Fighter have the chance to get 7 feats compared to 5 for everybody else and your have the Battlemaster that can get 9 out of 16 possible maneuvers and use a feat to get 2 more for a total of 11 seperate knacks. And then you have the Eldritch Knight which mixes in spellcasting and at 10th level basically ripped off FantasyCraft's Rune Knight ability of you hit somebody and your next spell gives disadvantage to your opponent's save throw.

They are the only class that can ever get more then 2 attacks also. So that War Cleric is nice but by level 5 not so good...by level 11 see ya.

There are issues with 5e but Fighter isn't it. I would say my big issue is rate of healing.

@Haffung, Death Domain will be in the DMG and yes it is implicit that it's expected as NPC use only unless DM says ok. A Drow Cleric with Trickery domain is about as close to a Darkness domain as you can get currently though.

QuoteDruids 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.

You really need to read the rules. They did pretty much what you ask. The Circle of Land Druids can shapechange but only into CR 1 creatures maximum and not combat capable ones at that. Circle of the Moon gets that ability and it caps out a CR 6 and both have limited duration. So you have two distinct types of Druids going on without counting the variety of Circle of Land types there are.

Quote from: RunningLaser;778468I think I am one of the few people out there who just likes a simple fighter:)

You can still have a simple fighter - take the Champion sub-class.

Oh yeah, I don't like they way sneak attack is applied.  Any rogue worth his salt can figure out how to get it on nearly every attack, and half the time it's not even sneaking.

I also don't like how proficiency with tools works either.  All you add is your prof bonus.  That means the thief who is proficient gets a +2 bonus while the fighter who never used theives tools gets no modifier at all.  I would like PCs with proficiency get a bigger bonus over those who don't have it.

Quote from: Haffrung;778465There'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?

Free D&D Basic pdf.

Quote from: Haffrung;778465Too 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?

Drow are hugely popular outside of D&D, probably a third to a half of the characters I saw for WoW were Drow.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;778475I also don't like how proficiency with tools works either.  All you add is your prof bonus.  That means the thief who is proficient gets a +2 bonus while the fighter who never used theives tools gets no modifier at all.  I would like PCs with proficiency get a bigger bonus over those who don't have it.

Rogues have Expertise.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;778475Oh yeah, I don't like they way sneak attack is applied.  Any rogue worth his salt can figure out how to get it on nearly every attack, and half the time it's not even sneaking.

I also don't like how proficiency with tools works either.  All you add is your prof bonus.  That means the thief who is proficient gets a +2 bonus while the fighter who never used theives tools gets no modifier at all.  I would like PCs with proficiency get a bigger bonus over those who don't have it.

Then we get into the numbers bloat again but I understand the view because it's too finicky. And Rogues and Bards have Expertise so even if a Fighter is proficient (which they can be quite easily) Rogues can be ridiculously awesome at it.

Quote from: Kravell;778477Free D&D Basic pdf.

That's 110 pages and it only covers the four core classes.

I'm talking about a quick-reference to be used at the table. The kind available for virtually every tabletop game outside of RPGs. There's a example of a couple hundred fan-made summaries here.

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.

 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."

For those that asked - yes I have the PHB. Yep, I've read all of the sub-classes, at length. Yep I'm aware of what a 3rd level Fighter dual-wielding can do. Check! on all of the above. I'm also extrapolating out what I want from the class, as the GM in context of my games, I don't generally like to load my games full of magic-items in general, and I like keeping magic in terms of casters rare and mysterious - just like it says in the PHB. Not everyone has access to everything "just because".

So I think, ExploderWizard - you are SPOT ON.

The conceit of the Fighter should be

#1) Fighters are like Spec Ops badasses. They're highly trained killers. They know how to dismember people, creatures, things in melee and are the best at it. Period.

#2) Fighters should have a plethora of means to do the the nasty, but not be limited to just one way of doing it. But conversely they should have options to hyperspecialize in a "style" and be dominant at that style above all other classes.

So this mean supporting the class with more styles, more means of specializing in styles, more maneuvers (not necessarily tied to an in-game economy) that will allow them more flexibility in how they slaughter people/things.

