D&D 5E The Fighter Problem

[UngeheuerLich]

1. Why would a HALF-caster like a paladin be as effective with using weapons as a fighter until 11th level? That makes no sense. In paladin school you spend HALF your time working with spells, in fighter school you spend ZERO time working with spells. Right from the get go, the fighter should be flat out better with weapons. Like monks are with unarmed attacks and monk weapons.

2. What does the base fighter get that the base paladin doesn't? Action Surge, Second Wind, Indomitable, 2nd Extra Attack, three ASIs (two that 99% of players ever see).... uh not much else. This should be the differentiation? Paladins don't need Second Wind, they have healing spells and lay on hands. Paladins don't need Indomitable they have an aura that adds their Charisma to their saving throw and makes those in it immune to fear. The ability to cast Bless is worth more than an extra ASI. You see where I'm going with this?

The fighter needs to be the unquestioned master of physical combat. Or else given the choice a paladin is just as powerful (often more) and WAY more versatile and has cool RP/fluff built right in.

My suggestion is to give the base fighter something more. I'm currently testing my addition which are stances. Stances are something there will be no feats for and no one else can do. I was thinking to introduce them at 3rd level and then allow the fighter to gain a new stance per level after that. Stances will be used to enhance one thing in combat, for example: knocking opponents prone, making another attack doing just 1 + MOD if it connects, extra reactions, extra movement. Once I have playtested it I will release them.

Another option which I am considering is rolling the Champion into the base fighter and introducing other Archetypes. So far I've added the Defender (Dwarven Defender but open to anyone) and the Dervish (concentrates on many light strikes,movement, and readiness). I'll be adding more as I go.

In my opinion the paladin smite ability should only be +1d8 per spell level. That would make it a bit more balanced. Or alternately limited to once per turn. I think smite spells should be the go to ability and smites should be just backup in my opinion. On the other hand a battlemaster is really good.
On the other hand maybe adding champion abilities to the base fighter would maybe be actually still balanced.

Sent from my GT-I9506 using EN World mobile app

 

[Quickleaf]

My problem with the Fighter is that it sacrifices everything from the exploration and Social pillars to be the best in the combat pillar and guess what........it is not the best in fact generally melee wise it falls behind till about 11th level and then only gets marginally ahead. Also as noted by Mearls is that unlike all other classes the Fighters subclasses in the phb failed to tell a story which the designers thought was a fail.

The only problem with the Fighter is in the other classes. The Fighter is absolutely working as-intended, especially the Champion. On the other hand, the Barbarian is raging in every encounter and the Paladin is smiting with every attack, because a single adventuring day with six meaningful encounters is a rare exception rather than the rule.

To me, these comments are what's interesting to consider about the Fighter. What about it is unique? What stories do its subclasses tell? What does the fighter do when not swinging a blade or shooting a bow? Those are the questions I wish the Fighter class would answer.

Part of the issue in 5e is that other classes get Extra Attack and Fighting Style, heck even Monks & Paladins can heal themselves akin to Second Wind, and Paladins have an Aura of Protect which more than gives Indomitable a run for its money. So what makes the Fighter unique? It all comes down to Action Surge (and, if you're a Battle Master, maneuvers). At the table that is very distinctive...but it sort of gets lost in the mix, when other classes have multiple unique identifying features (e.g. a Ranger is identified uniquely by Favored Enemy, Natural Explorer, Ranger Spells, and possibly a collection of cool movement/stealth/perception features).

Personally, in hindsight, I wonder if it was too much to give other warrior classes BOTH Fighting Style & Extra Attack. I wonder if doing that eroded some the Fighter's unique character.

 

[Derren]

The problem is not with the fighter but with D&Ds combat centric design. Because of that every class must be awesome in combat as otherwise, at least according to the though process of the designers, no one will have fun with them. It also easier to design adventure path dungeon crawls when you do not have to plan around an eventual bad combatant.
Other pillars like exploration and social interaction, even though they were heavily advertised, are still seen as not really important so it is ok when you have classes which can't participate there.

So in the end you end up with the fighter who is only as good as everyone else in fighting, maybe marginally better, but can't do anything else really well while all other classes can still fight perfectly fine, a group without fighter is still very viable after all, and also have a lot of utility stuff.
But as for the designers combat is all that matters it is fine...

