Quote from: GameThug;1135534None of your custom stuff matters here.

Greetings!

Fighters can use a bow to make ranged attacks. That is not a matter of "custom stuff."

Beyond that, Fighters have great access to many different weapons and armour.

Feats? Feats can make Fighters even more effective. Feats are an *option* in 5E.

I always have great fun playing Fighter characters, as do many of the players in my groups. For Fighters to really shine, you must be aggressive, bold, and creative with them.

*Shrugs* Or, you can just stick to playing a Wizard or a Warlock.

From what I have seen, Fighters do just fine. Many people have fun playing Fighter characters in 5E.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Yes, you more or less have targeted the type of issues I have.

I think having the same BAB is a big part of the problem.

GameThug, your problems with 5e sound fundamental to enjoying the game. And that's fine because we live in the Golden Age of RPGs. There are literally hundreds of fantasy games, many of which would probably serve your needs better.

Here's a free one with lots of free supplements, including the Art of Combat all about making your warriors more exciting in combat.
WARRIOR, ROGUE & MAGE
http://www.stargazergames.eu/games/warrior-rogue-mage/

Quote from: GameThug;1135503It's my view that Martial Classes, and the Fighter Class in particular, should be the top-tier damage dealer in combat, period.

You nailed one of the reasons I love OD&D so much. I'm with you. Fighters should hit the most often and bring the slaughter. In my OD&D, all Fighters have the equivalent of Cleave which combined with OD&D's low monster HP means lots of death dealing.

13th Age does Fighters quite well. They are the easiest class to play and totally straightforward. You do lots of hitting with lots of damage. They're not flashy, just reliable and easy. There's so many good reasons to consider 13th Age so its worth checking out.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1135541GameThug, your problems with 5e sound fundamental to enjoying the game. And that's fine because we live in the Golden Age of RPGs. There are literally hundreds of fantasy games, many of which would probably serve your needs better.

Here's a free one with lots of free supplements, including the Art of Combat all about making your warriors more exciting in combat.
WARRIOR, ROGUE & MAGE
http://www.stargazergames.eu/games/warrior-rogue-mage/




You nailed one of the reasons I love OD&D so much. I'm with you. Fighters should hit the most often and bring the slaughter. In my OD&D, all Fighters have the equivalent of Cleave which combined with OD&D's low monster HP means lots of death dealing.

13th Age does Fighters quite well. They are the easiest class to play and totally straightforward. You do lots of hitting with lots of damage. They're not flashy, just reliable and easy. There's so many good reasons to consider 13th Age so its worth checking out.

There is a sunk cost involved, however.  A PDF of a game that re-balances the classes in 5E is preferable to bringing 14 players into a whole new game environment--in Roll 20.

I'll take a look at the others offered, but I am not seeking an OD&D replacement.  I am primarily seeking a fix to one area of 5E that seems poorly conceived (the base Ranger most exceptionally).

Quote from: GameThug;1135536I like many of the IDEAS present in 5E; I just find their execution falls very short of their promise.

That's a common complaint...about every edition and most games.

Your challenge is your problem is fundamental to 5e. I doubt adding +2 BAB for Fighters would solve your concerns, even though that made my players happy during 4e.

There's a big problem with the sunk cost concept. Fixing a game where you have fundamental core issues often becomes an exercise in futility, aka like adding more and more ingredients into a dish that doesn't taste right. Also, you run the risk of alienating players who feel that the Fighter getting a boost means their favorite class needs a boost too! Nobody wants to play the nerfed class.

Quote from: GameThug;1135533Yes, you roll a lot.

You don't DO a lot.

Battlefield control isn't nothing, but don't overstate the value of your one reaction effect--provided you hit.  Contrast that with the automatic reaction effects of other classes.

Yes this is basically it.  

The cynic in me thinks that a big part of the whole multi-attack thing is simply to ensure the fighter get's spotlight time.  Which is not nothing I guess.  It's one thing that makes the Fighter more fun than the Rogue at least.

Quote from: spon;1135517Huh? When should they take these 2 levels and why? I've seen some very good descriptions of 5Es issues with balance and multi-classing, but this one seems pretty far out ... care to explain?

Cunning Action and Expertise are pretty strong abilities especially for a Fighter that doesn't dump dex. If a whole party has it, every fight is going to have a "kite" section where the enemy needs to find/reach the party before they even need to use serious abilities. Expertise in Athletics/Stealth would just be crazy good for a fighter. They could kite for awhile with stealth and grapple basically anything. Barbarian would be even better with all of their real class features.