I would never suggest other melee characters can't fight in similar styles. I'm saying a Fighter as a class should excel beyond them in measurable ways - otherwise get rid of the class altogether.

I'm not saying the Fighter class is barren or even simple. I'm saying it's not as beefy as it (subjectively) should be based on how I want Fighters to be.

Fighters, imo, aren't just "warriors" - they're heroes, killing machines, weapons masters, juggernauts of destruction. Even with the the Feats, and the maneuvers granted by the Battlemaster, they are on par with other melee guys who don't need to fiddle with their round-by-round mechanics to justify how they do what they do. It's more work for negligible gain and so-so output.

Everything else is just background (and as pointed out - right now that's not a very good selection.

I give Backgrounds and Feats a pass. Because we all know more books will come out that will flesh those out. Healing? I'm on the fence. Thus far it hasn't been a problem. But I'm eyeballing that DMG and its Vitality system... eyeballing it hard.

Quote from: Haffrung;778489I'm talking about a quick-reference to be used at the table. The kind available for virtually every tabletop game outside of RPGs. There's a example of a couple hundred fan-made summaries here.

I always make a quick reference guide for my group when I'm GMing a new game. Not only does the guide help the players grasp the rules, writing it helps me familiarise myself with them.

Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;778500I always make a quick reference guide for my group when I'm GMing a new game. Not only does the guide help the players grasp the rules, writing it helps me familiarise myself with them.

Do your players bother reading the full rules, then?

I'd love to see an RPG where the Player's Handbook is a two-page distillation of the Guide for Rules Lawyers, and the example of play is a comic book.

Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;778500I always make a quick reference guide for my group when I'm GMing a new game. Not only does the guide help the players grasp the rules, writing it helps me familiarise myself with them.

I do as well. But it would be nice if I could just download something for free and send it to my players. Ideally, they should be customized for each class. And that takes time.

Quote from: Haffrung;778527I do as well. But it would be nice if I could just download something for free and send it to my players. Ideally, they should be customized for each class. And that takes time.

Peruse the G+ D&D Next group.  People post these sort of guides all the time.

With D&D, I had always the impression that the system has to address so many different playstyles and prefernces that the system just cannot provide all of these as many of these are contradicting each other.
That's what house rules are for, and, like with any other incarnation of this game, I cannot see myself to use it without houserules. It's not truly your game until you have adapted it to your preferences. So, house rule away. If anything, the fifth edition seems a lot more adaptable than its WotC predecessors, which I consider to be its greatest strength so far.


Now, I don't have the PHB yet, so my ideas are solely based on the public pdf version, but my gut feelings say:  In the case of "fighters aren't badass enough", I would suggest something simple, like allowing fighters to take 2 instead of 1 path.
Also - or alternatively - reintroduce Weapon Specialisation, maybe in the classic way (+1 to attack, +2 to damage) as a bonus feature for fighters. I would also allow that one for Barbarians, Rangers and Paladins (maybe at later levels) to increase the difference between the more and less martially inclined classes.

I also think that Sneak Attacks do too little and are too easy to achieve as they are written right now (for my personal aesthetics, I'd like them to be more exclusive and challenging to pull of, so that their use becomes more rewarding), and I still think that the lack of a way to interrupt spellcasters during their casting process is a ghastly ommission that need to be fixed for me to truly enjoy the game. Everybody has their pet pieves, that's just normal. The interesting question is, what you are going to do about it.

Quote from: Beagle;778540With D&D, I had always the impression that the system has to address so many different playstyles and prefernces that the system just cannot provide all of these as many of these are contradicting each other.
That's what house rules are for, and, like with any other incarnation of this game, I cannot see myself to use it without houserules. It's not truly your game until you have adapted it to your preferences. So, house rule away. If anything, the fifth edition seems a lot more adaptable than its WotC predecessors, which I consider to be its greatest strength so far.
.

Oh, I agree.  Keep in mind my "complaints" are all really minor compared to the whole.  Sort of like complaining that you got a shell in your bowl of oatmeal.

Speaking of, I have another one

potions of healing.  I don't like rolling d4s unless I have to.  So why have a potion of healing 2d4+2 when you can just do 1d8+2?  I'd much rather roll the d8.  Greater potion of healing is the same way.