I'm sure others will post more. I'm trying to codify while running 5e as my current campaign with a group of entirely new players, half of which have never gamed with me before. I'm currently using the PHB with pulling some supplementary fluff from the 2e Calimport book, and the 2e Calimshan fluff-splat.

My primary complaint is the Fighter class.

I feel the Fighter is still neglected and not fully realized in lieu of all the definition of the class. I find all the class is really bringing to the table is extra attacks - ironically which other classes can simulate with their own abilities and narrow the gap in effectiveness while retaining all of their own baked-in abilities.

Let me be clear here - I do not advocate nerfing other classes for the sake of the Fighter. I'm wanting the Fighter, in terms of what the class is supposed to represent, to stand out in that arena. Do they? Sort of. Early on they're quite solid, but I can see the old cracks developing.

Case in point - I happen to have a Fighter who is a two-weapon guy (scimitars) - his claim to fame is he can attack, even at 3rd level, four times in one round with a use of his ability. My other player is running a Priest of War - and can do the same thing (more or less) and do it more often.

Now this is just mechanical finagling, and certainly isn't representative of a massive problem with the game. Rather to me it represents a problem that has been extant since 3e - BASED on how other classes have progressed mechanically vs. the Fighter. And it's rearing its head here - namely, the assumption is the Fighter will be "balanced" based on itemization. For some this isn't an issue. For me it is. I'm of the opinion that Fighters are a binary necessity in a class-based system. Either it stands to be the melee badass or it doesn't need to exist. There is no half-way. While people split hairs over the differences between a Ranger and a Barbarian - it will always come down to a couple of "iconic" abilities - like Rage, or Chosen Enemy (respectively) but meanwhile both classes will have a LOT of overlap, or for many GM's be essentially the same.

The Fighter is poorly described and becomes poorer as everyone demands their respective melee-schtick be given full-class treatment. Swashbuckler? Knights? Mounted Archer? etc. Not that this has happened - but as written in the PHB Fighters are still saddled with lackluster mechanical options. GRANTED - they're better than 3e or 4e, but I was wanting more meat on the bones of it. Is it a deal-breaker? No. But I'm banking on the DMG letting me pull this out of the fire before I do a re-write. If I do a re-write, I'll add more fighting styles (or beef up what's there via Feats) and fold in the sub-classes into the main class, and create more specialist sub-classes on my own.

Itemization As Balance - They flattened out the power-curve. But this legacy of balancing out classes (see Fighter) by itemization is generally silly. Is it a deal-breaker? No.

Inspiration System - Let's just flesh it out to be Aspects and call it a day? I'm already one-step away from just removing this mechanic and/or replacing it with slightly modified Aspects rules.

Nothing here is a dealbreaker to me. Just observations that I know I'll either be fixing with the DMG or houseruling. I find the spellcasting thus far to be very nice.

Have you read all the Fighter sub-classes, or just the one in Basic?

I am guessing you have not read all the stuff in the PHB for the Fighter.

Let the war priest have his 10% better damage per round. He stuck sitting in a temple on going "OMMMM" on a Saturday night while my fighter is drinking beer and enjoying the wenches.

The referee does not enforce the roleplaying then a lot of things about any edition of D&D, except perhaps 4e, becomes out of whack.

I run OD&D with Majestic Wilderlands supplement in several campaigns since 2009. There are some obvious choices that are clearly superior choices in terms of mechanics. The elf has no downside. For example my elves are immune to disease, are immortal and never die (they resurrect automatically after a period of time).

So why doesn't everybody play elves?

Because humans form the dominant society. PC Elves are outsiders and it comes across in my roleplaying of NPCs. The players feel like the outsiders their characters are even when they treated positively in-game. Always standing out in a crowd and treated as a figure of legend. Then when they are in lands dominated by elves another set of complications arise.

And believe or not, sometime players don't like being so visible in the campaign world. So wind up playing a human as the next character.

Complaints?

Well, I houserule death saves and healing rates.  I understand why they're there, but not my preferred style.  

While I've never been big on sorcerers, I would have like to have just a regular one, and not one that has to be either wild magic or draconic ancestry

The fighter issue isn't going anywhere unless the fighter class regains it's position as being the very best at combat period.

Once the decision has been made that all classes have to contribute more or less equally in combat the fighter no longer has reason for being.

 When everyone can contribute to combat on a semi-equal level then the fighter becomes this guy.


"Oh. You fight. How charming.Do you know how many party members we have that can fight AND do something else cool."

I'm currently reading through the PBH and there's been a few things that have made me arch an eyebrow, but I'm not done reading it yet.  More importantly- I have not yet played it, so I can't say what's what at this point.  

I'd like to try it at some point:)

Quote from: estar;778440The referee does not enforce the roleplaying then a lot of things about any edition of D&D, except perhaps 4e, becomes out of whack.

This has been my experience.

Do you have the PHB yet? Because a 3rd level fighter can do a lot more than two-weapon fighting.

At minimum: likely doing 1d6+4/1d6+4 with two scimitars at +5 to hit all the time, has second wind between each short rest, can attack three times once between each short rest, and either doubles the crit range, has four maneuver dice and artisan tools, or casts a couple of spells.

A war priest could fight with two scimitars at +4 (once a day at +10 for one) and do 1d6+2/1d6 (3 times a day this would change to 1d6+2). Six spells a day and cantrips.

Same number of skills and same armor.

So fighter is better fighter all the time. Cleric is better caster all the time. Same at exploration and roleplaying skill wise. Seems about right to me.

Edit: corrected number of attacks from action surge per Sacrosanct below.

