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

Sorry if it seems like I'm badgering you on this point, [MENTION=6774887]Ashkelon[/MENTION], but what was the character concept, what were you going for?

The first time I ran 5e after running several encounters seasons of the playtest, I didn't approach it like "I'm going to run an awesome game!" but, rather, like another round of playtesting: "I'm going to see what this system can do." It was a freak'n disaster - though I do give HotDQ some of the blame, too.
Once I stopped running it like a playtest, though, things got much better very quickly.

So, in that vein: did you maybe play a Battlemaster to 'test' it rather than to have fun with it?

I can only speak for myself and my group but we don't play our PC's with optimization in mind. We develop our concepts and we take it from there.

Tony Vargas said:

Sorry if it seems like I'm badgering you on this point, [MENTION=6774887]Ashkelon[/MENTION], but what was the character concept, what were you going for?

The first time I ran 5e after running several encounters seasons of the playtest, I didn't approach it like "I'm going to run an awesome game!" but, rather, like another round of playtesting: "I'm going to see what this system can do." It was a freak'n disaster - though I do give HotDQ some of the blame, too.
Once I stopped running it like a playtest, though, things got much better very quickly.

So, in that vein: did you maybe play a Battlemaster to 'test' it rather than to have fun with it?

Click to expand...

Yes, I think you are on to something there. I was playing it to test it in a way. I was seeing what it was capable of and how to best optimize its abilities. I guess I could have tried to use a maneuver every round (even though combining them in a Nova round proves more useful) to extend the number of rounds of maneuver usage per short rest from 2/10 to 6/10 (still abysmal mind you that at best you are nothing more than a champion fighter 40% of the time). I could have also used a wider variety of maneuvers even though they are less mechanically potent. I guess I could have tried to optimize for fun instead of effectiveness, but I am used to fighters being both mechanically interesting and effective.

As to the characters concept, it was fairly basic. I was playing the son of a noble who served in the military and was just returning home from a long war. He is brash and courageous, often taking charge as the party face (despite having a much worse chance to succeed than the warlock or bard). Before he can get home, the enemies who had lost the war activate a powerful magical device that opens a portal to the shadow realm plunging the world into chaos as undead and other monsters not seen for 100s of years begin to manifest in the world.

I will admit that I did have fun RPing the character, but that had nothing to do with the fighter class at all.

Ashkelon said:

Yes, I think you are on to something there. I was playing it to test it in a way. I was seeing what it was capable of and how to best optimize its abilities. I guess I could have tried to use a maneuver every round (even though combining them in a Nova round proves more useful) to extend the number of rounds of maneuver usage per short rest from 2/10 to 6/10 (still abysmal mind you that at best you are nothing more than a champion fighter 40% of the time). I could have also used a wider variety of maneuvers even though they are less mechanically potent. I guess I could have tried to optimize for fun instead of effectiveness, but I am used to fighters being both mechanically interesting and effective.

I will admit that I did have fun RPing the character, but that had nothing to do with the fighter class at all.

Click to expand...

I thought that might have been part of it. You got a good idea of the sub-class's ability, but probably not the best possible play experience.

Of course, I agree, you shouldn't have to 'optimize for fun,' it should be fairly easy (with minimal system mastery) to get a character that hits all three marks: models concept, reasonably effective (balanced), & potential for fun.

As to the characters concept, it was fairly basic. I was playing the son of a noble who served in the military and was just returning home from a long war. He is brash and courageous, often taking charge as the party face (despite having a much worse chance to succeed than the warlock or bard). Before he can get home, the enemies who had lost the war activate a powerful magical device that opens a portal to the shadow realm plunging the world into chaos as undead and other monsters not seen for 100s of years begin to manifest in the world.

Click to expand...

Now I'm wondering how it'd have turned out in other eds. In 4e it sounds like you might even have been a Warlord (Bravura, presumably), rather than a fighter, with a Noble Background, of course, and maybe a setting-appropriate Theme. In 3.x, you could have taken a level or four (up to 4 only loses you one BAB) of Aristocrat interspersed with Fighter for more skills and, incidentally, a better WILL save, and maybe a PrC if there was one that particularly fit the campaign. Can't recall if 2e had a Noble or particularly militant Kit for the fighter...

All this talk of optimization prompted me to check out the WotC Charop board since I was curious how @Ashkelon 's optimization of the Battlemaster lined up with the guide...

