D&D 5E So what's exactly wrong with the fighter?

Corpsetaker

First Post

• Jul 1, 2015

• #1

I've seen a few posters claiming the fighter is lacking in this edition and I would like to know where exactly is the problem.

The looks completely solid to me and I don't see anything anywhere that would stop a player from engaging in all three pillars of the game.

Where's the problem?

 

log in or register to remove this ad

Zaran

Adventurer

• Jul 1, 2015

• #2

Personally, I love the Battlemaster. I think the Champion works great for someone who doesn't want complication. I wish other classes were as good.

 

The_Gneech

Explorer

• Jul 1, 2015

• #3

I got nothing. I love the 5E fighter!

-The Gneech

 

C

Coredump

Explorer

• Jul 1, 2015

• #4

Corpsetaker said:

I've seen a few posters claiming the fighter is lacking in this edition and I would like to know where exactly is the problem.

The looks completely solid to me and I don't see anything anywhere that would stop a player from engaging in all three pillars of the game.

Where's the problem?

Click to expand...

Haters gonna hate...

 

S

spectacle

First Post

• Jul 1, 2015

• #5

The 5E fighter is great at killing things, but it has nothing like the 4E fighter's ability to control the battlefield. If you liked the tactical aspect of playing a fighter in 4E, you'll not be satisfied with the 5E fighter.

 

G

Gadget

Adventurer

• Jul 1, 2015

• #6

I think the 'problem' that others have expressed is that fighters really don't get anything that helps them overmuch in the non-fighting sphere of the game over-much. At least, not anything that any other class gets beyond the not-that-impressive remarkable athlete feature. I'm not sure I subscribe to this point of view, and I agree that fighters are much improved compared to 3.x, they are awesome in combat, but I do think that they are a touch hyper-focused on DPR, especially with feats in play. That's the issue as I understand it, though obviously there is room for disagreement.

 

Sacrosanct

Legend

• Jul 1, 2015

• #7

I got nothing. And while I do think the fighter can contribute well in out of combat tasks, if I were to assume that the fighter can not do those things and adhere to that argument, I guess my response would be, "If I want to play a PC that is exceptional at doing out of combat tasks, I would play one that is not called THE FIGHTER."

It's sort of in the name.

 

MoonSong

Rules-lawyering drama queen but not a munchkin

• Jul 1, 2015

• #8

If I'm right, those comments about fighters were more in the light of: FIGHTERS AREN'T WARLORDS. Fighters are great, they rock, but are lousy warlord substitutes.

 

Minigiant

Legend

Supporter

• Jul 1, 2015

• #9

The problem with the fighter is players are too creative. The 5th edition fighter is great.

Players have all these ideas from the media, their imaginations, and fighters of the past and the5th fighter can't do some of them at the level as player desire.

 

Halivar

First Post

• Jul 1, 2015

• #10

spectacle said:

If you liked the tactical aspect of playing a fighter in 4E, you'll not be satisfied with the 5E fighter.

Click to expand...

I dunnow; for me, the Battlemaster has the same feel as the 4E fighter (with Champion being an obvious analogue for the 3E-style fighter, except with the optimal feat chain everyone took already baked into the recipe). Not only do I have the option of some minimal battlefield control (admittedly, not to the almost gonzo degree of 4E), but I also have the same burst potential that was available with the AEDU structure, but even more flexible this time around.

Gadget said:

I think the 'problem' that others have expressed is that fighters really don't get anything that helps them overmuch in the non-fighting sphere of the game over-much. At least, not anything that any other class gets beyond the not-that-impressive remarkable athlete feature. I'm not sure I subscribe to this point of view, and I agree that fighters are much improved compared to 3.x, they are awesome in combat, but I do think that they are a touch hyper-focused on DPR, especially with feats in play. That's the issue as I understand it, though obviously there is room for disagreement.

Click to expand...

Of all the classes, I think fighter is most dependent on race, feat, and background selections to handle out of combat situations. But that being said, I also think it's the most flexible in that respect. Out of combat abilities tied to class are also tied to class archetypes, and there is, to some degree, some pigeonholing. The Fighter is more of a blank slate than any other class, and the most conducive to unique, original character concepts.