D&D 5E Building a better Fighter

[Pauln6]

While you are correct the Paladin would most likely use lower level spell slots on low hp creatures and higher level spell slots on high hp creatures. So in the end I think it about evens out in regards to excess damage, maybe with a slight nod to the Fighter.

It does vary depending on whether you are fighting lots of minions (fighters and area effect spells inflict more damage) or big bads (high damage one-shots like smites and single target daily spells do better.

I can't speak about single classed fighters because the fighters in my group both multi-classed at 5th and 2nd level but I will say that the (bow) ranger and (trickster) cleric came out as lower damage than the Fighter/ranger/barbarian and fighter/rogue/warlock in the tests I did but there really wasn't a lot in it once you only counted the damage that mattered.

 

[Quickleaf]

You are correct that I am operating from the premise that the PHB Fighter is weaker than other classes. About half of the fighter's damage over the course of a day comes from the core class while the rest needs to come from the subclass.

For a 20th level Fighter the damage from action surge come to 129.6 damage over the course of an adventuring day.

For a 20th level Battle Master only using riposte (the most damaging maneuver) it comes to 172.5 damage over the course of an adventuring day. (or 136.5 if you use other maneuvers that give you the bonus damage)

For a 20th level Champion, Superior Critical with a great sword or maul is only dealing 16.8 damage over the course of the 24 attacks that the Battle Master had to make to use up an entire day's worth of resources. At most if you had advantage on every single attack you would reach 33.6 damage.

Now from this we can see that the Champion is severely under-powered compared to the Battle Master.

However if we compare the Fighter to the Paladin we can see that the Fighter/Battle Master is still under-powered.

If a 20th Paladin uses every spell slot to smite on every successful hit he will do 310.5 damage over 15 attacks.

Compare the daily damage of 302.1 damage of the fighter using riposte on every superiority die (which is pretty close) or 266.1 damage for using another maneuver that deals the superiority die in damage. For each maneuver you use that does not deal damage it reduces your damage even further.

We can then sadly compare the Champion fighters 163.2 damage when he has advantage on every attack.

This doesn't even include all of the other features the Paladin gets like lay on hands, auras, divine health, and the Oath abilities.

So yes I think the Fighter needs some love. He isn't even the best at fighting.

[SBLOCK=Maths]

---

Math

All calculations made against a Hobgoblin with AC 18

Improved Divine Smite vs 2nd Extra Attack
11th level Paladin vs 11th level Fighter
Both with a +9 Attack Bonus
.45(2d6+5+1d8)+.45(2d6+5+1d8) = 14.85 vs 16.2 = .45(2d6+5)+.45(2d6)+5+.45(2d6+5)

Paladin Divine Smite damage per day
3 3 (2d8)*3 = 27 damage from 3 attacks
5 4 2 (2d8)*4+(3d8)*2 = 36+27 = 63 damage from 6 attacks
7 4 3 (2d8)*4+(3d8)*3 = 36+40.5 = 76.5 damage from 7 attacks
9 4 3 2 (2d8)*4+(3d8)*3+(4d8)*2 = 36+40.5+68 = 144.5 damage from 9 attacks
11 4 3 3 (3d8)*4+(4d8)*3+(5d8)*3 = 54+54+67.5 = 175.5 damage from 10 attacks
13 4 3 3 1 (3d8)*4+(4d8)*3+(5d8)*3+(6d8) = 54+54+67.5+27 = 202.5 damage from 11 attacks
15 4 3 3 2 (3d8)*4+(4d8)*3+(5d8)*3+(6d8)*2 = 54+54+67.5+54 = 229.5 damage from 12 attacks
17 4 3 3 3 1 (3d8)*4+(4d8)*3+(5d8)*3+(6d8)*3+(6d8) = 54+54+67.5+81+27 = 283.5 damage from 14 attacks
19 4 3 3 3 2 (3d8)*4+(4d8)*3+(5d8)*3+(6d8)*3+(6d8)*2 = 54+54+67.5+81+54 = 310.5 damage from 15 attacks
20 4 3 3 3 2 (3d8)*4+(4d8)*3+(5d8)*3+(6d8)*3+(6d8)*2 = 54+54+67.5+81+54 = 310.5 damage from 15 attacks