But the real power build in 5e is Fighter 1/Abjur Wizard 18/Fighter 1. I prefer to use a Rock gnome with any background, but any race will work. You have con save prof, platemail prof, a shield, and defensive style for a base 21 AC. As basically a full wizard, you can cast the shield spell whenever you want something does hit you. At 27 AC, you take half damage from dragons. With all that defense it is easy to maintain stronger concentration spells or be both the front-line and the battlefield controller.

Quote from: GameThug;1135535It gives bonus Damage without a To-Hit Penalty, in contrast to big bonus damage with a major penalty.  Were a Fighter able to use the Duelist ability with a great weapon, it would offer more predictable damage and better options.



There's a Post along with that Title, and you spend a lot of time talking about something other than the center of the problem.

Ah. In that case, I assume you missed Great Weapon Fighter, which is also a damage boosting fighting style. And again, the math supports my position. GWM adds so much damage on a hit that the penalty to hit is almost always worth it. As for the center of the problem, that appears to be the same bullshit I've heard before that still isn't true. You're like a person asking for help in rebalancing things so that red cars are as good as blue cars, in a game system that makes no difference between colors. It is fundamentally wrong headed.

Quote from: GameThug;1135543A PDF of a game that re-balances the classes in 5E is preferable to bringing 14 players into a whole new game environment--in Roll 20.

How many of the 14 on Roll20 have an issue with the Fighter?

How many would be cool with a PDF that nerfs their favorite class to make the Fighter better?

How many of the 14 would be willing to buy and/or read the PDF and make changes to their PCs?

Have you discussed your concern with the 14 players?

Are you the DM of the game? If not, how does the DM feel about the 5e Fighter?

Quote from: Blankman;1135580Ah. In that case, I assume you missed Great Weapon Fighter, which is also a damage boosting fighting style. And again, the math supports my position. GWM adds so much damage on a hit that the penalty to hit is almost always worth it. As for the center of the problem, that appears to be the same bullshit I've heard before that still isn't true. You're like a person asking for help in rebalancing things so that red cars are as good as blue cars, in a game system that makes no difference between colors. It is fundamentally wrong headed.

Well he does have a point: Red cars are faster then blue cars.

Quote from: SHARK;1135526Greetings!

Fighters can always shoot a Wizard or a Warlock with flaming arrows--or arrows dipped in acid, or poison. While the spellcaster is dealing with that--the Fighter closes in on them, and slaughters them swiftly. Wizards and Warlocks have pathetic hit points, and are extremely weak. They go down fast when a warrior gets into hand to hand combat with them.

Besides Fighters being quite formidable in hand to hand combat--Fighters also have additional advantages, especially by higher levels. In my own World of Thandor, Fighters have access to awesome feats, as well as enormous gold-and-treasure generating options, and a far superior ability to raise fortresses, gather huge armies, and deploy resources that can easily make a Wizard or Warlock something to laugh at as they are hunted down, tortured, and burned at the stake for heresy. Battalions of Witch Hunters are always eager to track down and slaughter evil scum like Warlocks, Witches, and Wizards. Any Fighter facing up against such a rival should be able to easily recruit such determined and ruthless allies to make Wizard's, Witches, and Warlock's lives a living hell until they are caught and brought to a final judgment.

Fighters are also more rugged, and have more hit points. Fighters can survive and triumph against overwhelming odds, on a continuous basis, even in sub-optimal environments. No rests required.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Damn! These are a lot of interesting options for raising armies and fortresses and such, that must add another layer and dimension to a Fighter's arsenal and expand their powers beyond their personal might. But I have to wonder looking at these...where are all my Wizarding academy and summoning tower options to conjure armies from beyond?

Surely, if fighters get so many options for large scale operations and boosting their renown, wizards could start their own academies as well, or build massive towers to channel arcane power and aid them in rituals or grant them additional benefits, like portals to other planes or dimensions, or protective barriers and such. And what about clerics? Imagine the massive temples they could build as the faithful flock towards a proven agent of the gods! Rogues too, could develop massive networks of spies and informants, etc.

I never really made use of the old school follower system, since I mostly ran more personal dungeon delving, monster hunting and the occasional intrigue adventures back in the day. But I sometimes wonder how a detailed system dealing with more in-depth options for managing armies or organizations might handle in D&D. Extrapolated to current editions, with the addition of feats, that could open up a lot of interesting options for higher level characters.

