D&D 5E The Fighter Problem

[Sacrosanct]

Missed my posts about bless? Thres maybe 3 feats that overshadow the rest.

People focus on damage a bit to much I think blinds them to some interesting things. Paladins aura is a bit more subtle I suppose.

Bless is not a class feature. It's a spell. And wait for it...


....a spell a fighter can easily get by taking the magic initiate feat. Along with other benefits along with that spell that the feat provides. Ergo, that feat is more powerful than bless because it gives bless and more.

 

[mellored]

Because the Barbarian and Ranger have different stories from the Fighter. The Barbarian lacks professional training and simply fights on instinct. The Ranger is a hunter who is one with, or at least on good terms with, the magical forces of nature.

The Fighter, on the other hand, is a highly trained warrior, whether self trained or professionally trained. That's the area one would need to draw upon to add more flavor and story to the Fighter.

That's about the same difference as the monks sub-classes, or paladin sub-classes have.


What I though would work best is a fighter class based on the Mystic chassis (without psi-points).

 

[Chaosmancer]

So, I'm curious if the UA fighters change this discussion at all.

For example, I'm playing a Half-Orc Samurai with a Greatsword. With my Fighting Spirit resistance and Heavy Armor Master DR (Sage advice said it was resistance then subtract DR) I'm incredibly hard to hurt for 3 turns of a fight. Followed up by second wind. With greatsword and Great Weapon fighting I deal a significant amount of damage, and my Fighting Spirit gives me advantage on about 4 rounds of combat. On out of combat stuff, we don't roll very often (DM accepts good roleplay in a lot of situations dealing with interpersonal stuff) but I don't feel like I lack.

Looking at the other UAs, both the Arcane Archer and the Knight also offered something unique, that other classes really can't replicate.

However, I have often heard, and am beginning to agree with, the idea that High Level Fighters don't match the fantasy. I'm only level 8 right now, but looking at the future I don't have a lot that isn't just more of what I've been doing. I'll get more attacks, more uses of Action Surge (not more uses of Second Wind which is odd) more uses of Indomitable, and there is this place where High Level Fighters should be more mythic in stature. Perhaps a reputation system added in or some sort of crazy semi-magic ability. I don't know, but while the Barbarian gets giant strength and the paladin becomes an angel, the fighter just doesn't hit that mythic mark for me.


I will say though, when comparing the classes we need to acknowledge that the fighter generally has higher AC than the Barbarian and Ranger, and higher HP than the Ranger as well.

To get the equivalent of Plate Mail the Barbarian needs a +8 between Dex and Con, which is hard to achieve for a class focused entirely on Strength. In general, I find barbarians better off wearing Medium armor and keeping their Dex low, at least until higher levels.

Ranger needs Medium Armor master or Heavily armored and high strength to get the same AC as the Fighter. And Honestly, I think Medium Armor Master is almost a must have for rangers anyways.


The top of the Pyramid is the Paladin though. I think the Paladin is a more powerful class, not by much, but it is there. That's fine by me, it isn't a big enough gap to worry about for the most part, IMO and IME but it is there.

But, one interesting thing is that the fighter is invariably the most versatile warrior class. Dex fighter, Ranged Fighter, GW Fighter, Sword and Board Tank Fighter. All viable. And, it isn't that hard to switch between, in fact, I think that is the greatest strength of the Champion's two style ability, they can switch to a better fit for the fight at hand.

Do you think you'll see a viable ranged Paladin or Barbarian? I seriously doubt it. A melee ranger is possible, but they are actually out shined by the Fighter I think and better suited for Ranged combat. It is an understated strength that the class can handle so many different builds without strain, though it does leave them lacking in the particular niches of the others.

 

[ccs]

People focus on damage a bit to much I think blinds them to some interesting things.

This is true.

Part of the reason why is the nature & premise of this particular game. Since that premise is largely fighting monsters, if you're playing D&D, then odds are real good there'll be fights.
And those fights are generally won by dealing damage....
I wouldn't change this at all. It's D&D. It's why we play D&D.

Another part of the reason is the players themselves. Let's be honest, whatever your preferred edition of this game, we've ALL tried to make the most efficient/broken/OP/combos of stuff available to us at some point or other. Usually right when we start playing. And after that often right when a new edition launches. Or when some significant update arrives. Because trying out the newest biggest baddest combo of whatever is fun.

And finally we can blame the DMs. If the DMs idea of an adventure /campaign is just throwing a continuous stream of ever bigger monsters at the party, then you'll see the players concentrate on the combat centric options. Mostly +s To Hit, +s to damage, +s on defense.
If you want that to change? Change how you DM. MAKE non-combat/non-damage dealing portions of your games important. Make it so that taking other skills/feats/spells whatever is a reasonable choice.