Action Surge Damage over a 3 short rest day
3 .45(2d6+3)*3 = 13.5 damage from 3 Attacks over 3 rounds
5 .45(2d6+4)*6 = 29.7 damage from 6 Attacks over 3 rounds
7 .45(2d6+5)*6 = 32.4 damage from 6 Attacks over 3 rounds
9 .45(2d6+5)*6 = 32.4 damage from 6 Attacks over 3 rounds
11 .45(2d6+5)*9 = 48.6 damage from 9 Attacks over 3 rounds
13 .45(2d6+5)*9 = 48.6 damage from 9 Attacks over 3 rounds
15 .45(2d6+5)*9 = 48.6 damage from 9 Attacks over 3 rounds
17 .45(2d6+5)*18 = 97.2 damage from 18 Attacks over 6 rounds
19 .45(2d6+5)*18 = 97.2 damage from 18 Attacks over 6 rounds
20 .45(2d6+5)*24 = 129.6 damage from 24 Attacks over 6 rounds

Battle Master Damage over a 3 short rest day (+ additional damage if using riposte)
3 (4d8)*3 = 54 damage +24
5 (4d8)*3 = 54 damage +24
7 (5d8)*3 = 67.5 damage +30
9 (5d8)*3 = 67.5 damage +30
11 (5d10)*3 = 82.5 damage +30
13 (5d10)*3 = 82.5 damage +30
15 (6d10)*3+3d10 = 115.5 damage +36
17 (6d10)*3+3d10 = 115.5 damage +36
19 (6d12)*3+3d12 = 136.5 damage +36
20 (6d12)*3+3d12 = 136.5 damage +36

Comparing Riposte vs any other damaging maneuver
.45(2d6+3+1d8) = 6.525 damage vs 4.5 damage difference of 2.025 at 3rd level
.45(2d6+5+1d12) = 8.325 damage vs 6.5 damage difference of 1.825 at 20th level

Champion extra damage from Superior Critical
.1(2d6) 0.7 damage per attack or .14 damage per attack with advantage[/SBLOCK]

A lot of people doing "white room" DPR analysis came to the same conclusion early on when 5e was released, thinking they'd "out-thought" the designers and "out-thought" the extensive playtesting. However, DPR isn't the whole equation. If you are pursuing a mathematical model, you need to at least also account for the fighter's defensive capabilities. One ENWorld user [MENTION=5889]Stalker0[/MENTION] had some really solid maths comparing barbarian, fighter, monk, and paladin that looked at both offensive and defensive capability – he concluded a raging barbarian, action surging/ 2nd winding fighter, and a smiting paladin looked very comparable and balanced.

Here it is: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?359873-Barb-vs-Fighter-vs-Monk-vs-Paladin!

You're obviously coming to a different conclusion. You might want to compare and find out why that is, or maybe walk us through your maths a little? For example, are you making very different assumptions? Or is the jump in balance from 6th level (in [MENTION=5889]Stalker0[/MENTION]'s analysis) to 11th level (in your analysis) really that stark?

EDIT: Another site I found interesting back when I was working more diligently on my homebrewed fighter was Mike Hensley's http://1d8.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-evolution-of-fighter-in-d-take-3.html It's a look at "cross-edition balance", I guess you could say, of the fighter. 5e's fighter comes out very comparable to 4e's fighter in terms of offensive/defensive capability (in his "white room" maths experiment).

 

[snickersnax]

I'm enjoying the discussion around multiple reactions.

One of the things I would like to see fighters be able to do better is a counter-punching tactic (one where you take Dodge for your action and rely on your reaction to attack with). Right now a BM riposte is the only way to do it, but it is inconsistent (because of limited number of battle master maneuvers) and it scales poorly after at 5th level and higher due to multi-attack.