Edit: fighter has more hit points also, probably +2 a level for an extra 6. And next level will get a +1 more to hit and damage (both scimitars) as well.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;778442The fighter issue isn't going anywhere unless the fighter class regains it's position as being the very best at combat period.

Once the decision has been made that all classes have to contribute more or less equally in combat the fighter no longer has reason for being.

I think this is an accurate observation.  

Quote from: Kravell;778448Do you have the PHB yet? Because a 3rd level fighter can do a lot more than two-weapon fighting.

At minimum: likely doing 1d6+4/1d6+4 with two scimitars at +5 to hit all the time, has second wind between each short rest, can attack four times once between each short rest, and either doubles the crit range, has four maneuver dice and artisan tools, or casts a couple of spells.

A war priest could fight with two scimitars at +4 (once a day at +10 for one) and do 1d6+2/1d6 (3 times a day this would change to 1d6+2). Six spells a day and cantrips.

Same number of skills and same armor.

So fighter is better fighter all the time. Cleric is better caster all the time. Same at exploration and roleplaying skill wise. Seems about right to me.

Edit: fighter has more hit points also, probably +2 a level for an extra 6. And next level will get a +1 more to hit and damage (both scimitars) as well.

I don't think this is accurate.  Remember, you can only ever do one bonus action per round total.  That means, if you're attacking dual weapons and get a second attack with the off hand weapon as a bonus action, doing action surge does not grant an additional bonus action.  That's how it's worded anyway.  So at first level, using action surge gets you a total of 3 attacks if you use both of your actions as attack actions.  2 normal attacks, and one bonus action attack.

Quote from: estar;778440Let the war priest have his 10% better damage per round. He stuck sitting in a temple on going "OMMMM" on a Saturday night while my fighter is drinking beer and enjoying the wenches...

I don't think it's that new a concept, but I like it, and that's what some of my house rules are going to emphasize for my setting: Fighters are the most socially acceptable class. Why?

• Clerics are religious miracle workers. It can be hard to relax and be yourself around someone with a direct line to the gods.
• With that should come some specific social and religious obligations.


• Magic Users are weirdos who mess with the fabric of reality. Few like them, even less trust them, and in my game, they're all marked/mutated in some way.
• Rogues are killers and criminals.

Only fighters are the most "normal" and approachable. Even if you don't rate a level or bonus, everyone can identify with and understand picking up something sharp/heavy, and swinging it in the direction of danger.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;778454I think this is an accurate observation.  



I don't think this is accurate.  Remember, you can only ever do one bonus action per round total.  That means, if you're attacking dual weapons and get a second attack with the off hand weapon as a bonus action, doing action surge does not grant an additional bonus action.  That's how it's worded anyway.  So at first level, using action surge gets you a total of 3 attacks if you use both of your actions as attack actions.  2 normal attacks, and one bonus action attack.

You are correct, thanks for catching that. I fixed my post to read three attacks not four. However, with fighting style the off hand attack still does an extra 3 damage every round in addition to the 1d6. With bounded accuracy that is a big increase in power over an adventuring day at low levels.

Quote from: tenbones;778432I feel the Fighter is still neglected and not fully realized in lieu of all the definition of the class. I find all the class is really bringing to the table is extra attacks - ironically which other classes can simulate with their own abilities and narrow the gap in effectiveness while retaining all of their own baked-in abilities.

Let me be clear here - I do not advocate nerfing other classes for the sake of the Fighter. I'm wanting the Fighter, in terms of what the class is supposed to represent, to stand out in that arena. Do they? Sort of. Early on they're quite solid, but I can see the old cracks developing.

Have you read the sub-classes? The Battle Master(?) has a list of something like 15 distinct combat maneuvers, of which he learns three at level 3, two more at level 7, etc. I read it and thought nobody can complain about fighters being a simple class by default anymore.

Quote from: Kravell;778459You are correct, thanks for catching that. I fixed my post to read three attacks not four. However, with fighting style the off hand attack still does an extra 3 damage every round in addition to the 1d6. With bounded accuracy that is a big increase in power over an adventuring day at low levels.

OH, I wasn't trying to invalidate your entire post or anything.  I personally think the 5e fighter has a lot to offer.

My halfling fighter with shield master and heavy armor master feats?  He's a total blast to play.  I certainly don't feel like he's being shortchanged.

Criticisms:

I don't like the selection of backgrounds on offer. While each is well-developed, there aren't many of them and they're not to my taste. Where's the explorer, outlaw, or tomb robber? They're too heavy on sophisticated social niches, and not enough on gritty roles.

Cleric domains don't include darkness or death. So not only is WotC presuming good PCs, but I don't even have the means to create an evil cleric NPC.

Too many drow. There are more drow illustrations in the PHB than elf illustrations! So the lore says they're extremely rare, but half of players will choose them as the elvish sub-race? Does not compute. Are the Drizz't novels really that popular?

Druids get shapechange at 2nd level. Do not like. I prefer old-school druids, where shapechanging was a high-level ability, rather than a run-of-the-mill default power. They should have offered one shapechanging sub-class and one conventional druid (forest guy with animal friends). But I'm guessing videogames have fostered the assumption of druids as shapechangers.

There's simply too much for me to explain verbally at the table, and most of my group does not buy or read rulebooks. WotC desperately needs to put out a quick start or summary. They keep saying they want D&D to be a game you can make a character with in 15 minutes, but how in fuck can you do that with one book at the table with this many options?

Quote from: Haffrung;778460nobody can complain about fighters being a simple class by default anymore[/I].

I think I am one of the few people out there who just likes a simple fighter:)