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

[Tony Vargas]

Why exactly does the fighter need

That's the 64hp question, isn't it? It can't need more DPR or more attacks/round. Throwing more ASI's at it would just mean 8th-/10th-/nth-best choices.

more built in abilities associated with doing stuff out of combat?

Maybe. You could prettymuch just up and give the Fighter the OOC goodies of the rogue without exactly wrecking game balance (except for the poor Rogue, that is). That would be extreme, but the Rogue sharing Expertise with the Fighter as well as the Bard wouldn't be out of line, for instance. You could spin it a little to make it feel slightly different in implementation...

I'm seeing a lot of people wanting the fighter to do what other classes can do which defeats the whole purpose of having other classes

All classes can do things other classes can do. All classes can output some DPR when the chips are down, for instance. They just tend to do them differently. A number of classes output DPR with multiple attacks, but none with as many multiple attacks as a high-level fighter, for instance. Either differently in terms of mechanics (rituals instead of skills, Eldritch Blasts instead of Arrows), or differently in terms of concept (Arcane spells you learned from a book vs arcane spells you learned from a Great Old One vs arcane spells you discovered within yourself because of your grandpappy was a dragon).

There is no flaw to the fighter, it does exactly what it was built to do.

If there was a "plucky side kick" class, that got d4 HD, only half proficiency in any skills it acquired, 4 ASI's over 20 levels, and nothing else, it might be equally flawless, if that was the design intent.

But, the fighter /is/ designed to be simple class that punches out DPR, is not particularly fragile, and doesn't unduly push the player participate much out of combat if he doesn't want to. There's a call for such things - the call mostly comes from folks who will never play a fighter, on behalf of players whom they have no respect for, but it's a call. The fighter's strict inferiority outside of toe-to-toe beatdowns is also a long-standing D&D tradition that 5e dare not abandon, given the high design priority given classic feel.

So, while the fighter's inferiority is going to leave it open to criticism, the best way to answer those critics may not be in improving the fighter. Rather, the more expedient solution might be a new martial class or classes. A Warblade for fans of the 3.5 fighter & Bo9S, and a Warlord for fans of the 4e martial source, for instance. Obviously, these classes would have to be - like most classes - broadly superior to the fighter in many ways, but only just able to match the fighters DPR some of the time and with effort, to maintain the 'best at fighting' rubric. Also, obviously, they couldn't be allowed in AL, and would have to be hidden away in some high-walled option ghetto, outside of which their very existence could be plausibly denied.

 

[Corpsetaker]

WotC has and they flat out state this to us. And not just since 5e, the rumored "sweet spot" where the majority of games take place was also stated by WotC as being true for for 3.X and being the part they wanted to extend longer for 4e so that 4e would see more high level games than the editions before.

WotC was pretty sure of these statistics long before the 5e surveys

No they don't.

They can only posses the numbers of people that actually put forth the information and not everyone does I'm afraid. Please stop using misinformation as fact. You and WoTc do not have the full picture, that is why the current edition of D&D goes all the way to level 20 as well as the other editions.

 

[Leatherhead]

People need to understand The 4e Warlord just isn't going to happen in 5e. And that is because the Warlord would twist the action economy and bounded accuracy of 5e around it's pinky finger and break the entire system worse than wishing for more wishes can.

The Bot9s classes might be an option, in spirit, but they will be compared unfavorably if they ever see the light of day because of the bloated perspective from 3.5.

 

[Minigiant]

The issue I see is...

The fighter is good at combat. Like 20-25 better that any other class doing an adventure day. Fighter own combat better than any other class, period. A fighter beats every other PHB class in combat performance with equal optimization by an amount you will notice. There are people banning feats because the potential combat tricks using a fighter.

The question is:

Is being 20-25% better in combat than every other class worth being 20-25% worse at exploration and interaction than every other class?

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

People need to understand The 4e Warlord just isn't going to happen in 5e. And that is because the Warlord would twist the action economy and bounded accuracy of 5e around it's pinky finger and break the entire system worse than wishing for more wishes can.

Heh, but Summons, Animate Dead, Animate Object, Simulacrum, dont? Or are they only ok cuz magic? Or the paladin handing out a friggin +5 to saves. Or bless tossing bounded accuracy out the window. Sure, some battlefield positioning might be reduced, but there's nothing fundamentally wrong with a warlord granting actions or beneficial effects. For example, you might let them make an attack as a bonus action when they take the "Help" action. Its simple, straightforward, and in theme.

There seems to be this line of thought that non-casters need to be shielded from any complexity. We already have the kid brother "button masher" class in the champion, which runs reasonably well on auto-pilot and doesnt require a log of engagement. Lets at least have a more complicated one as an option!

The Bot9s classes might be an option, in spirit, but they will be compared unfavorably if they ever see the light of day because of the bloated perspective from 3.5.

I'd love to see them. In particular, the swordsage is what I wish the eldritch knight was. A warrior who does battle magic with a mechanic that is different than spells.

 

[Ashkelon]

The issue I see is...