Connecting this to the Defensive combat style might work. Otherwise Defensive isn't much of a "combat style" on its own. Defensive feels like an odd duck among the other combat styles. I wouldn't mind seeing more consistency on fighting styles (archery, great weapon fighting, two weapon fighting, sword and shield (together), Mounted combat (cavalry), maybe some specialized weapon styles like dueling (single weapon) or swashbuckling (maybe with or without a buckler).

I don't care for the superiority dice. Most of the Battle Master maneuvers would make more sense to me if they were unlimited use and just no dice. What's the that a fighter should be only able to attempt 4 trips on opponents and then they need to take a short rest?

When it comes to Champions. It seems like they should have a more competitive edge in sports/tournament situation due to the Remarkable Athlete feature... but they are going to lose the non-magical Olympics hard to Bards and Rogues with athletics and acrobatics expertise and this just doesn't seem right. Well maybe Champions will win the the longjump...

 

[DaedalusX51]

A lot of people doing "white room" DPR analysis came to the same conclusion early on when 5e was released, thinking they'd "out-thought" the designers and "out-thought" the extensive playtesting. However, DPR isn't the whole equation. If you are pursuing a mathematical model, you need to at least also account for the fighter's defensive capabilities. One ENWorld user [MENTION=5889]Stalker0[/MENTION] had some really solid maths comparing barbarian, fighter, monk, and paladin that looked at both offensive and defensive capability – he concluded a raging barbarian, action surging/ 2nd winding fighter, and a smiting paladin looked very comparable and balanced.

Here it is: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?359873-Barb-vs-Fighter-vs-Monk-vs-Paladin!

You're obviously coming to a different conclusion. You might want to compare and find out why that is, or maybe walk us through your maths a little? For example, are you making very different assumptions? Or is the jump in balance from 6th level (in [MENTION=5889]Stalker0[/MENTION]'s analysis) to 11th level (in your analysis) really that stark?

EDIT: Another site I found interesting back when I was working more diligently on my homebrewed fighter was Mike Hensley's http://1d8.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-evolution-of-fighter-in-d-take-3.html It's a look at "cross-edition balance", I guess you could say, of the fighter. 5e's fighter comes out very comparable to 4e's fighter in terms of offensive/defensive capability (in his "white room" maths experiment).

I'm comparing damage per adventuring day not damage per round. Classes were supposedly balanced around a 6-8 encounter adventuring day with 3 short rests. I'm showing that, at least with the Fighter and Paladin, this is not the case.

I'm sure on a round per round basis it may feel fine, but unless the Fighter is reworked, it is inferior to the Paladin (especially the Champion) unless you decide to push past the 6-8 encounter guideline (which to be honest is already pushing it as far as daily resources go).

Regarding your edit, I'm not sure what version of D&D he is comparing as he mentions Martial Damage Dice, Combat Expertise, & Bullrush, but it's not 5E so I would take it with a grain of salt.

 

[DaedalusX51]

I'm enjoying the discussion around multiple reactions.

One of the things I would like to see fighters be able to do better is a counter-punching tactic (one where you take Dodge for your action and rely on your reaction to attack with). Right now a BM riposte is the only way to do it, but it is inconsistent (because of limited number of battle master maneuvers) and it scales poorly after at 5th level and higher due to multi-attack.

Connecting this to the Defensive combat style might work. Otherwise Defensive isn't much of a "combat style" on its own. Defensive feels like an odd duck among the other combat styles. I wouldn't mind seeing more consistency on fighting styles (archery, great weapon fighting, two weapon fighting, sword and shield (together), Mounted combat (cavalry), maybe some specialized weapon styles like dueling (single weapon) or swashbuckling (maybe with or without a buckler).

I don't care for the superiority dice. Most of the Battle Master maneuvers would make more sense to me if they were unlimited use and just no dice. What's the that a fighter should be only able to attempt 4 trips on opponents and then they need to take a short rest?

