D&D 5E The Fighter Problem

Over the years 5E has been out there have been a few complaints about the fighter sucking usually the champion. I am also not a fan of the Eldritch Knight either while the Battlemaster is the best one IMHO. While I do not think the fighter is bad as such I do think it has a few issues. I will examine a few of those issues here.

1. Failure to meet expectations.

Its kind of in the name. Fighter it implies that you are good at fighting. 5E also has this problem with the various gish builds such as Valor Bards, the SCAG Bladedancer, Pact of the Blade and Eldritch Knight options. The main problem is though the fighter is not actually that good at fighting compared with the Paladin, Ranger and Barbarian. Unlike those classes it also gives up a lot to get what abilities it does have. Paladins in effect are proficient in every save at level 6 and grant that bonus to nearby allies, Rangers have out of combat abilities and Barbarians can generally tank damage and deal a lot of damage as well.

2. The Other Warrior Types Out Damage it. And Out Utility it.
At least for the 1st 10/20 levels of the game. In addition to the other warrior types having out of combat abilities they are also better than the fighter in combat as they are matching spells+class abilities up against action surge. All Rangers and Avenger Paladins for example get hunters mark which in effect is an extra 1d6 points of damage. Hunter Rangers also get either an extra 1d8 points of damage or an extra attack. Sure the damage is situational but its very easy situation to trigger and Hunters also get volley later on. Extra attacks+ the sharpshooter feat may also be good or so I hear. And Barbarians get that whole advantage to hit thing and proficiency bonus to damage via rage and most of the warrior types also get a combat style. All Paladins can also smite and the Oath of the Ancients gets some AoE spells and one of the best auras in the game.

3. To Many Key Fighter Abilities Arrive late.

The fighter in theory will eventually out damage the other classes as they get a 3rd and 4th attack at level 11 and 20. I practice this means you get a 3rd attack, the 4th attack may as well be tales from la la land or a myth and legend due to how many level 20 games you will actually see. Extra uses of action sure and indomitable also come late along with the Eldritch Knight spell patter (level 15 for level 3 spells). Second Wind also scales poorly at the higher levels (well actually from level 2 or 3). Since I suspect most players do not see level 11+ games that often they never see the fighter in their element. Even if they do play higher level games at best the fighter is gimped for 50% of its career and more likely 66.6% of the time if you finish up at level 15. Once again how many level 20 games are you actually going to see. Indomitable is also a piss poor thing with the traditional AD&D/BECMI fighter with good saves at higher level being replaced with a limited amount of rerolls. The fighter does get 2 more feats than everyone else (more likely 1 in the real world) but you can only take resilient once and their are arguments about it being a feat tax anyway. Even in 5E some classes get an extra save option (transmuter), proficiency in all saves (Monk), and virtual Proficiency in all saves (Paladin). Indomitable should just be pick a new save proficiency IMHO.

4. Class is Front Loaded.

In 5E medium armor kind of sucks with the default array. A single level of fighter gets you proficiency in con and strength saves, martial weapons, a combat style and heavy armour proficiency as the main appeal, you also get second wind. Con saves are important for a spellcaster and strength saves are fairly common out of the 3 weaker saves (str, con, dex). To be a better valor bard, blade lock, some cleric builds, and arguably Ranger (melee builds) and Paladin start your career as a fighter. Proficiency in con saves is massive for gish builds especially ones planning on entering melee. Its also good for dex based Rogues for some builds or strength based Rogues tanking around in heavy armor using a rapier+ shield+shieldmaster+expertise in athletics and dual wielding Rogues. Rangers and Paladins can have 2 weapon styles by level 3 and are proficient in con saves for hunters mark. Fighter saves good, Rogue saves more or less the worst in game also Druids and Wizards might want to have a word about that.

So there you have it. If you want to be a good archer player a hunter ranger, if you want to tank and deal good damage be a barbarian, if you want a gish play a Paladin or MC the fighter. A well built battlemaster is decent in the right party (read Rogue or sharpshooter player in the group). Only play a fighter if you start at level 11+ or if you know the game is going to high levels and you have a realistic chance to reach those levels and play to level 15 at least. Action surge is cute/great but its not really enough vs the other options. Can you have fun playing a fighter absolutely but I can also have fun with Toast the RPG where the goal is to play as a piece of toast and aim for various spreads. Mechanically the fighter is outclassed for half its career and probably all or most of it in the real world.

