The crippled class getting a quadratic amount of crutches each level, regardless of the power of those crutches, does not make him more powerful than the fighter.
If those "crutches" make them better than another class, they still need to be fixed.
I think we're trying to "cram things into the class" because, as I thought was implied by my post, I would like my choice of class - one of the most significant character-building choices - to actually matter in 2/3rds of the game.
EDIT: To clarify, because I can see the response coming:
To "actually matter" in a fashion that invokes the archetype, that isn't just "nothing is something", and isn't just "roleplay it differently."
MOAREDIT: The assumption that bothers me, I think, is that every person who wants to play a Fighter is always making that choice (or should make the choice, or they're doing it wrong) just because they want to be "the best at combat". Personally, and in my experience with other people, that isn't the case (not "every person", and not "always"). I'd go so far as to say that, again in my experience, that is pretty rarely the motivation.
That is not a full reason to put things in a class. It is a reason, but not the only reason. Things should only be put into a class if it is to define the character taking the class as a member of that class. Now we could add features to it but those featers should only be added if it is difinitive of all fighters.
An option like the clerics religious knowledge feature is prime example. It is a part of the class not because it gives more power to the class, but because it is something defining of all members of the class. All clerics have mystical knowledge not known by normal men. That is why clerics have that capability. If your going to add features to the fighter it can only be added if it expresses a statement about all characters within that class. you must be able to say "All Fighters {X}" where {X} equals a statement that is true of all fighters.
For example the statement "All Fighters {are able combatants}", works because {able combatant} applys to all fighters. If your idea for a class feature must satisfy that. It is a requirement that can't be ignored. Balance is important however you must invent some kind of way to include it.
For example of us suggesting features, "All Fighters {are aware of how their enemy is going to react to them or how they are going to act as this is required to be capable in a fight" is close to true. There are some archetypes that might argue it, but overall it is mostly true of fighters. Because even if the fighter doesn't know they are doing it they do it by instinct. I believe this would in fact make giving them the sense motive skill apropriate.
Another example would be "All Fighters {are able bodied men}" would defend giving them the skill die to all physical activity Str, Dex, Con.
There are ways to suggest the features. yours is an incorrect reasoning, or more acurately is not sufficiant reasoning for many. Balance itself is not an ineffective reasoning for new features. However for some it is not good enough to justify it.
Sorry some ideas will get argued with solely because someone disagrees with the thematic reason for adding it.
How would you feel about a (not exclusive) list of abilities that could be expanded upon in future splats such as:
Noble Born: your fighter is of a noble family and may expect the following benefit: hospitality (or extension of credit or access to other nobles).
Hardbitten Mercenary: your fighter is familiar with the seedy side of town and knows where to find and dispose of certain material and fence loot (may step into the rogues schtick but makes sense).
Martial Student: Your fighter is part of a particularly reknowned martial school and may find fellow students in many places giving you social opportunities and access. Sometimes your school's reputation may aid (or hinder) you in new areas.
I really, really do not get the argument that the 5e Fighter is not a class - certainly, I think one could argue that the Fighter started to lose identity from editions 1-3.5, but the current 5e Fighter is pretty damn close to the Warblade in mechanics (you have a set of maneuvers you can use and a resource mechanism for when and how you can use them) and concept: the 5e fighter is a combat artist, someone who can pull off maneuvers with weapons that no one else can do, because they've devoted their lives to the study and practice of martial arts. The Monk is essentially an unarmed specialist Fighter who got religion.
The issue right now with the Fighter isn't that the class doesn't have a soul - the soul of the class is maneuvers - but that the maneuvers right now are not up to par in how evocative they are. To take one quick example: the Fighter has Shove Away (spend 1 MDD to push target 5 feet away, spend 2 to do it to larger targets), whereas the Monk has Hurricane Strike (spend X MDD to, if the target misses Strength saving throw, to push the target 10, 30, or 60 feet away, with up to two levels of superior size). These Maneuvers are meant to do the same exact thing: control the battlefield by pushing an enemy away from a square it wants to be in and to give you a round or so where the enemy can't get back in melee. But one of them has more flavor and a more impressive effect, and the other is something of a trap option - you can spend an MDD to cost the enemy a net 1 square of movement, but that's incredibly unlikely to keep them out of melee range for a round.
