aramis erak
Legend
Fighting Styles are used by Fighter, Paladin and Ranger; the list of which is allowed is different for each class... (No GWF rangers, no DWF paladins.)
D&D 5E The Legacy of the Fighter in 5 to 10 years
Fighting Styles are used by Fighter, Paladin and Ranger; the list of which is allowed is different for each class... (No GWF rangers, no DWF paladins.)
Well, while Dex doesn't help to initiate a grapple, it does protect from being grappled or shoved just as well as strength does
Mistwell
Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
The self healing doesn't scale with level, costs a bonus action which often gets used for other things instead, and often goes unused by our fighters most sessions. The extra action, on the other hand, gets used every session, and is often the killing blow. So, I think the healing will be mostly forgotten in the history of D&D, but the extra action will become iconic for the fighter.
Klaus
First Post
But the self-healing can also be used outside of combat, adding that to the hp recovered by spending Hit Dice.
Jessica
First Post
I think the Fighter's legacy is going to be what it's been most of the time: the general warrior class people play when the idea for their character doesn't match up with the more specific Paladin/Ranger/Barbarian/Monk. I mean they didn't do anything terribly crazy with the Fighter this edition besides making a gish Fighter, an old school "I attack" type Fighter, and a powers type Fighter able to exist under the same umbrella.
Personally the more I see people say the Fighter should be best at Fighting, the more I hate that the class is called Fighter. Not only does it suggest that the class should be the best at fighting(when IMO it should just have the most options for being great at fighting), but the name for the class itself feels awkward. Personally I wish they would have done with Fighters in 3.X what they did with Thieves in 3.X and call them by the old class category name(i.e. Warrior) instead of keeping Fighter as the name. Fighters in general just feel off to me. I really wish that the class had an actual "identity" of it's own instead of it being kind of defined by it's non-identity.
Personally the more I see people say the Fighter should be best at Fighting, the more I hate that the class is called Fighter. Not only does it suggest that the class should be the best at fighting(when IMO it should just have the most options for being great at fighting), but the name for the class itself feels awkward. Personally I wish they would have done with Fighters in 3.X what they did with Thieves in 3.X and call them by the old class category name(i.e. Warrior) instead of keeping Fighter as the name. Fighters in general just feel off to me. I really wish that the class had an actual "identity" of it's own instead of it being kind of defined by it's non-identity.
Mistwell
Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
Meh. And? It's still a paltry amount. At even mid levels, much less high levels, it's a rounding error.
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
The healing does pretty much what all non-spell healing in 5e does: help you cling on for ~ 1 round more in an emergency. This is likely intentional. Whether or not that's what it should do is probably open to debate.
Khisanth the Ancient
Explorer
IMO what the identity of the Fighter has traditionally (i.e. - not just 5E but through the history of D&D) been is sheer training/skill + mastery of all armor and weapons.
Barbarians are raw power and primal fury (I kind of see the Barbarian/Fighter distinction as like Sorcerer/Wizard - instinct vs training) & tend to be less armored
Paladins are holy knights who have spells and divine granted powers
Rangers have spells and wilderness abilities/animal companionship and tend to be associated with TWF and archery
Monks have "wuxia" type abilities and tend to fight unarmed or with a few specific simple weapons
Similar Threads