Quote from: Blankman;1135580Ah. In that case, I assume you missed Great Weapon Fighter, which is also a damage boosting fighting style. And again, the math supports my position. GWM adds so much damage on a hit that the penalty to hit is almost always worth it. As for the center of the problem, that appears to be the same bullshit I've heard before that still isn't true. You're like a person asking for help in rebalancing things so that red cars are as good as blue cars, in a game system that makes no difference between colors. It is fundamentally wrong headed.

GWF?  How could I have overlooked the fact that it gives you 6.3 instead of 5.5 Avg Dam on a d10?

Or maybe it's just another example of Fighter weaksauce.

As for GWM, it (and you) assume that the GM is lining up low AC adversaries all day, everyday--and that overkilling low AC, low HP monsters is what we're talking about.

I get that the problem is beyond your perception.  That's fine.  You have yet to offer any actual, meaningful evidence to support your claim--and nothing you have contributed addresses the actual question at hand.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1135581How many of the 14 on Roll20 have an issue with the Fighter?

How many would be cool with a PDF that nerfs their favorite class to make the Fighter better?

How many of the 14 would be willing to buy and/or read the PDF and make changes to their PCs?

Have you discussed your concern with the 14 players?

Are you the DM of the game? If not, how does the DM feel about the 5e Fighter?

What are you trying to do, exactly?  Convince me that the players I know well will have no issues with the effort and cost involved with transitioning systems?  4 of us have been gaming every week for 12 years+, the rest varying.  I know where their heads are at on this.

I am presently DMing 2 games, and playing in a third.  I have Ranger and Fighter PCs in my DMed games; I play the Fighter in the third game.  (I also play a Warrior in an ongoing Star Without Numbers campaign, which really highlythe superlative combat superiority possible for a Martial).

What I want is something that makes some tweaks at the PC level while leaving the rest of the game mechanics mostly intact.  The players are fine with a rebalance, as there is a broad consensus around how the classes stack up.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1135586Damn! These are a lot of interesting options for raising armies and fortresses and such, that must add another layer and dimension to a Fighter's arsenal and expand their powers beyond their personal might. But I have to wonder looking at these...where are all my Wizarding academy and summoning tower options to conjure armies from beyond?

Surely, if fighters get so many options for large scale operations and boosting their renown, wizards could start their own academies as well, or build massive towers to channel arcane power and aid them in rituals or grant them additional benefits, like portals to other planes or dimensions, or protective barriers and such. And what about clerics? Imagine the massive temples they could build as the faithful flock towards a proven agent of the gods! Rogues too, could develop massive networks of spies and informants, etc.

I never really made use of the old school follower system, since I mostly ran more personal dungeon delving, monster hunting and the occasional intrigue adventures back in the day. But I sometimes wonder how a detailed system dealing with more in-depth options for managing armies or organizations might handle in D&D. Extrapolated to current editions, with the addition of feats, that could open up a lot of interesting options for higher level characters.

Greetings!

Indeed, my friend! Thank you.

Well, *individual* Wizards can, of course, accomplish many wondrous and amazing things. However, in old school AD&D, *ONLY* martial classes--Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, and Barbarian could attract armies and build fortresses, officially, in one form or another. Clerics, likewise, could establish a temple. None the less, they were all unique, and interesting. Fighters had the best advantages though, and was clearly an awesome perk for reaching high level status. Wizards didn't get anything.

I was harkening back to such benefits, as such always were substantial, especially so for Fighters. In 5E, for my own World of Thandor, I have continued such traditions of tailored, customized forresses and such for the various classes, with special followers and henchmen available for each specific class. All are interesting and cool, though again, just as an echo of our own history and myth, Warrior characters have huge social, political, and military benefits. Wizards, for example, as individuals, can become unique and very powerful. However, as a class? They do not enjoy the same prestige, and social, political, and military advantages that the Warrior characters enjoy.

Wizards, Warlocks, Witches, and such, after all, are often creepy, isolationist, eccentric--not the most positive social traits--and thus, besides their huge magical powers, suffer socially and politically. It is more expensive, requiring more money, more time, and more effort for them to cultivate trust not merely in the populace at large, but also all of the various social and political institutions.

The Warriors enjoy a much easier time entering into the political realm, and hence gaining more wealth faster, and have an easier time attracting larger, and more powerful armies.

