21
edits
Changes
no edit summary
:: I would rework a lot of the abilities; take out the stun from gravity hammer entirely for a start. Change how gravity well works (maybe just reduce speed to 0, save each round to end).
:: A lot of the fighter's power is in their class skeleton without taking into account their subclass. This is objectively better than any fighter subclass published in any of WotC's books, and thus got the tag. --[[User:Ghostwheel|Ghostwheel]] ([[User talk:Ghostwheel|talk]]) 15:18, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
:::'''On fighter damage:''' Real games are not like theoretical level 20 games. It was ridiculous to pull that card when people tried to use capstones for balance arguments in the mid 2000s, and it's ridiculous now. It's not disputed that fighters have ''strong'' single-target damage, but they are not the means by which to get "strongest single-target damage", particularly if they are gravity warriors. The actual path to high damage output involves building your character in certain ways, and the goal of the gravity warrior is to have strengths pushed orthogonal to those ways.
:::'''On stun:''' Monks don't need to spam stunning strike to get high value out of it, and usually don't want to hit their friends with their stun. The MAD argument & magic item arguments are sensible, but very different from what you brought up before. It's simply wrong to claim that stun is too strong since only monks get it. Monks get quite a bit of flexibility, safety, and power alongside their stun. The point of the gravity hammer is to avoid those, because you don't get to use it with your triple attack. Honestly, the stun on gravity hammer is what makes it useful at higher levels, because you would much rather put a Mummy Lord through the shredder than gamble on it spending its movement.
:::'''On reverse gravity:''' You can temporarily avoid an encounter like that, yes. You also risk removing allies (and yourself) from combat, and you stop your own team from getting to relevant objectives. You also do diddly squat in buildings with common ceiling heights, like most dungeon environments & indoor areas such as the [https://dnd.wizards.com/products/tabletop-games/rpg-products/waterdeep-dungeon-mad-mage|WotC adventures that involve level 18 play]. If your DM builds their encounters like normal, your fights aren't usually going to consist of a low-mobility monster manual entry that you get the jump on in an open space where nothing around it is important to you. This is particularly true at level 18.
:::'''On reworks:''' Reducing numbers and changing the status effect seem like tweaks that can I can do. However, I am going to reiterate that removing the stun from Gravity Hammer is very unnecessary, especially if it is moved into higher levels. I have also seen the damage be pretty middling compared to other party members and 3-attack routines, but I can nerf it if you need that.
:::While a lot of fighter power is indeed separate from its archetypes, those archetypes are still significant sources of power budget. They can give the fighter access to great defense, useful spells, and synergies that provide significant damage. Most importantly, they grant power through synergies with attacks. Archetypes that deviate from this direct synergy, like the Eldritch Knight, get more power on their own. The GWar follows this design pattern, and it additionally creates gameplay incentives that suck up power. Taking a high-level view of what makes the fighter strong should make it ''more'' clear that this not an upgrade over all other other WotC archetypes unless your DM is gifting you perfect situations. Hence my choice to contest the tag.
:::Here is another set of possible changes. I'll test them as well:
:::* Gravity Well:
:::** level 10 >> 15
:::** restrained >> speed of 0
:::* Gravity Hammer:
:::** damage 1d10/prof >> 1d10
:::* Gravity Hammer upgrade:
:::** level 15 >> 18
:::** damage 2d10/prof >> 2d10
:::* Pool size increase:
:::** 1 at level 7,10,15,18 >> 2 at level 10
:::This looks like it turns the gravity warrior into a weak middle-ground class given its lack of fighter synergies, but I can look for another playtesting opportunity for it. --[[User:YLM|YLM]] ([[User talk:YLM|talk]]) 22:01, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
