an issue the game needs to change to solve.

>Only as NPCs mentors/bosses.
Nah.

>The problem is lazy authors
You can accuse others of being lazy when your best mechanical idea isn't "Take another class's feature and reflavor it!"

>And there's also the option of a magical sword that's passed down through generations.
Yeah man my character starts with a Ring of Three Wishes too it's part of his backstory you have to let me have it GM :^)

>>96347637
>See
Not really.
>See
Not really.
I don't know why you think repeating yourself is gonna change my mind.

>The problems discussed was that it made no sense for the Fighter to deal fire damage after taking fire damage.
Correct, it doesn't and still doesn't.
>My proposal was to simply have it be extra damage (now flavored as martial skill)
Which still made no sense, so you started asking if it'd be fine if it was just made a derivative of Barbarian Rage as a result. And that, too, is a bad idea for reasons we've continued to discuss, but which you seem reluctant to accept.

>>96347651
>Thief isn't a class in 5e.
>https://www.dndbeyond.com/classes/12-rogue?
srsltid=AfmBOooLp6ssOcr8qjgAEPevxlwgT1fIGPoJwCcistQ6E9aN1AiamXL-
Seriously?

>>96347670
>Seriously?
...Yeah? What exactly are you confused about, retard?

>>96347658
>Not really.
Explain how the flavor isn't different.
>Not really.
Explain how the mechanics aren't different.

>so you started asking if it'd be fine if it was just made a derivative of Barbarian Rage as a result
Please link to the post where I said that. Because that hasn't been my argument.

>I don't know why you think repeating yourself is gonna change my mind.
Because you seem to be arguing against things I haven't said while ignoring my attempts to explain it to you.

>>96347651
>>96347676
>Thief isn't a class in 5e.

>>96347681
>Explain how the flavor isn't different.
You literally did not offer a different flavor is how. You just said "What if it was martial flavored?".

>Explain how the mechanics aren't different.
Because they aren't and you've offered no difference in mechanics? Are you retarded nigga?

>Please link to the post where I said that.
See >>96346842

>Because you seem to be arguing against things I haven't said
Apparently direct quotes are things you haven't said.
You can just take a step back and admit that taking another class's distinct feature and stapling it onto Fighter would be extremely dumb.

>>96347598
>But you aren't putting hundreds of abilities in the game
...What do you think spell and feat lists are? Over the course of third edition, WotC wrote literally thousands of each. If they hadn't gutted Battlemester to a subclass at the last minute, they could have done the same for Superiority Dice applications to expand the Fighter in every book.

>>96347601
Thematically. Which is what determines what class an ability "belongs" to. You seem to struggle with the notion of ludonarrative resonance, where the mechanics reflect SOMETHING about the in-universe processes to align some of the Doylist and Watsonian drivers of the narrative.

>>96347613
>Cool story, bro, next time take the thief's lock picking tools away.
Starting equipment acquired before play is not getting a magic item on level-up mid-session.

>Next time, start a campaign where all the PCs don't have the tools they need.
Again, there is no actual mechanical shortfall addressed by this, you just FEEL like such a thing is necessary because you want complexity.

>If it was a baby class, there would be no issues. But there are creatures that continue to play as fighters even after their first campaign.
Have you considered they just don't need to balance spinning plates to be entertained?

>Only as NPCs mentors/bosses.
Incorrect, even all the way back at the start in the worst of meatgrinder the game still told you to reroll ability scores if none of them were sufficiently above average. "Low" magic is not "no" magic, and while D&D scales decidedly outside that range you don't HAVE to keep scaling up.

>The problem is lazy authors who don't want to balance the game, that's all.
Balancing both floor and ceiling at any appreciable breadth of ala carte character generation is an utter nightmare of combinatorials. A hard "you WILL have this list of functions" mechanic locks in the former, bringing the work to the plausible for those not willing to spend a solid decade of their life to brute-force it.

>>96347697
Ah yes, my favorite class: Leatherarmortwodaggersthievestools.
Second to them is Anexplorer’spackandfourjavelins

>>96347697
Correct. You might not have noticed, but the screenshot you posted is from the Rogue class. Not the Thief class, which doesn't exist.
Thief in 5e is instead one Rogueish Archetype of many.

>>96347739
Thank you for posting the Rogueish Archetype (distinctly not a class) and proving that >>96347670 is a retarded nogames.