 

[The Crimson Binome]

To me, these comments are what's interesting to consider about the Fighter. What about it is unique? What stories do its subclasses tell? What does the fighter do when not swinging a blade or shooting a bow? Those are the questions I wish the Fighter class would answer.

The Fighter class mechanics don't reflect a story. The Fighter class is a wide tent which includes wildly different individuals, all of which are united only by this one aspect. To contrast, every other class (with the possible exception of Rogue) represents a narrow niche for very specific individuals who are all similar in terms of their place within the world.

If every other class (or subclass) represents a single guild within the Forgotten Realms, then Fighter is the class which represents everyone who doesn't belong to a guild.

 

[dco]

I prefer the fighter to those classes, using the Player's handbook without subclass features:
- Rangers have 1 more skill, less armor proficiencies, favored enemy, natural explorer, spellcasting, land's stride, vanish, feral senses and foe slayer.
- Paladins have Divine sense, lay on hands, spellcasting, divine smite, aura of protection, aura of corage, cleansing touch.
- Barbarians have more HP, less armor proficiencies, Rage, unarmored defense, Reckless attack, Danger sense, Brutal critical...

Outside of combat I don't see more utility on those classes, the Ranger has 1 more skill and when he is in his favored land he will be better on a few of his skills and can use passive perception while tracking, foraging or navigating. The fighter on the other hand has 2 ability score improvements (+2,+3 or +4 to abilities) , if feats are allowed they can be exchanged for 6 skill proficiencies.

Other games have more emphasis on attacks and evading attacks and damage is more lethal and difficult to heal, the combat of this game is on the other extreme, you are going to hit and be hit a lot of times, it's about depleting the HP bar of the enemy before they deplete your bar and you recover HP if you rest 1h. Numbers say the fighter can do the same or more DPS as the ranger, barbarian and Paladin in a reliable way compared to those, and they have higher survivality.

I prefer the Fighter, I also like their versatility to accomodate the character concepts of the players, it could embrace the other classes easily with minor changes, choose your skills, change spell selection of the EK and the fighter can emulate easily paladins/Crusaders, rangers and barbarians with different rules/flavor.

 

[ArchfiendBobbie]

The problem with the Fighter isn't lack of combat utility. I've handed the PHB to the worst minmaxing munchkin I know and they would pick Fighter every single time whereas they normally pick something like wizard or cleric; the class is just too good on its own, and in the hands of someone who really knows what they're doing the class can dominate the table.

The problem is that, compared to the other physical-oriented classes, the fighter is boring. It doesn't rage, doesn't have out-of-combat utility, doesn't smite, doesn't shapeshift... Pretty much, it's pure combat-oriented. So while it can be scarily-effective in combat, it's really going to fall flat the moment you need to do anything else.

And building a fighter to be effective at things other than fighting usually involves sacrificing combat effectiveness, something no other class deals with.

 

[S'mon]

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.

That fits my experience. People expect a Fighter to be a tough Defender type, instead they're a decent but squishy Striker. IMC the Barbarians can take around three times as much damage as the Fighters. The Fighters do a good round-1 nova with Action Surge, but the Barbarians can stay in the fight for ten rounds Raging for half damage (plus more hp) while the Fighters get chewed up.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

I'd like the fighter to have the old-school vibe of the first editions where they were the ones expected to have a load of magic items.
Imagine if the fighter had the Magic Items progression the UA Artificer has built in the class chassis to favor out-of-combat abilities. This way, with more magic items slots + more feats (especialy when we'll have more non-combat feats), Fighter could create their own class features. Want to make a classic dungeon raider? Take Darkvision goggles, rope of climbing, the Delver feat etc.

 

[Warpiglet]

I respect the OP's opinion and experience base. I have read many other posts. This however has me scratching my head!

When I play something that fights other than a fighter the comparison is usually to fighter. For example I am an unabashed fan of the flawed blade pact warlock.

And now I find that the comparison/metric we use sucks too!