When it comes to Champions. It seems like they should have a more competitive edge in sports/tournament situation due to the Remarkable Athlete feature... but they are going to lose the non-magical Olympics hard to Bards and Rogues with athletics and acrobatics expertise and this just doesn't seem right. Well maybe Champions will win the the longjump...

I pretty much agree with all of your points. It's just how we get there that seems to be where the issue lies.

Edit: Personally I feel that Expertise was a poorly thought out patch that defies the design of bounded accuracy. I wish they never implemented it. They should have created a feature that only raised the success floor rather than raising the success ceiling as well.

 

[snickersnax]

Edit: Personally I feel that Expertise was a poorly thought out patch that defies the design of bounded accuracy. I wish they never implemented it. They should have created a feature that only raised the success floor rather than raising the success ceiling as well.

I agree with you. I like the suggestions I've seen elsewhere for having proficiency and expertise raise the success floor. It does seem like there should be an opportunity for the highest skill masters to be able to do something that is unreachable by those of lower skills. Perhaps a new thread? Azer: master craftsmen or elemental propaganda?

Which brings me to another thing I don't like about fighters. There seem to be 3 tiers of weapon skills available to fighters: proficiency, fighting style (specialization - archer, GWF, TWF,etc), and mastery (sharpshooter, great weapon master). It seems like it would make sense if all these levels weren't available at Level 1.

 

[Quickleaf]

I'm enjoying the discussion around multiple reactions.

One of the things I would like to see fighters be able to do better is a counter-punching tactic (one where you take Dodge for your action and rely on your reaction to attack with). Right now a BM riposte is the only way to do it, but it is inconsistent (because of limited number of battle master maneuvers) and it scales poorly after at 5th level and higher due to multi-attack.

Questions of "power balance" aside, I think there's a game play reason they limited the presence of reactions in the game. Lots of folks commented how reactions during 4e really slowed down game play with everyone's turns getting interrupted by someone else.

When you break the "one reaction per PC" rule, you might get a situation where the fighter players is getting more "screen time" compared to the other players because the fighter is resolving (1) his turn, (2) a reaction (that others might get), and then (3) one or more additional reactions, depending on how a theoretical "Combat Reflexes" feature were designed.

I'm comparing damage per adventuring day not damage per round. Classes were supposedly balanced around a 6-8 encounter adventuring day with 3 short rests. I'm showing that, at least with the Fighter and Paladin, this is not the case.

I'm sure on a round per round basis it may feel fine, but unless the Fighter is reworked, it is inferior to the Paladin (especially the Champion) unless you decide to push past the 6-8 encounter guideline (which to be honest is already pushing it as far as daily resources go).

Regarding your edit, I'm not sure what version of D&D he is comparing as he mentions Martial Damage Dice, Combat Expertise, & Bullrush, but it's not 5E so I would take it with a grain of salt.

Ah, maybe it was D&D Next, towards the later end of the playtest before the PHB was released. His methodology, however, is still something I recommend emulating.

I agree that comparing the fighter in multiple scenarios (e.g. adventuring day of 6-8 encounters, single encounters, alpha striking, holding back, and other situations) is worthwhile. I realized early on that doing that kind of maths analysis wasn't enjoyable for me – I always saw flaws in it, even when it was my own work – so I abandoned that for a more holistic approach.

I am, however, very interested in others' attempts at mathematical wizardry as well as actual play experiences re. the fighter.

 

[DaedalusX51]

Questions of "power balance" aside, I think there's a game play reason they limited the presence of reactions in the game. Lots of folks commented how reactions during 4e really slowed down game play with everyone's turns getting interrupted by someone else.

When you break the "one reaction per PC" rule, you might get a situation where the fighter players is getting more "screen time" compared to the other players because the fighter is resolving (1) his turn, (2) a reaction (that others might get), and then (3) one or more additional reactions, depending on how a theoretical "Combat Reflexes" feature were designed.