The top ranked (lt blue) maneuvers were... Menacing, Riposte, Trip and Commander's Strike (with a single target damage dealer in the party)

What I found even more interesting was that Precision Strike was ranked (Dark Blue) the same as..
Disarming Attack
Maneuvering Attack
Pushing Attack (unless you have the Shield Mastery Feat)
Rally
Distracting Strike (though less so at higher levels)
Parry (with an appropriate Dex)

Even more interesting was the fact that only a single maneuver was rated red (lowest/not viable) and that was Lunging attack because of how situational it is... IMO that seems to point to the BM's manuevers being pretty well rounded and balanced especially since no particular one was gold and only one was not viable...

EDIT: I'm also still curious on whether this character took any non-combat feats or not...

Imaro said:

All this talk of optimization prompted me to check out the WotC Charop board since I was curious how @Ashkelon 's optimization of the Battlemaster lined up with the guide...

The top ranked (lt blue) maneuvers were... Menacing, Riposte, Trip and Commander's Strike (with a single target damage dealer in the party)

What I found even more interesting was that Precision Strike was ranked (Dark Blue) the same as..
Disarming Attack
Maneuvering Attack
Pushing Attack (unless you have the Shield Mastery Feat)
Rally
Distracting Strike (though less so at higher levels)
Parry (with an appropriate Dex)

Even more interesting was the fact that only a single maneuver was rated red (lowest/not viable) and that was Lunging attack because of how situational it is... IMO that seems to point to the BM's manuevers being pretty well rounded and balanced especially since no particular one was gold and only one was not viable...

EDIT: I'm also still curious on whether this character took any non-combat feats or not...

Click to expand...

Precision strike is amazing. If you actually run the math on it (which the creator of the guide did not), it does nasty brutal things when combined with great weapon master. But again, the issue is that the best options are all about just dealing damage. I'd rather the best options not have anything to do with dealing damage.

As for feats, my ASIs went to +2 Str at 4, +2 STR at 6, Great Weapon Master at 8, and Resilient (Wisdom) at 12. I needed the proficiency in Wis saves as my 8 wisdom led to a number of battle where I was feared or paralyzed and unable to roll high enough to break free before combat was over.

If I hadn't taken the STR and GWM, I would not have been very adept at dealing damage (the only saving grace of being a fighter).

None of the so called "non combat" feats would have done much for my character. My charisma was too low to make use of actor (and I never had an opportunity to disguise myself as someone else). Traps aren't frequent enough for dungeon delver to be useful. If I took skilled, I still would have been worse at every single skill check than someone else in the party.

Ashkelon said:

I would honestly be perfectly fine with a martial class that dealt 20% less damage than the fighter if that class had interesting capabilities and tactical decision making on a round by round basis.

Click to expand...

Ashkelon said:

If I hadn't taken the STR and GWM, I would not have been very adept at dealing damage (the only saving grace of being a fighter).

Click to expand...

Worse than 20% less damage?

I know non-combat feats wouldn't have delivered round-by-round meaningful decision making, but fights in 5e are pretty short, so getting some meaningful decision-making out of combat has to count for something. If that one extra feat at 6th would even really provide that.

None of the so called "non combat" feats would have done much for my character. My charisma was too low to make use of actor (and I never had an opportunity to disguise myself as someone else). Traps weren't frequent enough for dungeon delver to be useful. If I took skilled, I still would have been worse at every single skill check than someone else in the party.

Click to expand...

That's unfortunate. A STR-based fighter is maybe not the best chassis to bolt non-combat feats onto. Perhaps DEX-based would fare a little better?

Obviously, you get more synergy out of a feat that uses or leverages a stat or skill if that stat is high or skill proficient (or has expertise).

I still think more could have been done with the fighter. Fortunately a lot could be still done with feats as Fighter do

On the noncombat front, a fighter could be so skilled at dueling and scratching their initials in the clothing of foes, their wrist and finger control is amazing and this aids in their penmanship. Perhaps as a feature feature or a feat, someone could get proficiency with forgery kits and get expertise on the check.

Or the old, warrior knows war history and is a war nerd and gets advantage on checks to remember facts about wars, armies, and battles and automatically knows all popular knowledge on them.

Or a warrior could have such amazing footwork, they have bonuses to dance performace, balancing, and stealth based on sound.

On the combat front, I just don't get why long rest, nonmagical, features are so hated. There are ways to justify it. Pitchers have pitch counts and rest times. Just because you have a short rest subclass and an at will subclass, doesn't mean a long rest subclass must needed. There's a magical one in eldritch knights. Why not have effect bigger than manuevers and have them on a longer recharge rate.

