D&D 5E The Fighter Problem

[Warpiglet]

Yes, I think we often get too caught up in getting the most out of 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 I 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.

That's the spirit!

 

[Warmaster Horus]

I've been playing a single-class fighter for the past few months (all of SKT) to see how they really play, and am now 12th level. We've got a paladin and a ranger in the group, too. He's had a total of 4 ASIs (+4 Str, GWM, Polearm Master) and 112hp. AC is only 19 but that's what happens when you take a 2-handed weapon. Before 11th level he really needed favorable circumstances to be a real hard-hitter. With Action Surge against a low-AC threat he could score 4 hits for 8d10+68 in a round (using Superiority Dice). Of course we spent 9th and 10th levels fighting AC 18 fire giants so there wasn't much Great Weapon Mastery going on.

However that started to turn around at 11th level with the 3rd attack and really ratcheted up at 12th level with Polearm Master. Now it's 3 attacks an action (6 on an Action Surge) and a bonus action attack as well, all of which can use GWM if desired. Against a Cloud Giant using GWM he needs a 8 to hit AC 14 with a +2 weapon and, let's assume he uses Superiority Dice to ensure hits, he'll do 3d10+1d4+76 points of damage without an Action Surge each round. My Paladin can do more but only if he uses (limited) smites and then only on a crit. Not too shabby.

 

[Quickleaf]

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.

While I wouldn't go so far as to say that any class is a "narrow niche for very specific individuals", I think you missed my overall point: I was agreeing with Mike Mearls' assertion (from an old TomeShow episode) that the fighter subclasses lack identity.

By "interesting to consider", I meant from a design perspective about how the Fighter class could be improved upon. Point in case, my work on The Warrior.

 

[Eubani]

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.

After all the big wall of text commenting about people complaining about people focusing on damage you must of failed to comprehend most of the issues that people bring up which centres around lack of utility, agency and flavour which the Fighter sacrifices for so called improved combat numbers. Also I will add that you seem to have a rose coloured glasses view on the Fighter in older editions. To put it bluntly Fighter design has been 40+ years of nerd revenge fantasy.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

After all the big wall of text commenting about people complaining about people focusing on damage you must of failed to comprehend most of the issues that people bring up which centres around lack of utility, agency and flavour which the Fighter sacrifices for so called improved combat numbers. Also I will add that you seem to have a rose coloured glasses view on the Fighter in older editions. To put it bluntly Fighter design has been 40+ years of nerd revenge fantasy.

Not sure about utility but for agency and flavor, that's 95% inside the DM & player's wheelhouse to achieve.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Over the years 5E has been out there have been a few complaints about the fighter sucking usually the champion..

And most of those threads/complaints are by you. So there's that.

As for the rest, it's entirely subjective. I think the fighter is not only fine, but it's been fun to play.

 

[Warpiglet]

After all the big wall of text commenting about people complaining about people focusing on damage you must of failed to comprehend most of the issues that people bring up which centres around lack of utility, agency and flavour which the Fighter sacrifices for so called improved combat numbers. Also I will add that you seem to have a rose coloured glasses view on the Fighter in older editions. To put it bluntly Fighter design has been 40+ years of nerd revenge fantasy.

I disagree with everything you just wrote.

Not every class should be as good as every other class at every other pillar. Wizards and fighters should differ in more than name.

With skill and feat selection, you can alter utility a great deal. If you do not think thieves tools and stealth offer utility, I am not sure what utility you are referencing.

There was no complaint--just some friendly suggestions. Read the post again if it is not too long. Not sure where you got that from.

I do not know what nerd revenge fantasy you speak of--I am too cool to be a nerd. Just ask my Mom. She thinks I am the bee's knees.

And if I am a nerd, and I had revenge fantasies, I played them out with my cleric and flamestrike at 9th level. But don't tell my mom! I don't want her to think I am a nerd!

But in the end, if someone wants to get off on beating things down with an axe in a make-believe world I am glad they have the opportunity. If three or four attacks with GWM don't do enough damage I do not know what to tell you. I am not complaining though. I am able to have fun with this level of damage. I was just hoping a slight perspective shift might help others to do so as well.

 

[Eubani]

Not sure about utility but for agency and flavor, that's 95% inside the DM & player's wheelhouse to achieve.

95% if you ignore all the agency and flavour in other classes and subclasses. Lets face it For the most part the Fighter only gets to do HP damage on par with many and the occasional ability check when the problem at hand is not being overridden by magic or another classes specialised ability. This is just as a good an argument as Fighters don't need abilities like styles, stances, maneuvers, etc because they can describe what they want to do and roll for it; the answer to which is guess which class also gets to do that which is all of them. Going back to flavour the designers have stated that class and subclass are suppose to bring flavour and tell a story which the PHB fighter + subclasses do not, I agree with the designers assessment on this.

 

[Sacrosanct]

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 of when you have classes with can't participate there.
...

Recently I have been going through my old Dragon magazines, and it was very clear how the expectations for classes have changed over the years. In those early days, thieves were NOT meant to be in combat. that's not what the class was for. You snuck in, got the goods/info, and got the heck out. Your value to the party was in finding and disarming traps and opening locks. Magic Users were there for going nova--lots of power, but limited times you could use it, and super fragile. After all, a 10th level MU is only going to have 24 HP on average. Fighters were there to do 90% of the combat load.

Somewhere along the line, every class has to be as competent in combat as every other class. IMO, the problem isn't that the fighter should be able to do everything in exploration and interaction as any other class, but that every other class encroached on his turf. I am also of the belief that not every class needs to be just as competent in all three pillars as every other class. I happen to be a fan of niche protection, because otherwise to me all the classes feel the same, just with the serial numbers filed off. A mage casting a cantrip over and over feels the exact same as the ranger shooting his bow. And to me that's boring.

 

[Eubani]

I disagree with everything you just wrote.

Not every class should be as good as every other class at every other pillar. Wizards and fighters should differ in more than name.

With skill and feat selection, you can alter utility a great deal. If you do not think thieves tools and stealth offer utility, I am not sure what utility you are referencing.

There was no complaint--just some friendly suggestions. Read the post again if it is not too long. Not sure where you got that from.

I do not know what nerd revenge fantasy you speak of--I am too cool to be a nerd. Just ask my Mom. She thinks I am the bee's knees.

And if I am a nerd, and I had revenge fantasies, I played them out with my cleric and flamestrike at 9th level. But don't tell my mom! I don't want her to think I am a nerd!

But in the end, if someone wants to get off on beating things down with an axe in a make-believe world I am glad they have the opportunity. If three or four attacks with GWM don't do enough damage I do not know what to tell you. I am not complaining though. I am able to have fun with this level of damage. I was just hoping a slight perspective shift might help others to do so as well.

Will people learn to read IT IS NOT ABOUT DAMAGE BUT ABOUT UTILITY, AGENCY AND IDENTITY. The fighter sacrifices all that for supposed damage. We are not asking for more damage but for the adding of utility that was sacrificed and nothing given in return and agency which the Fighter never had due to mostly "tradition". Looking forward to someone twisting this back to wanting more damage.