The solution to me is to beef up the Fighter's maneuvers. Obviously, you need to tread carefully - the Fighter is supposed to be doing "stuff that is within the limits of mundane mortals. They don’t reverse gravity or shoot beams of energy," but mundane "within the context of a mythical, fantasy setting. Beowulf slew Grendel by tearing his arm off. He later killed a dragon almost singlehandedly. Roland slew or gravely injured four hundred Saracens in a single battle." So I'd go back to the Tome of Battle, and I'd go back to the 4e Fighter, and then I'd aim for somewhere in the middle between those and the current maneuvers.
With sufficiently impressive maneuvers, all the Fighter needs is some non-combat utility. The devs need to sit down and draw up a list of things the Fighter should be better at than other classes (Smashing doors? Lifting gates? Running/Jumping/Swimming? social interactions with the military? tactics and strategy? Intimidation?) and then give them a very simple mechanic to use with that - throwing their skill dice on those checks, for example.
Oh, and one other thing: if the Fighter is a master of armor, they should actually be better with it than other classes. I'd love for the Fighter to be able to nullify the speed penalty, since the historian in me revolts at the idea that plate armor should slow you down.
Nyeh when its more reliable than the rogue... to wave a cheap wand at it.. the rogue might as well not be there...
This! 3.x's "bottled spell" approach to wands/scrolls in general likely shoulders most of the blame for perceived class marginalization (I'm not saying there aren't a lot of other offenders; 3.x lifted too many limitations and offered little to countermeasure said enabling). A Wizard being able to outperform that one specific maneuver once a day (but no more) is easier to swallow than a carved stick that can do it all day long.
And one of those traditions is linear melees/quadratic casters. It needs to remain
You were saying arder?
Linear fighters/quadratic wizards is not a difference in power scale. This a myth. A lie that's been told often enough that most of you have bought it hook, line, and sinker.
....What?
It's exactly a difference in power scale, specifically the rate at which power scales as each of the two classes level. It's not a myth, it's a mathematical fact.
At this point I've lost patience with your disruption of my thread. This thread is about the conceptual failing of the Fighter class as it currently stands and how to fix it. If you want to go put your head in the sand and pretend it's not a problem that's fine, but you can do it somewhere else.
And his avatar picture is of a Wizard, you really didn't see this coming? Seriously, Mand?
Man, I've said this a few times on these forums and got flamed into thread-lock for it. Glad I'm not the only one that sees it.
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
I really, really do not get the argument that the 5e Fighter is not a class - certainly, I think one could argue that the Fighter started to lose identity from editions 1-3.5, but the current 5e Fighter is pretty damn close to the Warblade in mechanics (you have a set of maneuvers you can use and a resource mechanism for when and how you can use them) and concept: the 5e fighter is a combat artist, someone who can pull off maneuvers with weapons that no one else can do, because they've devoted their lives to the study and practice of martial arts. The Monk is essentially an unarmed specialist Fighter who got religion.
The issue right now with the Fighter isn't that the class doesn't have a soul - the soul of the class is maneuvers - but that the maneuvers right now are not up to par in how evocative they are. To take one quick example: the Fighter has Shove Away (spend 1 MDD to push target 5 feet away, spend 2 to do it to larger targets), whereas the Monk has Hurricane Strike (spend X MDD to, if the target misses Strength saving throw, to push the target 10, 30, or 60 feet away, with up to two levels of superior size). These Maneuvers are meant to do the same exact thing: control the battlefield by pushing an enemy away from a square it wants to be in and to give you a round or so where the enemy can't get back in melee. But one of them has more flavor and a more impressive effect, and the other is something of a trap option - you can spend an MDD to cost the enemy a net 1 square of movement, but that's incredibly unlikely to keep them out of melee range for a round.
The solution to me is to beef up the Fighter's maneuvers. Obviously, you need to tread carefully - the Fighter is supposed to be doing "stuff that is within the limits of mundane mortals. They don’t reverse gravity or shoot beams of energy," but mundane "within the context of a mythical, fantasy setting. Beowulf slew Grendel by tearing his arm off. He later killed a dragon almost singlehandedly. Roland slew or gravely injured four hundred Saracens in a single battle." So I'd go back to the Tome of Battle, and I'd go back to the 4e Fighter, and then I'd aim for somewhere in the middle between those and the current maneuvers.