Such rules and guidelines also assign a cost to the Wizard types of the world. In a social and political sense, it also lays the foundation of fear that Wizards must endure, knowing that bloodthirsty and grim warriors, backed by numerous assassination squads, hordes of marauders, and legions of loyal warriors can put a savage end to a Wizard's arrogant claims to power.

Wizards have unique spells that they can look forward to gaining at higher levels. Wizards can potentially alter and dramatically change their environment, and their surroundings through magic. Warriors can also change their environment--they can forge kingdoms, summon vast barbarian hordes, attract valiant knights to serve a noble temple, and attract entire tribes of barbarian peoples to serve them. Tribes, whole societies. Great cities and wealthy towns, all eager to help a Warrior forge a new destiny, for a new kingdom. WARRIORS also have great things they can look forward to as well!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK;1135591Greetings!

Indeed, my friend! Thank you.

Well, *individual* Wizards can, of course, accomplish many wondrous and amazing things. However, in old school AD&D, *ONLY* martial classes--Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, and Barbarian could attract armies and build fortresses, officially, in one form or another. Clerics, likewise, could establish a temple. None the less, they were all unique, and interesting. Fighters had the best advantages though, and was clearly an awesome perk for reaching high level status. Wizards didn't get anything.

I was harkening back to such benefits, as such always were substantial, especially so for Fighters. In 5E, for my own World of Thandor, I have continued such traditions of tailored, customized forresses and such for the various classes, with special followers and henchmen available for each specific class. All are interesting and cool, though again, just as an echo of our own history and myth, Warrior characters have huge social, political, and military benefits. Wizards, for example, as individuals, can become unique and very powerful. However, as a class? They do not enjoy the same prestige, and social, political, and military advantages that the Warrior characters enjoy.

Wizards, Warlocks, Witches, and such, after all, are often creepy, isolationist, eccentric--not the most positive social traits--and thus, besides their huge magical powers, suffer socially and politically. It is more expensive, requiring more money, more time, and more effort for them to cultivate trust not merely in the populace at large, but also all of the various social and political institutions.

The Warriors enjoy a much easier time entering into the political realm, and hence gaining more wealth faster, and have an easier time attracting larger, and more powerful armies.

Such rules and guidelines also assign a cost to the Wizard types of the world. In a social and political sense, it also lays the foundation of fear that Wizards must endure, knowing that bloodthirsty and grim warriors, backed by numerous assassination squads, hordes of marauders, and legions of loyal warriors can put a savage end to a Wizard's arrogant claims to power.

Wizards have unique spells that they can look forward to gaining at higher levels. Wizards can potentially alter and dramatically change their environment, and their surroundings through magic. Warriors can also change their environment--they can forge kingdoms, summon vast barbarian hordes, attract valiant knights to serve a noble temple, and attract entire tribes of barbarian peoples to serve them. Tribes, whole societies. Great cities and wealthy towns, all eager to help a Warrior forge a new destiny, for a new kingdom. WARRIORS also have great things they can look forward to as well!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Yes, I remember Wizards were the only class that didn't attract any followers, and I think I read similar reasons for their lack followers somewhere--not sure if right in the PHB, or on extended notes in the DMG. Though, it always seemed odd to me since thieves suffered their own social stigmas as well, yet they too got their own followers if they started their own guild (at least in 2e, never got around playing 1e). Granted, I suppose you could say that despite being looked down upon by civil society, prominent thieves could nonetheless attract ruffians and criminal elements willing to work together to fence stolen goods and watch their backs from the law, or perhaps establish networks of spies to trade on information, which could be valuable to nobles or wealthy merchants trying to get an edge on their competition.

But following such logic, just like thieves could attract other criminals and spies, similarly so too could a powerful mage potentially attract eager apprentices looking to train under a true master. And the precedent for that is firmly established in fantasy tropes, with whole book series written on the subject of apprentice wizards, magic schools and mystical orders. Even in insolation, with most of society fearing them, wizards could setup shop in remote locations--away from the prying eyes of most of the population--where they can practice their craft in private, and attract like-minded individuals willing to share their knowledge and pool their resources to enact powerful rituals.

Though, I remember Fighters in particular could attract the greatest number of followers, with Rangers and Thieves attracting only a token amount by comparison, and usually odd followers as well (often animals in the case of rangers). And that probably makes the most sense. If wizards could attract followers, they would only attract a minimal amount as well, given their level of power and the rarity of their gifts.