The fighter is good at combat. Like 20-25 better that any other class doing an adventure day. Fighter own combat better than any other class, period. A fighter beats every other PHB class in combat performance with equal optimization by an amount you will notice. There are people banning feats because the potential combat tricks using a fighter.

The question is:

Is being 20-25% better in combat than every other class worth being 20-25% worse at exploration and interaction than every other class?

The problem is, the fighter isn't better at combat than others. The paladin and barbarian both deal better damage per round from levels 1-16 while also having more survivability, better saving throws, more utility, and meaningful non-combat capabilities.

 

[Mirtek]

No they don't.

Sorry, but you're getting ludicrous

They can only posses the numbers of people that actually put forth the information and not everyone does I'm afraid.

They stated they possesed sufficient information even years before they started the 5e surveys

Please stop using misinformation as fact.

Please stop claiming the company who does this for a living is unable to get sufficient data about their own business. They're not there twiddling their thumbs and relying on a few message board posts and some thousand filled surveys as sole means (of which they actually know the ratio of survey feedback to sold PHBs and the ration of sold PHBs to players)

that is why the current edition of D&D goes all the way to level 20 as well as the other editions.

And that is why the lower range is the most playtested and supported, as it's the most important based on all available data of 30 years of D&D. That is why both released APs aim only to take parties to close to level 15 (and OotA will also only aim at the 1-15 range too)

You might not like the data, but that doesn't make it less true. Players have talked for decades about how their campaigns usually never reach the high level, all data WotC had (far beyond these mere few people talking about it pointed at this facts, it came of of the playtest surveys (of which we actually know the received 200,000 responses) and the results of the ongoing surveys (which are a mere part of their overall market research) also state this over and over again

High level D&D campaigns do happen, but only for a very small part of overall D&D campaigns

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm sorry but if they starting creating classes from level 1 through 10 then I will quit this edition.

Promises, promises...

Most peoples games "that actually took the survey" might suggest this but we have no numbers on how many people didn't take the survey and who's games go all the way to 20. If you are going to compare classes then you compare all levels.

The playtest surveys were not the greatest. They were self-selecting, for instance. Not just in only people interested enough to join the playtest, but also in losing people who were disappointed with the playtest as they dropped out. [sblock]This is juts an anecdote, so pay it no mind, but of the groups associated with the FLGS where I was running the playtest, something around 40 or 60 gamers, maybe more, maybe a dozen looked at the playtest and actually played it at least once, and only 3 (including myself, the DM) toughed it out through Murder in Balder's Gate. That's pretty dismal. When I went back and asked about it, the ones who had dropped out because they were disappointed with Next admitted to /never/ having filled out a survey.[/sblock]

The playtest surveys also looked pretty slanted. For instance, questions were often asked in the form "Which of the following best represents the ____ as it appeared in the classic game." Now, if you hated ______ in the classic game, and you're answering honestly, you're going to be voting for something you can't stand. Like the WotC survey this month where psionics and warlords were conspicuously absent from a long list of "types of characters you'd like to see developed," the playtest surveys just left obvious stuff out. Particularly stuff from 4e, but also things from 3.x, like PrCs.

So, yeah, not the most dependable data.

It's not that just this edition. All edition (except 4e maybe) saw the cited ranges as the most played, with games ending lower or higher than that the exception. The 5e survey just confirmed it again

Yep. It blows away the idea of balancing-across-level. 5e adopting the 3e convention of all classes advancing on the same exp chart and being able to mix/match levels in multiple classes also makes it critically important that classes not only balance at any given level, but that level 1 of each class balance neatly with any other level of every other class (which is basically impossible, and the one major strike against 3e-style MCing).

Of course, part of the issue is that most groups start at 1st, and many campaigns break up for a wide variety of reasons before they've run their course. Yes, balance and playability issues almost certainly play a part in that, but so do lots of RL life concerns. So does simple time. If any edition worked well at higher levels, it was 4e, but it's run was so short, groups that didn't play intensively hadn't reached higher level by 2012. I'm running a campaign that's currently 16th, at the time of the playtest survey, it was under 10th. Currently, the 5e games being played in & around my FLGS are obviously pretty low level, while others that have be running since long before 5e released or paragon or epic, so, today, a survey of levels being played would look different.

5e's 11+ levels don't fill me with confidence, either. The 1 1 1 1's trailing off on slots, and the questionable capstone abilities makes me think it'll see a lot of 1-10 play, and probably the classic mid-level sweet spot.

They largely did away with "suck at level 1, rule at level 20" design.

Level 1 can suck pretty hard.

 

[Minigiant]

The problem is, the fighter isn't better at combat than others. The paladin and barbarian both deal better damage per round from levels 1-16 while also having more survivability, better saving throws, more utility, and meaningful non-combat capabilities.

Not over an adventuring day.
The fighter is better at combat any other class doing an adventure day. The paladin and barbarian can't keep up for 5-8 encounters. They jump ahead here and there but a paladin who isn't smiting or a barbarian who isn't raging don't match a fighter on normal mode.

 

[D'karr]

Level 1 can suck pretty hard.

Sucks pretty hard is more like it. However, because the stay is so short at level 1 it is just bearable.