With sufficiently impressive maneuvers, all the Fighter needs is some non-combat utility. The devs need to sit down and draw up a list of things the Fighter should be better at than other classes (Smashing doors? Lifting gates? Running/Jumping/Swimming? social interactions with the military? tactics and strategy? Intimidation?) and then give them a very simple mechanic to use with that - throwing their skill dice on those checks, for example.
Oh, and one other thing: if the Fighter is a master of armor, they should actually be better with it than other classes. I'd love for the Fighter to be able to nullify the speed penalty, since the historian in me revolts at the idea that plate armor should slow you down.
Parry technically could represent armor superiority, although renaming it to something like Superior Defense could make it much more appropriate thematically.
Come to think of it, I think the recent playtests are an overreaction to the prior complaints about the Fighter not getting enough Expertise Dice, although frankly they still refused to give the two main things that were actually requested at the time: starting out with more than one expertise die (or equivalent), and starting out with the ability to select maneuvers, rather than be forced to get Deadly Strike, Parry and just one maneuver.
Given how they've gone and forced Deadly Strike and Parry into our gullets as Martial Damage Dice/Multiple Weapon Dice and Parry-as-class-feature -- honestly, if the main feature of Fighters is customizability, why the constraint on this? -- I find the whole intent as rather questionable, although I suppose that because they recognize that people would likely complain how Deadly Strike and Parry would be gold-rated maneuvers if they were selectable, they actually listened to the 4E complaint on Twin Strike and made those two "gold standard" maneuvers into class features (rather than ensure that these maneuvers were more balanced to other maneuvers).
- - - - - Here's an idea playing in my mind: considering that apparently the classical concept on Fighter is that his skill is fighting, why not have all his fighting ability key off the skill die (not just Parry)? Combined with Multiple Weapon Dice instead of Martial Damage Dice, we could have
Combat Specialization Offense: Once per round you can add your skill die to your damage roll of a successful attack. Defense: As a reaction you can attempt to deflect, block or parry one attack against you more effectively. Roll your skill die and reduce the damage you take from the attack. If the damage is reduced to zero, the attack is a miss instead. Tactical: Once per round you can sacrifice the use of your skill die to activate a maneuver, as if it were an Extra Weapon Die.
Greater Combat Specialization Offense: Once per day you can automatically crit with an attack you make during your turn. In addition, you can roll twice on the skill die when adding damage with it and choose the higher result. Defense: Once per day as a reaction you can turn a hit (even a crit) into a miss. Tactical: Once per day for an entire battle you can affect one extra adjacent opponent with your maneuvers, even if your maneuvers normally affect only one opponent.
In this setup, the Fighter as a class not only is a combat specialist, but is also a build-it-as-you-go sort of class.
A tactical player who wants to play it simple can simply take the Tactical Combat Specialization then each round he trades his skill die for a maneuver.
A damage-loving player who wants to deal good damage regardless of weapon can pick up just about any weapon and still deal his skill die in damage with the Offense Combat Specialization.
A player who wants to emphasize survivability over offense would take the Defense Combat Specialization.
With a maximum of +4[W] per turn (unless you chose Tactical), the number of choices you have would be
5[W] damage
4[W] damage, 1 maneuver
3[W] damage, 1 maneuver
3[W] damage, 2 maneuvers
2[W] damage, 1 maneuver
2[W] damage, 2 maneuvers
2[W] damage, 3 maneuvers
1[W] damage, 1 maneuver
1[W] damage, 2 maneuvers
1[W] damage, 3 maneuvers
1[W] damage, 4 maneuvers
Total: 11 choices, 13 if you include Combat Surge and Greater Combat Specialization, 17 if you picked Tactical Combat Specialization. Parry would no longer be "overpowered" because instead of rolling 1d12+6d6 in at-will damage reduction, it's now simply 1d12 damage reduction + 5/day damage auto-negation.
Allowing Greater Combat Specialization to be more dial-based might prove tricky, but considering how reaction is 1/round only, the Defense Specialization would only be problematic when it comes to duels; otherwise, it should prove interesting in providing depth without the clutter of complexity.
EDIT: By toning down damage, Bounded Accuracy is no longer compromised by bloated HP/damage. By shifting the next maneuver from level 2 to level 3 and by starting with 2 maneuvers instead of just 1, you give the player more time to get used to his character. Overall, it's likely far from perfect, but it should get the job done.
You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.
If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery.