>>96347708
>You just said
Martial skill is a different flavor from barbaric anger.
>Because they aren't
Open up your book and I think you'll find that Barbarian Rage is its own feature, and is not a casting of Absorb Elements.
The differences in mechanics are self-evident.

>>96347708
>See
I see me saying 'more akin to' rather than 'made a derivative of'. Nevermind that I was speaking in terms of flavor, and have since asked for different flavor specifically to help clear up any misunderstandings.

>You can just take a step back and admit that taking another class's distinct feature and stapling it onto Fighter would be extremely dumb.
Fortunately, that's not what I'm asking for. You can take a step back and stop trying to put words in my mouth.

>>96347717
>Which is what determines what class an ability "belongs" to.
Ah sorry. Should have said that it costs a Superiority Die to use it. Now it's thematically a Fighter ability.

>>96347749
>Martial skill is a different flavor from barbaric anger.
It could be if it was flavored, but you haven't done so regardless.
>Open up your book and I think you'll find that Barbarian Rage is its own feature
Wait, so now you're arguing that you DID want a derivative of Barbarian Rage? Ok, concession accepted I guess.

>I see me saying 'more akin to'
Potato Potato.

>Fortunately, that's not what I'm asking for.
You did actually, as you just admitted.
You've demonstrated a lack of grasp over basic game mechanics (Like thinking Thief is a class, not knowing it's an Archetype) so I don't really think you understand the distinctions here the same way more experienced players like myself do though, so I can forgive you for not knowing why you're being told so.

>>96347782
>Wait, so now you're arguing
Nope, read it again more slowly, rather than stopping halfway through the sentence.

Absorb Elements and Barbarian Rage are two different mechanical abilities within 5e.
I am asking for something similar to Absorb Elements. Absorb Elements is not the same mechanic as Barbarian Rage

Do you understand that? If you have failed to understand that, just say so.

>You've demonstrated a lack of grasp over basic game mechanics (Like thinking Thief is a class, not knowing it's an Archetype)
And now you're just conflating me with other posts I've had no part in.
Again, how is it so difficult for you to not try to strawman me and simply listen to what I'm telling you.

>>96347717
>Starting equipment acquired before play is not getting a magic item on level-up mid-session.
You can make it so that the character can only unlock the potential of the weapon by gaining levels. But for this you need to have something more interesting than +1 to hit.

>Have you considered they just don't need to balance spinning plates to be entertained?
There are a lot of steps between spinning plates and watching paint dry.

>"Low" magic is not "no" magic
Depends on the setting.

> D&D scales decidedly
You will have a situation where the mage needs to be left without leveling up while the rest move on.

>not willing to spend a solid decade of their life to brute-force it.
It's literally their job, they get paid for it, so yes, they should spend their lives doing it. Or change jobs.

>>96347782
>Like thinking Thief is a class
Thief and rogue are used interchangeably, especially by old boomers. And the fact that you don't understand that means you're either autistic or arguing in bad faith.

>>96347816
>Nope, read it again more slowly
I think you need to write it better, because you argued exactly what I said you did.

>I am asking for something similar to Absorb Elements.
You were. It was pointed out why this would be dumb.
You then wanted a Barbarian Rage derivative instead. Which, also, has been pointed out as dumb.

>And now you're just conflating me with other posts I've had no part in.
Uhuh. Funny, I don't believe that there are two anons posting ITT who happen to be complete newbs at 5e and don't understand the basics of it.

>Again, how is it so difficult for you to not try to strawman me
Direct quotes are strawmanning, according to you.

Look, I'll be the bigger man here and give you a different offer, since it's clear you have distaste for admitting fault or backing down from an incorrect statement: You may disregard all of the above, restate your position in its entirety next post, and we'll continue the discussion solely from your newly clarified position. Sound good?

>>96347843
>Thief and rogue are used interchangeably
Not in 5e.
>especially by old boomers
Boomers just say "thief" period because they grew up with ADND and never moved on. They are also notoriously bad at running, playing, and designing games.
>Y-you don't understand
I understood perfectly, I just correctly predicted that rather than say "Oh sorry I meant Rogue", there'd be a spergout instead because boomers are also too retarded to concede anything, even if it is provably untrue or at best tangential to the argument at hand.

