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.
In actual 5e play, I've never felt the fighter sucked in terms of overall combat effectiveness, whether I've been playing a fighter or DMing for fighter players. It feels perfectly capable. My concerns with the fighter's design are more thematic in nature.
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.
[MENTION=5889]Stalker0[/MENTION] actually did an
analysis of barbarian, fighter, monk, and paladin and the Fighter looks strong in overall combat effectiveness (as determined by DPR x RIS, where DPR = damage per round, and RIS = rounds I survived). The Paladin only comes out ahead by committing massive resources (that recharge during a long rest) in a single fight...and then that Paladin will be at a disadvantage in later fights when the Fighter recharges Action Surge / Second Wind / Superiority Dice after a short rest (though its
worth noting that [MENTION=5889]Stalker0[/MENTION]'s analysis uses a Champion Fighter, not a Battle Master, and the Champion still comes out ahead in overall combat effectiveness compared to Barbarian, Monk, and Paladin over the course of the adventuring day.
His mathematical findings mirror my own observations at the table as both DM and player.
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.
You have two points here: Damage and Utility. I think you're incorrect about damage, but I agree with you about utility.
The first – that other warrior types out damage the Fighter – is only true if you're designing your comparison to favor other warrior types; namely, by looking at a single encounter day during which the Paladin expends all its spell slots to smite. In that case? Yes, the paladin would deal more damage than a fighter. But over the course of an adventuring day with a couple short rests? The fighter is in the lead.
The second – that the fighter's utility is less than other warrior types – I would totally agree with. Conceptually, I think it's a mistake to continue using the name "fighter" because it's an anemic term that whittles down the concept to just fighting...an action ALL adventurers do in D&D. My preference is to replace it with "warrior" which has a broader connotation of belonging to a warrior caste/culture and having a cause – and that reinterpretation leads to new creative space to introduce more options for the class out of combat. For example, in my take on the Warrior I invented "Camp Talents".
I will add, however, that Action Surge has good potential to be used in non-combat situations, but is easily overlooked in these sorts of conversations that can hyper-focus on DPR.
3. To Many Key Fighter Abilities Arrive late.
OK, lots of points here...
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).
By your reasoning, wizards shouldn't have to wait till 17th level to get 9th level spells, because 17th level "may as well be tales from la la land." Same goes for rogues getting Elusive at 18th level, or any high-level class features. That doesn't make sense.
Second Wind also scales poorly at the higher levels (well actually from level 2 or 3).
I believe the intent with Second Wind was that as you advance into higher levels, there are more combats (and more challenging combats) and therefor more the DM is expected to provide more short rests. I haven't seen that explicitly called out in the books, but it would make sense if the designers believed Second Wind would be used more frequently during the course of an adventuring day at 15th level than at 1st level.
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.
The fighter's "element" relies more upon Action Surge than the 11th or 20th level Extra Attack. So, it's not gimped by that metric.
But I *think* the heart of what you're implying is that the fighter doesn't FEEL especially unique? And in that case, I'd agree.
I have a theory...that this lack of uniqueness is, in part, due to how often the Fighter (Battle Master) gets to use superiority dice vs. a Paladin gets to use divine smite, vs. a Barbarian gets to rage, vs. a Ranger gets to use
hunter's mark. At 1st level, the Fighter (Battle Master) looks pretty good compared to the others, but by 11th level the Fighter (Battle Master) is actually using its signature thing – superiority dice – LESS frequently, whereas the Paladin, Monk, and Ranger at 11th level use their signature things MORE frequently.
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...Indomitable should just be pick a new save proficiency IMHO.
Indomitable may be a weird design choice (esp. when the Rogue gets WIS proficiency at 15th via Slippery Mind, a much simpler design choice), but when compared to other features in 5e (not AD&D/BECMI), Indomitable is pretty decent. I have seen plenty of folks house rule it so that you only expend a use of Indomitable if you
succeed your save (i.e. if you fail even with the re-roll, you don't expend a use of Indomitable).
While I associate the Fighter with being "really good at saving throws" from early on in their career, it seems like the designers avoided this for
two reasons:
- They wanted the Paladin to fill the niche of "really good at saving throws" thanks to Aura of Protection.
- They didn't want to further front-load the Fighter, and make it even more tempting to multi-class fighter for boosted saves.
- EDIT: Also, I think they wanted to differentiate the Paladin's Aura of Protection (always on "blessing") vs. the Fighter's Indomitable (activated "gritting your teeth and shaking it off). While the Paladin's Aura is awesome at general defense (assuming CHA of +2 or +3 eventually advancing to +5 at higher levels), the Fighter's Indomitable is good for resisting a singe really nasty effect (e.g. petrification, which hopefully doesn't come up multiple times a day) thanks to probabilities similar to advantage (which tends to translate to roughly a +4 bonus, depending on the target number). And by the time the Paladin is getting +5 to saves, the Fighter can use Indomitable twice versus the same really nasty effect. So, the Paladin is general coverage, but the Fighter is spot protection.
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).
I'm all for insightful analysis and critique of the Fighter class, but if you're assuming "more likely 1 in the real world", then you'd better be assuming the same thing for other class features when you're comparing them to the Fighter. It's only fair.
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.
All of the classes are front loaded, and those like Sorcerer and Cleric even moreso than the Fighter.
And the reasons you cite for multi-classing just 1st level in Fighter, I remember a dual-classed PC in AD&D who took a 1st-level in Fighter for most of those same reasons.
Actually, if you look at most classes, they provide 2 features at 2nd-level (e.g. Barbarian's danger sense & reckless attack / Monk's ki & unarmored movement / Paladins' divine smite & fighting style & spellcasting / Ranger's fighting style & spellcasting). Only the Fighter and the Rogue get one feature at 2nd-level. So in that sense the Fighter is a little
less front-loaded than other classes.
I think you have some valid criticisms/concerns/ideas here, mixed in with a bit too much hyperbole.