If we assume the default array:
Paladins need to have a good strength and charisma in order to qualify for your 'proficient in all saves'.
Barbarians need to have a good strength and dex (and will then be using medium armor, which you claim sucks! I disagree btw) in order to match the fighter's typical damage soaking capabilities. Twice per day they can then boost their damage soak with rage and their damage dealt. All day they can use reckless attack to boost their damage dealt at the cost of taking more damage. They lack a fighting style, which is typically fairly close to their rage bonus.
Rangers can get away with only a good dex, and once again are in medium armor.

Fighters can pick either dex or str, and only need that one stat, leaving them able to have higher con than anyone other than a ranger who dumps wisdom, while also having good AC. All day they've got a weapon style going (which means they outstrip a barbarian unless he's raging in every fight, at which point they're action surging every fight). Second wind and action surge each short rest is pretty good: action surge can easily equal or beat smite damage or hunter's mark + giant slayer in all but the longest fight, OR you can use it for other, potentially better, things. Second wind beats lay on hands in raw numbers up to about level 3... and even past that, it's a bonus action to use, so it's competing with fairly limited abilities. It out-paces scaled-up healing word, for instance.

Since their big draw is that third attack and the bonus feats, they're not really front-loaded when compared with any of the other classes you are listing.

That said, I do feel that they are lacking in out-of-combat ability when compared with some other classes that are filling a similar niche (rogues and rangers). But fighting? They're on-par to excellent.

Zardnaar said:

1. Failure to meet expectations.

Its kind of in the name. Fighter it implies that you are good at fighting. 5E also has this problem with the various gish builds such as Valor Bards, the SCAG Bladedancer, Pact of the Blade and Eldritch Knight options. The main problem is though the fighter is not actually that good at fighting compared with the Paladin, Ranger and Barbarian. Unlike those classes it also gives up a lot to get what abilities it does have. Paladins in effect are proficient in every save at level 6 and grant that bonus to nearby allies, Rangers have out of combat abilities and Barbarians can generally tank damage and deal a lot of damage as well.

Click to expand...

The Fighter is perfectly fine at fighting, and in some cases flat out better than the Paladin, Ranger, and Barbarian. If you are using Feats, as many games do, the Fighter consistently outshines the other warrior classes (which should probably include Monk, btw), since they can take excellent Feats AND get their primary and secondary ability scores quite high. Barbarians rely on the Rage, which they are limited to per day and have some annoying clauses that can cause it to end early. Ranger is overall a weak class, as noted by the fact that they've put out several UA alternates. Paladin is admittedly quite strong (probably a carryover from the good old days), but a huge amount of their damage is provided by smites, which are a limited resource. The Fighter has a couple of short rest recovery abilities, but is otherwise able to go all day long.

Zardnaar said:

2. The Other Warrior Types Out Damage it. And Out Utility it.
At least for the 1st 10/20 levels of the game. In addition to the other warrior types having out of combat abilities they are also better than the fighter in combat as they are matching spells+class abilities up against action surge. All Rangers and Avenger Paladins for example get hunters mark which in effect is an extra 1d6 points of damage. Hunter Rangers also get either an extra 1d8 points of damage or an extra attack. Sure the damage is situational but its very easy situation to trigger and Hunters also get volley later on. Extra attacks+ the sharpshooter feat may also be good or so I hear. And Barbarians get that whole advantage to hit thing and proficiency bonus to damage via rage and most of the warrior types also get a combat style. All Paladins can also smite and the Oath of the Ancients gets some AoE spells and one of the best auras in the game.

Click to expand...

Again, if Feats are allowed, they can out-utility any of the other classes by taking Feats. Yes the other classes can take Feats, but they come at the cost of raising their ability scores, and the Fighter really only needs 1 (other than Con, and all warrior classes need that). The Paladin needs Cha, the Ranger needs Wis for their spells and several abilities, and the Barbarian needs at least SOME Dex. Additionally, the Fighter is versatile, as they have access to all types of armors, weapons and fighting styles. Admittedly the popular style (great weapon fighting) is available to all (except maybe Ranger... I don't remember), but there is no Archery or Two Weapon Fighting Paladin, nor any Archery or Finesse Barbarians.