>>96347848
>You may disregard all of the above, restate your position in its entirety next post, and we'll continue the discussion solely from your newly clarified position. Sound good?
If it's that important to you, then sure.

What I'm asking for is an ability for a martial character, mechanically similar to Absorb Elements, in the sense that it is a reaction used to provide damage resistance for a round, and possibly deal extra damage on a subsequent turn.
I think this could fit well as a Battlemaster maneuver, giving resistance and then dealing extra damage based on the Superiority die. Though using the 2024 version, I think this could also fit well as an alternative way to spend Second Wind, since they've turned that into a martial resource for the Fighter as well.
Either way can represent the Fighter pushing through pain and drawing on those reserves in a similar way to their existing abilities.

It could even require the use of a shield, if it still feels like too much of a stretch in terms of flavor, similar to how the Shield Master feat helps to avoid damage from Dexterity saves like Fireballs and Lightning Bolts.

>>96347886
Mmk, now see the problem with this comes down to a few things.
1. There's no flavoring here that really makes sense.
2. Making it like second wind doesn't really seem sensible. Second Wind has no interaction with anything else, it's just the Fighter pushing further. It would also need to align with how Second Wind already works in particular ways that make it far less useful and just kind of meh.
3. This is fairly redundant with Riposte and Parry, and seems silly in comparison and ill-suited to the fighter.
There's also other issues (Just taking a spell and making it a class ability is generally on the lamer side of design choices), it feeling a bit too magical for a Fighter to do (The caster-fighter subclass, Eldritch Knight, can already do this but better anyways), and thematics kinda clashing. It feels like you just think the Fighter should have more things on his ability list just because.

>>96347886
>similar to how the Shield Master feat helps to avoid damage from Dexterity saves like Fireballs and Lightning Bolts.
This kinda compounds on the "steps on toes and is ill-fitting" problem.
The root issue with your idea is that the fighter already has ways to basically accomplish the end goal here of avoiding damage. He does not particularly need more damage and bigger numbers doesn't make him more interesting to play inherently. Frankly he's already fine as-is.
This alternative method you're trying to come up with would do shit you can already accomplish, but not actually feel appropriate for the Fighter at all.

>>96347929
>1. There's no flavoring here that really makes sense.
I don't see how. The Fighter has features like Indomitable as is that are all about just pushing through with sheer grit or similarly vague justifications.
>Second Wind has no interaction with anything else
To be clear, I was referencing the 2024 rules there, where Second Wind can be spent with the Tactical Mind feature to add a bonus to a skill check. Certainly not a mandatory part of the idea at all though.
>This is fairly redundant with Riposte and Parry
It's somewhat similar to Parry, though unlike Parry it helps more against spells. I don't really see the issue with the Fighter having more options for maneuvers or reactions though.

>Just taking a spell and making it a class ability is generally on the lamer side of design choices
I'm certainly not opposed to tweaking it further to make it more distinct, but comparing it to an existing ability is the easiest way to communicate to people how the ability is supposed to work without causing misunderstandings.

>>96347958
>The root issue with your idea is that the fighter already has ways to basically accomplish the end goal here of avoiding damage.
Needing to take a feat and use a specific piece of gear doesn't preclude adding in ways for the class to achieve it naturally. The Fighter's Cavalier subclass gets features that function similarly to the Sentinel feat for example. Likewise, the Parry maneuver has some similarities to the Defensive Duelist feat. So I don't really think it's the best argument to say that something shouldn't be a Fighter feature or maneuver simply because a feat exists.

Giving the Fighter more ways of avoiding damage simply helps ensure that he's fulfilling that role correctly. Instead of relying on a new player to pick up a specific feat and piecing it together themselves, having it as a core piece of the class makes it more accessible. And the feat still exists for someone who wants to really specialize.