If everything sucks in combat besides paladin, are we sure it is every class's design that is flawed vs. one that particularly good? If we actually engage in resource management, the paladin is less than overpowered in my opinion. They should not have multiple spell slots ready for smite Every combat. In the case of the paladin, they are set up for a different story (to be more likely). They hit the evil priest with all they have--after maybe being outdone (a bit) on the battlefield in previous fights. You know, destiny and all of that.

And if they don't excel here, they get outpaced by fighters and are no better than several others given two attacks max at other times. Everyone wants to shine sometimes.

The point some have made about "boring" is an interesting one. I have found in the recent past that worrying about the numbers only up to a point has made all the difference in having fun for me. In the very old days we had memorable differentiation of characters despite few customization opportunities aside for appearance, personality and story. For Pete's sake we played thieves with a 19 THACO at 5th level! I am starting to get the old thrill back. The character seems pretty fleshed out and keeping them alive is exciting!

I love feats and skills and sometimes multiclassing. I love 5e. But I have recently determined I can play anything with gusto if it is a cool character. A few points of damage more or less is not going to make or break the fun of playing a fighter unless that is my sole focus.

That said, I play war and strategy games too and the whole point is usually finding some kind of numerical advantage. I get it. I embrace it at times.

But the thrill of surviving dungeons and advancing in level is not hampered (for me) by a few points here or there. If someone cannot have fun because they can do a bit more damage with X instead of Y I have to wonder if they always play "novice" difficulty on video games. Get into your fighter! He looks and acts differently than any other fighter our there. He has feuds to settle, treasure to claim, people to rescue and some to kill!

I am not into that Badwrongfun crap. We need as many D&D players as we can get. That means diversity of focus and interest. But the focus on numbers only is going to lead to disappointment sooner rather than later. When we solve the puzzle and find one has a higher DPR or whatever, that's it. Now you can only play the one class tricked out in the one way?

If you want more out of combat options, perhaps there are some other classes you can investigate. A fighter could be a thug criminal and sneak. Still others might be acolytes who have left the order but still have knowledge or religions. Another one might be sage (bizarre!). Another could be a mountain man and have survival skills. Maybe is you use feats be some sort of war chief that inspires the troops...a champion could even have been a wizards apprentice with the sage background and magic initiate. All kinds of crap to explore. Unless we have it down to an equation...when that is solved the thrill might be gone.

 

[CydKnight]

But the thrill of surviving dungeons and advancing in level is not hampered (for me) by a few points here or there. If someone cannot have fun because they can do a bit more damage with X instead of Y I have to wonder if they always play "novice" difficulty on video games. Get into your fighter! He looks and acts differently than any other fighter our there. He has feuds to settle, treasure to claim, people to rescue and some to kill!

I am not into that Badwrongfun crap. We need as many D&D players as we can get. That means diversity of focus and interest. But the focus on numbers only is going to lead to disappointment sooner rather than later. When we solve the puzzle and find one has a higher DPR or whatever, that's it. Now you can only play the one class tricked out in the one way?

If you want more out of combat options, perhaps there are some other classes you can investigate. A fighter could be a thug criminal and sneak. Still others might be acolytes who have left the order but still have knowledge or religions. Another one might be sage (bizarre!). Another could be a mountain man and have survival skills. Maybe is you use feats be some sort of war chief that inspires the troops...a champion could even have been a wizards apprentice with the sage background and magic initiate. All kinds of crap to explore. Unless we have it down to an equation...when that is solved the thrill might be gone.

Yes, I think we often get too caught up in what's wrong with this or that class. If you look for what is wrong with something, you will eventually find it. Likewise if you are looking for something to like. I try to embrace what is fun with each class rather than focus on things that may potentially not be fun.

I actually played a Fighter (Great Weapon Fighting) this weekend in a full AL one-shot at the local hobby store. I was the only level 1 character in this Tier I adventure and found that my character held his own in combat when compared to three different Clerics, a Goliath Barbarian, an Assassin, and a Sorcerer that were all in fact level 3. I didn't dominate the battlefield but I didn't have to either. The damage dealt by my Fighter was probably average across this party but I did not expect to be the main damage dealer given the other party members nor was I required to be. This fighter felt adequate to me despite being comparatively level deficient to the rest of the party. More importantly, I had fun playing this Fighter.