Zardnaar said:

3. To Many Key Fighter Abilities Arrive late.

The fighter in theory will eventually out damage the other classes as they get a 3rd and 4th attack at level 11 and 20. I practice this means you get a 3rd attack, the 4th attack may as well be tales from la la land or a myth and legend due to how many level 20 games you will actually see. Extra uses of action sure and indomitable also come late along with the Eldritch Knight spell patter (level 15 for level 3 spells). Second Wind also scales poorly at the higher levels (well actually from level 2 or 3). Since I suspect most players do not see level 11+ games that often they never see the fighter in their element. Even if they do play higher level games at best the fighter is gimped for 50% of its career and more likely 66.6% of the time if you finish up at level 15. Once again how many level 20 games are you actually going to see. Indomitable is also a piss poor thing with the traditional AD&D/BECMI fighter with good saves at higher level being replaced with a limited amount of rerolls. The fighter does get 2 more feats than everyone else (more likely 1 in the real world) but you can only take resilient once and their are arguments about it being a feat tax anyway. Even in 5E some classes get an extra save option (transmuter), proficiency in all saves (Monk), and virtual Proficiency in all saves (Paladin). Indomitable should just be pick a new save proficiency IMHO.

Click to expand...

Getting Extra ASI is a primary thing of the Fighter, and they start that at level 6. Not super early, I'll admit, but not that late either. The other class abilities are generic candy, because the Fighter class is designed to be used in far too many ways for any specific abilities to be appropriate (they're in the Sub-classes).

Zardnaar said:

4. Class is Front Loaded.

In 5E medium armor kind of sucks with the default array. A single level of fighter gets you proficiency in con and strength saves, martial weapons, a combat style and heavy armour proficiency as the main appeal, you also get second wind. Con saves are important for a spellcaster and strength saves are fairly common out of the 3 weaker saves (str, con, dex). To be a better valor bard, blade lock, some cleric builds, and arguably Ranger (melee builds) and Paladin start your career as a fighter. Proficiency in con saves is massive for gish builds especially ones planning on entering melee. Its also good for dex based Rogues for some builds or strength based Rogues tanking around in heavy armor using a rapier+ shield+shieldmaster+expertise in athletics and dual wielding Rogues. Rangers and Paladins can have 2 weapon styles by level 3 and are proficient in con saves for hunters mark. Fighter saves good, Rogue saves more or less the worst in game also Druids and Wizards might want to have a word about that.

Click to expand...

I will admit that multi-classing has issues, but this is true of several classes (especially classes that get their Sub-class at level 1). Oddly, I find more people take a second level of fighter for Action Surge (which is generally far more powerful for other classes than Fighter), whereas other mutli-classing is just a single level "dip".

Zardnaar said:

So there you have it. If you want to be a good archer player a hunter ranger, if you want to tank and deal good damage be a barbarian, if you want a gish play a Paladin or MC the fighter. A well built battlemaster is decent in the right party (read Rogue or sharpshooter player in the group). Only play a fighter if you start at level 11+ or if you know the game is going to high levels and you have a realistic chance to reach those levels and play to level 15 at least. Action surge is cute/great but its not really enough vs the other options. Can you have fun playing a fighter absolutely but I can also have fun with Toast the RPG where the goal is to play as a piece of toast and aim for various spreads. Mechanically the fighter is outclassed for half its career and probably all or most of it in the real world.

Click to expand...

Your opinion of the fighter is noted. While I'm not a fan of the fighter (actually, I've never been a bit fan of the fighter, or warriors in general), I think that the 5E fighter is probably the most solidly built class in the game. I would rather have seen it done differently (I LOVED the Martial Dice from the 2nd packet of the playtest, which was the ancestor of the Battlemaster), but it was done in a way to make for a simple, yet strong class. The only time that I will agree that a fighter is weak is in a game without Feats; the extra ASI become irrelevant pretty quickly once you have a 20 Str and high Con.

The fighter is fine.
The class is distinct and does its thing and it does it well and simply, all while breaking new ground in what the class does and should do. 5e didn't just do the classic fighter things (feats, more attacks) but added new iconic powers to the fighter. Which is damn hard, Action Surge is simple but powerful and also allows the fighter to hold their own.

Are they potentially not as good as some of the other classes? Maybe. But that's a moot point as you don't get a fighter and a barbarian and a paladin and a ranger all at the same table at the same time. Let alone played with equal skill and equally hot dice. It doesn't matter if another character would/could be better than a fighter, because that other character isn't in play. It's a theoretical problem, and not one that actual affects gameplay at the table. Which makes it infinitely less pressing than any other problem that has an actual impact on table quality of life.

Realistically, there is always going to be a last place. And if the worst thing about the fighter is that it isn't outright better than the other classes, that's not a bad thing. It's not broken... the horror.
But even that's debatable. There's been a lot of charts that show the fighter able to hold their own in expected DPR. Especially when their cool things recharge after short rests.