>>96348030
>I don't see how.
Well, let's see some flavoring then.
>It's somewhat similar to Parry, though unlike Parry it helps more against spells.
Ehhh kinda sorta not really, Parry being so universal means it's something that would see more use, and it also creates in and of itself a theme already. He's parrying. He's riposting. He's not magically absorbing the fireball into his skin and shitting it back out somehow.
>I'm certainly not opposed to tweaking it further to make it more distinct
Tweaking isn't really the issue. Conceptually it just doesn't fit or work well with Fighter.
>Needing to take a feat and use a specific piece of gear doesn't preclude adding in ways for the class to achieve it naturally.
It actually does. Redundancy is something you seek to avoid as a game designer.
>he Fighter's Cavalier subclass gets features that function similarly to the Sentinel feat for example
Yeah, it's a very heavily criticized part of it, and Cavalier itself is rarely played.
Though it's more accurate to say that the Cavalier just *is* the Sentinel Feat expanded into an entire subclass.
>Likewise, the Parry maneuver has some similarities to the Defensive Duelist feat
Not really, they don't overlap.
>Giving the Fighter more ways of avoiding damage simply helps ensure that he's fulfilling that role correctly.
Not really. His role is to dish out consistent damage. Avoiding damage doesn't really help this and is something that should otherwise be covered by his party. And a niche magic-like way to do so definitely doesn't help him at all, it goes against his entire design grain.
>And the feat still exists for someone who wants to really specialize.
Well no as a core class feature it'd straight up just mean the feat is never taken, in large part because it will never actually be useful. It's not a great feat already, but this? Would just make it useless because it doesn't actually improve much.

This can be solved by not playing D&D

>>96348111
>Well, let's see some flavoring then.
I already explained the flavor. It's the same generic source of grit/stamina/willpower that a Fighter is using for Second Wind and Indomitable and similar features. This is already in the game.
>He's not magically absorbing the fireball into his skin and shitting it back out somehow.
I never said the ability would deal fire damage back? This isn't any more magical than a Rogue getting Uncanny Dodge or Evasion. It's arguably less, since needing to spend a superiority die means that it's something the Fighter can't just do nonstop or passively.
>Though it's more accurate to say that the Cavalier just *is* the Sentinel Feat expanded into an entire subclass.
Fair enough. But if you won't accept precedent that already exists in the game, then I don't think we're going to be able to see eye to eye on what is or isn't redundant.

>Not really, they don't overlap.
They overlap about as much as the feature I'm proposing does with Riposte. Defensive Duelist lets you use your reaction to boost your AC. Parry lets you use your reaction to reduce the damage from a melee attack. The mechanical overlap seems pretty obvious, but I also don't think that's a problem.
>Not really. His role is to dish out consistent damage.
I'd argue that's why he gets features like Second Wind to help keep him alive, because it's hard to do consistent damage if you go down to a fireball. Avoiding damage is certainly helpful, and doing so while getting some extra damage from your superiority die on top of that is even more synergy.
>Well no as a core class feature it'd straight up just mean the feat is never taken
Possibly. Though it might still have use for other classes. And I don't think it's a particularly great argument that because a mediocre feat exists, there's never allowed to be any improvement or alternatives.

>>96348227
>I already explained the flavor.
No anon, not explaining, *flavoring*.
>I never said the ability would deal fire damage back? This isn't any more magical than
Well the damage has to come from somewhere, and it is more magical since, y'know, those are just dodging and evading.
>It's arguably less
How? Your explanation is completely nonsensical for this.
>Fair enough. But if you won't accept precedent that already exists in the game
"Precedent" matters in law, not in game design. Mistakes are something you should learn from rather than double down on.
>They overlap about as much as the feature I'm proposing does with Riposte.
No they don't, not even close.
>The mechanical overlap seems pretty obvious
You say that, but can't identify it and realized already that they both do two very different things.
>I'd argue that's why he gets features like Second Wind to help keep him alive
Second Wind is actually one of those kinda shitty features that ends up being more and more marginal the higher level you get, and only sorta matters when used as a hail mary at lower levels when things get desperate.
But also the proposed feature doesn't work always, nor even often, and would work less than second wind in many situations, while actually reducing damage output.
>And I don't think it's a particularly great argument that because a mediocre feat exists
The feat being mediocre is more an indicator that the class feature here itself is extremely mediocre (Being basically just a spell honestly, should be a screaming red flag that it's not good). The feat can be okay at least when its used, but this would straight up be worse, and the feats main problem is that its utility is oft decided before an encounter even begins.

>>96348322
>Well the damage has to come from somewhere
Yeah, that's why I proposed using the Superiority die, since it offers a scaling source of damage.
>How?
The Rogue can Uncanny Dodge for 24 hours straight without getting tired. The Rogue can use Evasion to take less damage from a spell even when he's chained to a wall.
>"Precedent" matters in law, not in game design.
Again, if you're willing to ignore official content, then there's really no point in discussing it further.
>No they don't
Yes they do. I explained how. If you don't like that explanation, then as I said, we're not going to be able to see eye to eye on what is or isn't redundant.