Oddly enough, and this might be my love for Fighters blinding me to the issue, I don't see a problem with the Fighter receiving more spotlight time in combat. Bards receive more spotlight time during social situations, Rogues during trap finding and dungeon exploration, and Rangers during wilderness exploration. It seems like focusing the spotlight on the Fighter during combat would actually make sense for the class that is all about fighting.

As for 4E's issues with reactions, that was due to the fact that almost every class could have multiple reaction powers. Siloing that feature into the Fighter would cut it back significantly.

 

[Quickleaf]

Oddly enough, and this might be my love for Fighters blinding me to the issue, I don't see a problem with the Fighter receiving more spotlight time in combat. Bards receive more spotlight time during social situations, Rogues during trap finding and dungeon exploration, and Rangers during wilderness exploration. It seems like focusing the spotlight on the Fighter during combat would actually make sense for the class that is all about fighting.

As for 4E's issues with reactions, that was due to the fact that almost every class could have multiple reaction powers. Siloing that feature into the Fighter would cut it back significantly.

Well, I see both sides.

As a fighter lover since I was 8 years old I remember a lot of back-and-forth dialogue between myself and the GM when I wanted to try stuff out...especially during combat. And I carried that style over into how I DMed for my friends with AD&D2e. It may have been that era of gaming and my age, but I felt there was something about that experience that was...hmm...somehow best encapsulated by the fighter class (and also, in a different way, the rogue class). So from that perspective, a reaction-based fighter makes sense.

OTOH, I know the fighter class is really popular and is an entry point for many new gamers. Maybe less so than back in the day, but definitely that trend of "start by playing a fighter" is alive. Because they're simple. There's a reason that DMs like to have a champion fighter pregen for one-shots or drop-in games; it's easy for a new player to pick up. A reaction based fighter would definitely up the complexity...and I'm not sure that's desirable for new players.

It's an interesting idea though, definitely merits exploration.

I love exploring more interesting, visceral, and well-rounded fighter class design. However, I'm the wrong person to delve into fighter "class vs. class comparative power balance" with, however. I haven't yet noticed the "white room" claims of fighter being underpowered play out in my games, so I take that argument with a hearty grain of salt.

 

[Gladius Legis]

Math

All calculations made against a Hobgoblin with AC 18

Improved Divine Smite vs 2nd Extra Attack
11th level Paladin vs 11th level Fighter
Both with a +9 Attack Bonus
.45(2d6+5+1d8)+.45(2d6+5+1d8) = 14.85 vs 16.2 = .45(2d6+5)+.45(2d6)+5+.45(2d6+5)

Your calculations are waaaaaaaaay off. An 11th-level Fighter (or Paladin) is going to hit that Hobgoblin better than 45 percent of the time. +9 to hit AC 18 is a 60% chance to hit.

Also telling that even when calculating by level, you fail to account for the different proficiency bonuses by levels. Lv. 13-16 characters will hit the AC 18 Hobgoblin 65% of the time, and Lv. 17-20 characters 70%.

You're also ignoring Fighting Style. Great Weapon Fighting makes 2d6 = 8.33

So for the Fighter, Action Surge SHOULD add/day:
Lv. 11: .6(2d6r1&2+5)*9 = 72.0
Lv. 15: .65(2d6r1&2+5)*9 = 78.0
Lv. 19: .7(2d6r1&2+5)*18 = 168.0
Lv. 20: .7(2d6r1&2+5)*24 = 223.9

Add the Superiority Dice to those figures and the Battle Master will push well ahead of the Paladin on damage from daily resources at Lv. 20. And much sooner than that if the Fighter uses Riposte all the time.

But then again, that's only comparing daily resources, which leads to this:

At-will DPR, great weapon, GWF Style:
Fighter 11: 3*.6*(2d6r1&2+5) = 24.0
Paladin 11: 2*.6*(2d6r1&2+1d8+5) = 21.4

The Fighter with a great weapon is doing 2.6 more DPR at-will. Taken over a 32-round day (8 encounters of avg. 4 rounds each), that's an advantage of 83.2 in favor of the Fighter at-will. More than enough to overtake any difference in daily resources vs. the Paladin at any level.