The only cure for this evolving as players & DMs. Eventually you realize that you can add other stuff into your play & still have cool fights. And (as a player) that winning those cool fights doesn't mandate that you spend every available resource on the next + to hit/damage/defense (not even in 3x/PF).
But this takes time. Often at least a few years. More, maybe even many more, for some players/DMs....

 

[The Crimson Binome]

To get the equivalent of Plate Mail the Barbarian needs a +8 between Dex and Con, which is hard to achieve for a class focused entirely on Strength. In general, I find barbarians better off wearing Medium armor and keeping their Dex low, at least until higher levels.

If you want to compare survivability, then you need to factor the barbarian's resistance into the equation, which tends to compensate for the lower AC; even if the barbarian is getting hit twice as often as the fighter, the barbarian has more than twice as many effective HP, so they stay in the fight just as long. And where an enemy can use clever tactics to gain advantage against the fighter, that's a non-factor against the barbarian, since attacks against the barbarian are already made with advantage.

The higher AC is only a significant benefit to the fighter when making a comparison against a barbarian who isn't raging.

 

[Zardnaar]

Ironically my next PC concept is a dual wielding halfling fighter with weapon specialization.

 

[Quickleaf]

It's very likely we'll end up agreeing to disagree, but I'll try to answer your remarks.

To me, these comments are what's interesting to consider about the Fighter.

What about it is unique?

A quick scan of it's class features (or the other 97 pages of this thread) answers that.

Fighting Style isn't unique.
Second Wind isn't entirely unique (as self-healing is built into the Way of the Open Hand Monk's Wholeness of Body & the Paladin's Lay on Hands).
Extra Attack isn't entirely unique (as the Fighter just gets more at higher levels compared to Barbarian, Ranger, Paladin, and several other subclasses).
Indomitable also isn't entirely unique (when compared to the Paladin's Aura of Protection).
Having more feats is a cool feature, but it doesn't provide unique identity.

So what does that leave? Action Surge.

That was my point – that the entirety of the 5e Fighter's unique identity really rests on Action Surge.

What stories do its subclasses tell?

As many as your imagination can supply. Part of this is your backstory, the rest happens during play. So I don't really see how the book alone could ever answer your question.

You're misinterpreting me, or I was being unclear. By "stories" I meant unique identity. I was agreeing with Mike Mearls' sentiment on the TomeShow that the Fighter's subclasses lack the unique identity that other classes' sub-classes possess.

For example, a Rogue (Thief) breaks in and steals, while a Wizard (Diviner) foresees the future. And a Fighter (Champion)...uh... Well, a Fighter (Battle Master)...he...hmmm...

What does the fighter do when not swinging a blade or shooting a bow?

Well that's a bit vague. Are you talking about within an encounter? While exploring? While in some social situation? Overall, in the big picture, during downtime? What?
In general I guess my answer would default to skill/tool checks. Wich is what everybody else does when not fighting....
If this is related to the stories each sub-class tells then that's up to the playerto determine.

If you compare class features of the Fighter to, for example, the Ranger...you'll see the Ranger has several more class features which pertain to non-combat situations. And it's not just the Ranger. The Barbarian and Paladin also have more non-combat oriented class features than the Fighter.

Now, when I bring this up, people often say "well, it's called the Fighter for a reason, dummy, it's supposed to JUST FIGHT." And my response to that is: "Oh good grief, this is going nowhere."

 

[Iosue]

The thing I love about the fighter is the versatility. I can go full defender: pump STR and CON, wear plate and shield, wade in, and tie up the enemy. I can go full striker: great weapon fighting style, great sword, and hit hard and often. I can go the melee route, or I can go ranged. I can go with STR, or I can pump DEX and go ranged/dual-wielding. I can even be a jack-of-all trades, and do a little of everything. I can max out two stats, or I can go with feats up the wazoo. I can go full-mundane or add some magic with the Eldritch Knight. I can go simple with the champion, or complex with the battlemaster. I can use Action Surge to double my attacks, or I can use it to increase my movement, or do some other action.

I suppose you could say that by doing everything well, the fighter doesn't dominate in any one area. The Paladin can spike more melee damage. The Ranger or the Rogue might spike more ranged damage. A raging Barbarian might be a more durable defender. But I'm willing to give up some of that extreme specialization for the fighter's versatility, and I see it as a feature, not a bug.

 

[Horwath]

Only one that is a little lagging is Champion.

As it is built as a "simper" version of fighter, all he needs is a small simple bump.

+1 HP per fighter level is just about right.


If DM allows short rest every 2 envounters and streches the day to 6-8 encounters(avoiding 5MWD) then Battlemaster should be in A1 condition throughout the day.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Fighter is very good number wise. And you van build your own story. And you do your thing very well. The fighter has the same problem as other classes: 2 years later we know more about the game and a revised edition could add some ribbon featurrs to subclasses to balance them better. Some numbers could be tweaked.
Actually you could add optional features in an expansion which only single classed characters may get.