>Second Wind is actually one of those kinda shitty features that ends up being more and more marginal the higher level you get
Sure. Which is why I think giving the Fighter more options would help to do its job better. I even brought up how this could be an optional use for Second Wind within the 2024 rules framework.
As for reducing damage output, you still deal the additional damage based on your Superiority die, as with most maneuvers. At the upper levels of optimization it might be less helpful, but not everything needs to be designed as pure power creep.
>The feat being mediocre is more an indicator that the class feature here itself is extremely mediocre
Feats being mediocre is more often a factor of opportunity cost, rather than sheer functionality. Weapon Master is a borderline useless feat, but having proficiency with martial weapons as a class feature isn't a useless class feature.

>>96344915
>Missing the point
Fighters are equipped with magical gear that resists or completely nullifies types of damage, especially at higher levels, and they can also make multiple, powerful attacks that can shred a mage in a few rounds. Plus, it's not a white room 1v1; they have their own party with their own mages.

Absorb elements is cute and all but your wizard can counterspell it then the fighter goes in and stabs the shit out of the enemy wizard. Or the enemy wizard tries to cast Forcecage and the party wizard counterspells that instead, leaving the enemy wizard open to being stabbed.

You whiteroom theorycrafting nogames faggots are so fucking retarded, so fucking joyless and friendless, that you can't comprehend that TTRPGs are cooperative games where it's almost never a 1v1, to the point that if it is, it's probably two martials squaring off for honor as a character moment.

Yes, good job, a solo fighter versus a solo wizard loses at any level past 5. However, when you consider an actual game state - 3-5 party members versus an evil mage and his army of shitter minions - then you realize "oh shit, the fighter has the backing of his own mages and now things are a fair fight".


>>96344981
This is a braindead take too. Fighters should have tons of cool maneuvers and AoEs they can do with their weapons. Call it Haki or Chi or Spirit or Grit or whatever, say it's "totally not magic" and have it mechanically be distinct (i.e. you can't counterspell a Hurricane Strike like you would a Fireball, out of game because it isn't a spell, in universe because it isn't magic).

I want my casters to be able to summon meteors from the sky and transform their allies into a fucking T-Rex.

I want my martials to be able to change geography with a swing of their sword and do Metal Gear Rising tier shit.

>>96348426
>Yeah, that's why I proposed using the Superiority die
That's... Not at all what I'm talking about.
>The Rogue can Uncanny Dodge for 24 hours straight without getting tired
I mean no, he'd need to make a CON test by that point to not get tired.
But none of this indicates "He dodges" and "He evades it" as being magical. You basically don't have an actual reason.
>Again, if you're willing to ignore official content
I mean even the worst of official content isn't at the level of refluffing spells as class abilities.
>Yes they do. I explained how.
No they don't, no you didn't. You explained how both work with zero justification for why those are overlapping (because they don't overlap).
>Sure. Which is why I think giving the Fighter more options would help to do its job better.
How? No, don't bother answering - More options don't ever do this. If you wanted Second Wind to do its job better, you'd just buff it. But no sane designer would because the fighter isn't and should not be a one man army.
>I even brought up how this could be an optional use for Second Wind
And it was pointed out that would absolutely fucking suck and just be straight up worse than second wind. It's the most boring possible implementation, really.
>Feats being mediocre is more often a factor of opportunity cost, rather than sheer functionality.
Yes and no. It's not just opportunity cost here, but even when it *can* be used, it's just not that great when you can focus on doing more damage.
>Weapon Master is a borderline useless feat
Oh, you're just retarded.
I don't think you should be consulted on game design at all if you're retarded, sorry.

>>96348501
>That's... Not at all what I'm talking about.
You're welcome to clarify if you feel like I've misunderstood you.
>But none of this indicates "He dodges" and "He evades it" as being magical.
Then we'd agree that a feature reducing damage from a spell doesn't suddenly mean that feature is magical.
>You explained how
Correct.
>How? No, don't bother answering
Alright, if you don't want your questions answered, then I don't think this is going to be a productive discussion.

Have a nice day.

>>96344727 (OP)
I play fighter when I don't want a class. The class is just "regular dude" but on drugs, you get a few more feats and attributes. I like that.

