Late to the party with 130 posts already in the thread but the first reply is exactly what I would have written.
The Fighter:Scout is a great subclass and provides an interesting use for superiority dice.
D&D 5E yes, this again: Fighters need more non-combat options
Late to the party with 130 posts already in the thread but the first reply is exactly what I would have written.
The Fighter:Scout is a great subclass and provides an interesting use for superiority dice.
Quickleaf
Legend
I'd like to reply to this. I fall into the "Fighter is deficient" perspective (though "deficient" is a word I'd avoid because it's vague), however I do not fit that typification – I don't think skill checks are necessary to have fun, I actively DM toward quality of rolls rather than quantity, and I believe creativity trumps rolling dice.
My perspective is that in modern D&D there's a problem (specifically, something missing) at the concept level of the Fighter class. In older editions, Fighters were explicitly tied to an evolution into "lords" and "barons", with armies and tax revenues. IME this had the effect of driving Fighter PCs to (sooner or later) engage with affairs of state, interact with noble houses, and lead soldiers into battle. It wasn't just an oddity that kicked in at 9th level, but a lens through which the player was encouraged to interact with elements of the campaign world, just as "Rogue" offered its own lens into the campaign world with Thieves' Cant, associating with shady characters, and always looking for the treasure. Yes, the Rogue has Expertise for high skill rolls, but the strong identity imbued in the Rogue's concept doesn't depend on that – it comes from that lens the Rogue class offers players into the worlds of D&D.
As play moved away from the strongholds & followers side of things, that part of the Fighter was understandably dropped. However, that removal affected the Fighter more than other classes because Fighters were so iconically tied to the feudal government (that was an assumed part of D&D settings of the era). Nothing was created to fill that void. This left the Fighter's concept as "person who excels at fighting", which really isn't saying anything since Barbarians, Monks, Paladins, Rangers and Rogues also are very good fighting. Even the 5e PHB doesn't really give you a definition of "Fighter", instead resorting to language like:
[SECTION]All of these heroes are fighters, perhaps the most diverse class of characters in the worlds of Dungeons & Dragons. Questing knights, conquering overlords, royal champions, elite foot soldiers, hardened mercenaries, and bandit kings—as fighters, they all share an unparalleled mastery with weapons and armor, and a thorough knowledge of the skills of combat. And they are well acquainted with death, both meting it out and staring it defiantly in the face.[/SECTION]
In other words, reiterating "a Fighter fights."
The Fighter is displaced from any culture. A Druid knows Druidic, a secret language, and comes from a circle of like-minded nature-worshippers. A Sorcerer can trace their bloodline (or magical event) to some aspect of the world, as can a Warlock with their otherworldly patron. A Barbarian likely has a tribe, a Rogue also knows a secret language connecting him/her with shady characters in the setting's underbelly, and so on for every other class. But this is no longer true for the Fighter. Its concept lives within the confines of initiative.
This is why, back in my old thread, I encouraged a shift in thought – when hearing the name "Fighter", for players and DMs to think "Warrior." Why? Because a warrior implies someone who is familiar with conflict at a much longer scale than "roll initiative", someone who understands the movement and disposition of military forces, who understands how to negotiate for access to resources with varied factions, to bind wounds, to know whether so-and-so marches under the Duke's banner or a mercenary banner, someone who has something to fight for and defend, perhaps even has a whole philosophy pertaining to how they engage in conflict, etc. Warriors imply a place within a culture, specifically that the PC hails from a culture with a warrior caste/class.
For me personally, that's where the real issue lies. At the concept level.
EDIT: I've noticed very few single-class fighters playing & DMing 5e, compared to other classes which I've seen many single-classed PCs. My hunch is this phenomenon has to do with many players wanting identity & a lens providing connection to the world to be part of their PC, and that they often look to the character classes to supply that. Not finding it in the Fighter, they then multi-class. Or, worse, they "dip" into Fighter for a mechanical benefit.
Last edited:
G
Guest 6801328
Guest
This is one of the more thoughtful posts I've seen on the "Fighters are meh" side of things. Although I'm not persuaded giving the 5e Fighter more mechanics addresses your concern, I do think those are valid observations.