With fighter styles part of a subclass (champion), there must obviously be room for a swinging bonus. A subclass could offer a -4 damage/+2 AC or +4 damage/-2 AC option for attacks as their main thing.

I didn't expect the PHB to fit everything but it's not like there's nothing missing for the fighter. The class still works however.

Ashkelon said:

Precision strike is amazing. If you actually run the math on it (which the creator of the guide did not), it does nasty brutal things when combined with great weapon master. But again, the issue is that the best options are all about just dealing damage. I'd rather the best options not have anything to do with dealing damage.

Click to expand...

Wait so is Precision Strike amazing? Or is Precision Strike+GWM (a feat that has been labeled as vastly overpowered when combined with a way to neutralize the penalty...i.e. Precise Strike) amazing? I think I'm starting to see why this character was boring throughout numerous levels and why you rarely used other maneuvers.

No the best options are not all about dealing damage... Menacing inflicts a condition... Trip inflicts a condition... Disarming Strike takes an opponents weapon away. You've narrowly focused your character to deal massive DPR using one-trick, that's why it may seem that way to you.

Ashkelon said:

As for feats, my ASIs went to +2 Str at 4, +2 STR at 6, Great Weapon Master at 8, and Resilient (Wisdom) at 12. I needed the proficiency in Wis saves as my 8 wisdom led to a number of battle where I was feared or paralyzed and unable to roll high enough to break free before combat was over.

If I hadn't taken the STR and GWM, I would not have been very adept at dealing damage (the only saving grace of being a fighter).

Click to expand...

So everything literally went to combat prowess...

I disagree, maxing strength and taking GWM is not "necessary" for a fighter to be adept at dealing damage, it's way beyond just being adept. What I'm seeing here is that you used an arguably broken combo to create a beyond optimized one-trick pony (which explains why fliers and reach were such a problem for you) to dominate in combat by using GWM and Precision Strike (to offset the penalty)... Dude this is a beyond optimized, totally combat focused character... and focused mainly on DPR... this is exactly what I called out earlier in the thread... I guess I also see why the Champion wouldn't work, because he can't neutralize the penalty.

Ashkelon said:

None of the so called "non combat" feats would have done much for my character. My charisma was too low to make use of actor (and I never had an opportunity to disguise myself as someone else). Traps aren't frequent enough for dungeon delver to be useful. If I took skilled, I still would have been worse at every single skill check than someone else in the party.

Click to expand...

Ok you don't have to be the best to be effective and/or contribute. I can't believe all of your scores except Strength were so low that skill proficiency wouldn't have mattered for any of them... and even so skill proficiency would have at leats giving you a chance at the range of very easy to hard DC's. I mean it's possible your scores were that low if you rolled but that's not the fighter class being designed badly, that's you having some really bad rolls.

Ashkelon said:

Precision strike is amazing. If you actually run the math on it (which the creator of the guide did not), it does nasty brutal things when combined with great weapon master. But again, the issue is that the best options are all about just dealing damage. I'd rather the best options not have anything to do with dealing damage.

As for feats, my ASIs went to +2 Str at 4, +2 STR at 6, Great Weapon Master at 8, and Resilient (Wisdom) at 12. I needed the proficiency in Wis saves as my 8 wisdom led to a number of battle where I was feared or paralyzed and unable to roll high enough to break free before combat was over.

If I hadn't taken the STR and GWM, I would not have been very adept at dealing damage (the only saving grace of being a fighter).

None of the so called "non combat" feats would have done much for my character. My charisma was too low to make use of actor (and I never had an opportunity to disguise myself as someone else). Traps aren't frequent enough for dungeon delver to be useful. If I took skilled, I still would have been worse at every single skill check than someone else in the party.

Click to expand...

I suspect your fighter was a bit boring in combat because you spent two feats increasing your str to 20, which is unnecessary with 5e's bounded accuracy. Then you went for more damage with GWM, which is overkill (we have substituted the -5/+10 for +1 stat). Then finally shored up the classic fighter wisdom save weakness.

If you wanted more interesting options, things like arcane initiate, lucky and skilled (albeit we have modified Skilled to allow +1 skill, plus expertise in an existing skill) are available. You just have to choose interesting over a dpr stat bump. Even better than the standard feats however, my personal preference is creating your own feats, tailor made to the PC/group.

Imagine what 2 custom made feats could have done for your fighter. The possibilities are endless!