Why do people still play D&D?

>>96344727 (OP)
To balance the game, just double all weapon damage and make it so that all mages have to find a source to copy their spells from. If you can't find a grimoire or teacher, you can't learn that spell. GG EZ Mods, lock the thread.

>>96345030
In older editions, they couldn't. they also needed to spend all their money on mage shit.

removing economic disparity from classes was a major mistake.
removing caster disruption and frailty was the other.

>>96348966
>he class is just "regular dude" but on drugs, you get a few more feats and attributes. I like that.
I do wish it leaned into fighters being the Uncommoner more. If you're like a dhampir or dwarf or something, there's no class to be MORE dwarf or dhampir.

A human fighter should be the humanest human, a fighter elf should be the elfiest elf, and so forth.

But I don't know how you'd ever design it.

>>96344727 (OP)
Fighters should have an increased chance to sunder, disarm, and maim, but that can't be in 5e because post-3.5e D&D is afraid of any nonmagical setbacks or attrition that last more than a long rest.

>>96349146
>class feats that are based on your race, as if it was a second subclass
>ability boosts based on the ones you get from your race

>>96349328
It would have to be the only class that needs to be updated every time a new race drops, and every race has to be created with it in mind. Sounds like a nightmare for designers, if fun

>>96344727 (OP)
If you don't use traditional party composition you are gay.

Bard casts Heroism on the Fighter with Heavy Armor Master. Fighter tanks the army. Good times are had by all.

>>96347764
>Now it's thematically a Fighter ability.
No, that puts it in the mechanical wheelhouse of the Battlemaster subclass. Mechanics that reasonably align with the mechanics would be, again, some manner of direct counter-attack rather than a buff to an attack taken otherwise. Like Robilar's Gambit, though that actually increases your expected damage taken for the damage output; I like using life-stealing weapons to compensate.

>You can make it so that the character can only unlock the potential of the weapon by gaining levels.
By the world-logic of standard D&D, this still requires the DM to give the weapon to the Fighter. What you desire would be best handled by a Fighter-favoring subsystem tangential to "normal" magic item crafting, which requires that function that 5e deliberately removed. Back in 3.5, there are at least four versions of this with their own pros and cons.

>There are a lot of steps between spinning plates and watching paint dry.
Raw positioning and attacks are not watching paint dry. You can focus on the aspects not elaborated in mechanics or be satisfied with low engagement time in exchange for the faster combat resolution. Because every lever for mid-play variance is a choice that must be analyzed before the player commits, particularly when evaluating Reaction validity and opportunity cost.

>Depends on the setting.
No it does not, a setting with exclusively rare or low-power magic is definitionally different from a setting with no magic at all and there is no case of the latter in D&D's 50-year backlog.

>You will have a situation where the mage needs to be left without leveling up while the rest move on.
No, the result is that the campaign just doesn't keep scaling as low/no magic worth monsters run out. Because that's something you're allowed to do. It's very popular in the 3.5 community because the vast majority of the imbalance comes from higher-level spells.

>>96349592
Could be offloaded into broader rules with something like PF2e's race/class/general feats, so the required material is made anyways for variance between characters "of the same race" then the Fighter (though I favor Barbarian or Druid) just happens to get more Race picks and less Class.

>>96344727 (OP)
I think knights are cool

>>96349649
>Raw positioning and attacks are not watching paint dry. You can focus on the aspects not elaborated in mechanics or be satisfied with low engagement time in exchange for the faster combat resolution. Because every lever for mid-play variance is a choice that must be analyzed before the player commits, particularly when evaluating Reaction validity and opportunity cost.
These are basic things that literally all classes do. You just confirmed the stereotype that all fighting players are so stupid that doing basic things causes their brains to overheat.

>>96349649
>Raw positioning and attacks are not watching paint dry.
Yes they are.

>>96347299
If the designers intended for falling into lava or off a cliff to be instant death, then the rules would just say that.

There is absolutely no reason to specify an XdY damage value except to indicate that having a high enough HP pool is a perfectly legitimate form of defense against these hazards.

The fact that the rules for lava say "XdY damage" and not "you die" is a deliberate design choice.
Therefore surviving lava if you have high enough HP is also a deliberate design choice.