I guess I just don't see the point of being negative. It's a fighter that doesn't become a caddy after level 10. That's a win right there. People like playing it. It's a flexible class equally adept as a sword-and-board, swashbuckler, archer, of great weapon weilder.
The game isn't perfect, but no game ever will. Chess isn't perfect and 1000 years was spent tweaking and refining the game.

Lets assume battle master:
As long as short rests are taken, the fighter will easily be the best at fighting.
A well placed action surge after a successful trip attack may end the combat right there.
Second wind will make sure you have always a few hp left to fight. Assuming 2 shor rest will give you 3/5 of the healing potential of the paladin +3d10 extra hp all at a bonus action. So you need to solve the equation: 3x+15 = 5x and you find that until level 7 you actually heal more hp than the paladin.
The paladin aura of course is a big thing, but you need 4 good stats to really shine as paladin. Str. Con. Cha and even wis. If you assume 16 str and 14 con and 14 cha that leaves only a 12 for wisdom. If you dump it you may have 16 charisma.
A fighter can have 16Str. 14Con and 14 Wisdom and has a 12 left for dexterity if he likes. So if you point buy, the paladin does not have that much better saves and is lacking important stats.
Smite really shines at later levels. As half caster it is not before level 9 that you get 3rd level spells. Before that you have 7 spell slots for a total of 15d8 damage over the course if the day. A battlemaster at level 8 has exactly the same amount of dice over the day with additional benefits. So in my books at level 8 both are quite equal. After that the paladin may actually come ahead a bit due to 3rd level spells and improved smite. But then action surge will also give you a solid damage boost at level 3 and magic weapons are better utilized by the fighter.
All in all I would call both pretty equal in combat prowess.

EK is best fighterz. No seriously, drugs are bad. Except weed.

I agree with those who disagree with OP...

I have nothing to contribute to the debate of the mechanical aspects, as those are covered above and details will vary depending on the DM, campaign, the players, etc. But I can definitely say that in my experience of actually playing 5e with friends around a table, as a DM from the very beginning who has almost always had a Fighter in the group as well as other "martial" classes, and as a player (currently playing a Fighter, Eldritch Knight FWIW but we also have a different Fighter as well as a Paladin)...

The Fighter stacks up VERY well in 5e, with or without "min-max" type players.

We have always started our campaigns at 1st level, and have run to 20th in one and to around 10th in many others. The Fighter has never felt under-powered, or shadowed by other classes. That's my experience as someone who chose to play a Fighter from 1st level in "Out of the Abyss", and also my experience DMing a group of 4-5 players in many campaigns now.

In other editions, especially 3.x, that was definitely not the case especially at higher levels Fighters got left behind, but 5e has fixed that problem, and Fighters are fun and valuable party members - some would in fact argue they are over-powered but that really depends on who's running what...

UngeheuerLich said:

Lets assume battle master:
As long as short rests are taken, the fighter will easily be the best at fighting.
A well placed action surge after a successful trip attack may end the combat right there.
Second wind will make sure you have always a few hp left to fight. Assuming 2 shor rest will give you 3/5 of the healing potential of the paladin +3d10 extra hp all at a bonus action. So you need to solve the equation: 3x+15 = 5x and you find that until level 7 you actually heal more hp than the paladin.
The paladin aura of course is a big thing, but you need 4 good stats to really shine as paladin. Str. Con. Cha and even wis. If you assume 16 str and 14 con and 14 cha that leaves only a 12 for wisdom. If you dump it you may have 16 charisma.
A fighter can have 16Str. 14Con and 14 Wisdom and has a 12 left for dexterity if he likes. So if you point buy, the paladin does not have that much better saves and is lacking important stats.
Smite really shines at later levels. As half caster it is not before level 9 that you get 3rd level spells. Before that you have 7 spell slots for a total of 15d8 damage over the course if the day. A battlemaster at level 8 has exactly the same amount of dice over the day with additional benefits. So in my books at level 8 both are quite equal. After that the paladin may actually come ahead a bit due to 3rd level spells and improved smite. But then action surge will also give you a solid damage boost at level 3 and magic weapons are better utilized by the fighter.
All in all I would call both pretty equal in combat prowess.

Click to expand...

BM is fine, its the other 2.

Wait, how can a Fighter be front loaded and have too many key abilities arriving late?

MichaelSomething said:

Wait, how can a Fighter be front loaded and have too many key abilities arriving late?

Click to expand...

He is lacking them in the middle...

Sent from my GT-I9506 using EN World mobile app