Perhaps one issue is that the flavor of the Fighter gets pushed to the subclasses more than most of the other classes, and the Champion...as the 'default' Fighter subclass (and the one I suspect most people in this thread have in mind)...is particularly flavorless.
That's actually one of the beefs I do I have with the Fighter: a "Champion" is supposed to be a ruler's single most deadly and feared warrior, but the Champion subclass has...a slightly expanded critical range? (sad trumpet sound) The UA Brute is closer to what the Champion should have been.
I still like playing Champions mechanically, it just irks me they don't feel more Champion-like. And if they *did* feel more Champion-like...if playing one really felt like playing Gregor Clegane...I wonder if that would provide the flavor you are missing.
Maybe if the base class were toned down a bit, and there were more sub-class features coming on line below level 10, the subclasses would feel more differentiated.
Last edited by a moderator:
Hussar
Legend
Well, we're now about twelve pages into the thread and every single page has included multiple posts telling me that the problem doesn't actually exist and that no fix is needed.
In what way is this helping me? And it's not like this is the first time. EVERY time this topic comes up, it gets buried under pages and pages of all and sundry loudly proclaiming how the problem isn't really there and we should all go away and shut up and play fighters quietly and happily.
IOW, perhaps if folks would spend just a tad less time telling me how they don't have this problem and either helping me find a solution or moving on to another thread, THAT would be just a smidgeon more helpful. Instead of page after page after page of thinly (and not so thinly) veiled insults and filibuster.
Good grief, you'd think we were asking for damage on a miss.
doctorbadwolf
Heretic of The Seventh Circle
This is an excellent post, and wholly encapsulates the problem with the PHB Fighter especially. Later subclasses bring in some real flavor, and I'm here for it, but the BM and Champion just...don't. The BM almost does, with the ability to really round out a fighting style beyond your Fighting Style, and getting an extra tool, but it's still...bland. Mechanicaly sound, but my greatest interest in it is to make a better Swashbuckler by taking 3 levels of Figther on my Rogue, or to recreate my friend's Warlord using it and Lore Bard (luckily he had MC'd Bard in 4e, and taken Ritual Caster, and the Bard has a ton of spells that can be reflavored as mundane inspirational effects, demoralisation of enemies, etc). The other subclasses tend to have a strong ID, and use mechanics to support the narrative.
I think that would help. I also think there was room to just give the Fighter half proficiency on all tool use checks, or something, too, but bigger subclasses would definitely help.
Quickleaf
Legend
Ideally, the mechanics and narrative concept fully embrace and reinforce one another. In my humble opinion, the 5e Rogue class does a particularly good job of this, whereas the 5e Fighter and Sorcerer do mediocre jobs.
Yeah, absolutely, I think that's a valid critique of how the Fighter subclasses were handled. If it really is the "most diverse class", then moving that narrative/concept/identity to the subclass totally makes sense. Another possibility would be to have narrative/concept/identity in both the core class and the subclasses; for example, Rogue (Assassin) does this well. The issue with the Fighter – perhaps somewhat lessened thanks to Xanathar's new subclasses – is that neither the core class nor the original subclasses offer narrative/concept/identity.
Mistwell
Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
You're not the OP, and the OP is talking about two topics you've barely touched on and don't seem to want to discuss. Why are you trying to take over the thread to discuss your needs when they don't even seem to match the needs of the guy who started the thread, who was asking about two specific abilities being combined into the core base class?
doctorbadwolf
Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Well, the OP is asking about more than that. That was just their example solution.
Mistwell
Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
Is it? Does this sound like what you and Hussar are saying? "I know what the replies will be: use your background skills, role-play your character, you can skill use skills you aren't proficient in, etc. I get it, I really do. And I don't disagree."
I think the OP's ideas are sound...and are very little like the things you guys seem to be advocating. His ideas are a fairly modest change using the existing Fighter mechanics found in some sub-classes and moving them to the core classes. The nature of his idea seems very less radical than what you guys seem to be advocating.