>>96352377
>He doesn’t use lava rules
Ngmi

Barbarian and fighter have different power fantasies. Barbarian is pure strength and toughness, while fighter is skill. They should both be supernaturally powerful at high levels but to different degrees. A barbarian would be unfazed by attacks as he charges forward to bash an enemy's head in, while a fighter is able to deflect, parry, block, or dodge attacks that to him are obviously telegraphed and filled with weak points, leaving perfect openings to disarm or counterattack an enemy.

>>96344727 (OP)
>Shit ton of health
>Multi attack to cut through piss easy enemies like butter
>Self heal
>Not hampered by spell slots
Really feeling shat on

The fighter issue is solved and has been solved for a long while.

First of all, don't play dnd.

Now that half of you is fuming: play 4e.

Now that all of you are fuming: play martial master fighter in pf.

Thank you for reading. This thread was posted by a janitor, sage.

>>96344727 (OP)
>Serious question
Unserious answer: dnd is dndumb

>>96344727 (OP)
>question to those of you who play as fighter in dnd
OK, what's u-

>the system literally shit on this class
Oh, nuD&D. Never mind then.
I only play editions of D&D where the Fighter is good.

>>96344727 (OP)
The problem with DND and most TTRPGs when it comes against casters is that most casters should have to keep track of spell components, as well as prepare all their spells at the start of the day. Not just get to cast them when they want. So you had to plan ahead and keep count of what you had. However most don't making them broken AF. A gun is broken in a game but if you have limited ammo high maintance cost. It evens out, however make ammo easy to find and make and don't bother with upkeep. Then yeah the thing is going to be fucking broken as fuck.

>>96348470
>Fighters are equipped with magical gear that resists or completely nullifies types of damage, especially at higher levels
What part of the fighter's class features states this?

>and they can also make multiple, powerful attacks that can shred a mage in a few rounds
Assuming all those attacks hit and roll above minimum damage, and before the mage is able to cast something awful to either remove the fighter from existence or teleport him to the other side of the world.

>counterspell
Now who's white-room theorycrafting?
Counterspell isn't free, and it isn't guaranteed to succeed. Its difficulty increases with the level of the spell being countered, too.
All your points rely on assumptions; you assume the fighter will be able to get in range, you assume daddy DM will have let the fighter have any of the magical gear he needs, you assume the fighter's attacks will all land and will all deal more than the lower half of his damage dice, and you assume counterspell will always succeed and you assume the wizard will only want to use his slots on counterspell. You assume the other casters in the party are so incompetent that they haven't prepared the right spells to either avoid or outright end the fight before the fighter could even draw his weapon.

You talk about TTRPGs being cooperative, but you willfully ignore the obvious disparity between a class that has to rely on the good graces of his DM to even hope to have what he needs and a class who gets the pick of whatever he wants every level.
The only way a TTRPG can truly be cooperative is if all classes are viable at all levels in their own way; a class that can't compete without permission from the arbiter is dead weight. A class that needs someone else to negate spells for him is dead weight.

>>96344727 (OP)
>Serious question to those who play as a fighter in dnd - are you masochists?
Men like challenges for the thrill of it, boys want to be overpowered like when they stomp over ants because their soul knows no peace nor success.

>>96348470
Especially in a system like Pathfinder 1e, with sufficient protective spells and buffs from a party member, and with good armor, a fighter is terribly effective. I had a player once who really knew how to chain Feats, and his Fighter wielded a halberd. The only thing that scared him was a magma dragon.

>>96344981
>>96348470
>>96361898
>>96361996
Tome of Battle and especially the PF version Path of War solved this by making entire martial discipline trees either supernatural or not and letting you pick according to what kind of character you wanted. You could play the same class as a de facto spellsword or as a guy that's just so fucking good at swinging a hammer that he can crush mages through their force effect defenses.

>>96362165
I solved every problem I have with D&D and D&Dlikes by making my own game.
The problem being solved through errata or another game isn't the point.
The Anon I responded to made a bunch of erroneous claims, claims assuming one singular outcome, and did a bunch of white-room theorycrafting while bitching about white-room theorycrafting.
The point of my post was to inform him of where he was wrong and why, not about whether this or that other system, expansion, or houseruling solves the problem.

>>96362241
Okay? I'm not disagreeing with either of you. Just pointing out something that solves the issue at hand without having to go outside of the implied d20 environment in OP.

tl;dr it works pretty well to make the specifics of how a fighter fights something as modular as how a caster casts. Treat combat styles as distinct disciplines in the same way as Evocation vs Transmutation vs Necromancy. So Anime KatanaEdge-san can warp time to teleport behind a group of enemies before hitting them with a blade beam, while Grug McStoneNads can wind up with his Louisville Slugger and punt someone over the horizon, all without having to bloat the class list with different base chassis for every interpretation of "melee combatant".

>>96362289
Good for it.
It has nothing to do with anything I said.

>>96352980
>while fighter is skill
yeah, all 2 of them per level

>>96362356
It does, because it solves the "Fighters are all magical anyways because they're useless without magical gear or buffs" problem D&D has always had.

In vanilla 3.x, your primary source of your damage is your weapon and its enchantments, followed by ancillary bonuses like feats and ability score modifiers. Tome of Battle inverts this by making the core of your damage output a function of the Maneuver: an expression of the character's martial skill, irrespective of how magical or not the piece of metal they're holding is. A 10d6 martial maneuver is a 10d6 martial maneuver, even if you're using a tree branch to execute it. This demotes the all-powerful magical weapon to something more like a metamagic role, where things like Reach alter where you can apply your 10d6 damage, and enchantments can spruce up the damage with elemental effects or crit bonuses or whatever else you want to tack on. But for lack of your +5 Holy Avenger, you can still deal the 10d6 out of your own knuckles. This is more in line with even low fantasy, historical fiction, and folklore, like Miyamoto Mushashi beating a rival swordsman to death with a 'sword' he carved out of a boat oar. It's the overwhelming skill that matters, not the MacGuffin.

ToB/PoW enables a martial fighter to scale with a spellcasting party without a single magical trinket or buff on them, just grit and blood.

>>96362464
>it solves the "Fighters are all magical anyways because they're useless without magical gear or buffs" problem D&D has always had
Try reading before responding again.
-> >>96362241
>I solved every problem I have with D&D and D&Dlikes by making my own game.
>The problem being solved through errata or another game isn't the point.
>The point of my post was to inform him of where he was wrong and why, not about whether this or that other system, expansion, or houseruling solves the problem.

>>96344727 (OP)
sorry but I play OSR, the fighter has no abilities to lose

>>96362526
You're in a thread about D&D. Bringing up your unnamed, unknown, unshowcased game as the superior option unprompted every time somebody says something about what to do with D&D's systems in a D&D conversation is MLP-tier autism.

>>96362585
>I'm still not going to read your post even when you explicitly explain the point multiple times!
Okay, have fun being a retard, then.

>>96362648
I read your post multiple times. You can't get past assuming I'm here to argue or throw counterpoints, when all I did was point out an interesting fix to OP's problem that already exists within official though not current material. Instead you just keep repeating "but I'm right and also my game my game my game", like I was ever addressing your previous argument at all when all I said was essentially "hey check this out".

>>96362684
>like I was ever addressing your previous argument at all
You linked my post, shitstain.

My character is an Eldritch Knight meaning he's both a fighter and a caster. He's the best of both worlds.

>>96344797
And they're not d&d characters.

>>96344981
Then play a different game. Non magical characters are NOT valid beyond level 1.

>>96344797
Then why don't they get the items they need to be relevant as a class feature?

>>96345947
Enjoy roleplaying a corpse.

>>96345957
Invalid preference.

>>96345984
No one has to.

>>96367253
You're an invalid

>>96346548
Yes, that shit is gay and not fun, so we changed it to be fun. Try to keep up.

>>96346874
Why shouldn't a fighter be able to sneak and attack? What's stopping him?

>>96346938
Why didn't they write what they actually did intend instead of something they didn't intend?

>>96367230
It's totally okay that you think they aren't valid. In some tables, perhaps like your own, this is true. In other games and other tables it isn't, and that's okay too.

>>96367296
I don't think fighters should be as effective at sneak attacking, but I also think it's retarded that someone highly-trained in fighting would not reasonably be able to take advantage of a sneak attack, at least to a lesser degree than a rogue can. Part of fighting is getting past someone's guard to hit them effectively, and a fighter should be able to inflict damage more easily if someone's guard isn't up, just like a rogue can.

>>96344727 (OP)
People are playing current year dnd and what you're getting up in arms about is that they're playing a warrior?" Lol, lmao even

>>96367972
Wrong. If I say it is invalid, it is. NOTHING is subjective.