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

[D'karr]

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.

Except the mythical adventuring day of 5-8 encounters is entirely variable. I have several groups playing, with one group running since the closed playtest. To date this 5-8 encounter day has possibly happened twice in over 2 years of weekly/bi-weekly play. An adventuring day of about 3-5 combat encounters has been the norm with everything else being non-combat, which is where the fighter is not going to shine anyways.

 

[Ashkelon]

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.

That isn't true though. For example, the vengeance paladin has channel divinity that can contribute more Damage over the course of an encounter than action surge, and it happens to recharge on a short rest. The barbarian can use reckless attacker even while not raging.

On top of that, most people's adventuring days don't actually make it to the suggested 6-8 encounters per day but tend to be closer to 3-5 encounters per day. Look at the polls on average adventuring day length and you will see that 1 short rest and roughly 20 rounds of combat is the norm.

That being said, even if they did have the 6-8 suggested encounters per day, the fighter still doesn't end up pulling ahead of the barbarian or paladin in terms of total damage dealt or total survivability.

 

[Minigiant]

Except the mythical adventuring day of 5-8 encounters is entirely variable. I have several groups playing, with one group running since the closed playtest. To date this 5-8 encounter day has possibly happened twice in over 2 years of weekly/bi-weekly play. An adventuring day of about 3-5 combat encounters has been the norm with everything else being non-combat, which is where the fighter is not going to shine anyways.

That isn't true though. For example, the vengeance paladin has channel divinity that can contribute more Damage over the course of an encounter than action surge, and it happens to recharge on a short rest. The barbarian can use reckless attacker even while not raging.

On top of that, most people's adventuring days don't actually make it to the suggested 6-8 encounters per day but tend to be closer to 3-5 encounters per day. However, even if they did have the 6-8 suggested encounters per day, the fighter still doesn't end up pulling ahead of the barbarian or paladin in terms of total damage dealt or total survivability.

Well that's not the fighter's fault as a class if you don't use the guidelines.
If you actually follow the guidelines, the fighter is the best at combat. If you don't follow the guidelines, the fighter is hurt but then it is up to the DM to adjust the game.

If you only have 1 fight a day, the base sorcerer is straight up overpowered and the bard is the weakest caster.

If the group is only doing 3-4 encounters between long rests and the group has a fighter, the DM should adjust the fighter. double all short rest features or maybe just action surge.

But you can't say "I'm not following the game how it is designed and the base fighter doesn't work now."

 

[Corpsetaker]

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.

Got any numbers to back up this claim?

 

[Corpsetaker]

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 main issue is that people want the fighter to be more than it needs to be. If you want to be more about noncombat, take the options that allow you to do so along with your own creativity. If you are looking for "press X for noncombat ability A" then you are playing the wrong game.

What is it exactly the fighter has trouble with when it comes to noncombat? Please someone provide us some examples of the "problem".

 

[Ashkelon]

Well that's not the fighter's fault as a class if you don't use the guidelines.
If you actually follow the guidelines, the fighter is the best at combat. If you don't follow the guidelines, the fighter is hurt but then it is up to the DM to adjust the game.

If you only have 1 fight a day, the base sorcerer is straight up overpowered and the bard is the weakest caster.

If the group is only doing 3-4 encounters between long rests and the group has a fighter, the DM should adjust the fighter. double all short rest features or maybe just action surge.

But you can't say "I'm not following the game how it is designed and the base fighter doesn't work now."

I like how you failed to address the fact that the vengeance paladin's Chanel divinity and the barbarians reckless attacker are not daily resources so allow the paladin and fighter to continue to deal damage better than the fighters no matter how many encounters or rests are taken.

The fighter has the best burst for sure. But paladins and barbarians can do just fine when their daily resources are gone. Also, Oathbreaker Paladins with 20 STR and 20 Charisma are a scary thing to behold. 2d6+1d8+10 damage per attack without needing to rely on GWM is plain brutal. It is a whole other league above the fighter.

 

[Corpsetaker]

I like how you failed to address the fact that the vengeance paladin's Chanel divinity and the barbarians reckless attacker are not daily resources so allow the paladin and fighter to continue to deal damage better than the fighters no matter how many encounters or rests are taken.

The fighter has the best burst for sure. But paladins and barbarians can do just fine when their daily resources are gone. Also, Oathbreaker Paladins with 20 STR and 20 Charisma are a scary thing to behold. 2d6+1d8+10 damage per attack without needing to rely on GWM is plain brutal. It is a whole other league above the fighter.

I want to see some figures please and I want some actual play examples and not these white room theorycraft guesses.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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.

Yeah, "Best At Fighting" is an advertising-style claim. It's not that no one else holds a candle, it's that no one else can definitively claim to be /better/, consistently, across the board.

Try the new Wizard's 5.0 fighter, it's "the best at fighting!"(R)*





* fighting defined as mean-average DPR inflicted with weapons upon creatures not resistant to weapons over the course of 6-8 encounters of 2-5 rounds each, with a 1 hour union break after every other encounter, but no longer rest until all encounters are resolved, and without the use of magic nor the application of friendly or hostile magic from outside sources.
Non-attourney spokesman not affiliated with Wizards of the Coast, Hasbro, nor subsidiaries or contractors thereof.
Cash value 0gp. May contain substances known by the State of California to cause cancer or reproductive harm.
Void where prohibited by law.

 

[Minigiant]

I like how you failed to address the fact that the vengeance paladin's Chanel divinity and the barbarians reckless attacker are not daily resources so allow the paladin and fighter to continue to deal damage better than the fighters no matter how many encounters or rests are taken.

The fighter has the best burst for sure. But paladins and barbarians can do just fine when their daily resources are gone. Also, Oathbreaker Paladins with 20 STR and 20 Charisma are a scary thing to behold. 2d6+1d8+10 damage per attack without needing to rely on GWM is plain brutal. It is a whole other league above the fighter.

Channel Divinity is once per rest and VoE only affect one target and doesn't jump like hunter's mark.

Reckless attack gets you hurt fast if your DM doesn't babysit you. Spamming it is a good way to drain a cleric's magic. And they don't get any fighting styles.

The fighter works on hordes, pairs, solos, and a leader and minions, brutes, casters, archers, and skirmishers. And the fighter runs through long days best.

The main issue is that people want the fighter to be more than it needs to be. If you want to be more about noncombat, take the options that allow you to do so along with your own creativity. If you are looking for "press X for noncombat ability A" then you are playing the wrong game.

What is it exactly the fighter has trouble with when it comes to noncombat? Please someone provide us some examples of the "problem".

This too. The base fighter is 85% fighting, 5% exploration, 10% whatever your 2 bonus feats are

 

[D'karr]

Well that's not the fighter's fault as a class if you don't use the guidelines.

Nobody said it's the fighter's fault. That would be adding insult to injury. Like saying to the kid without a bike, it's too bad your parents just don't love you enough to get you one.

It is actually a system fault for using assumptions that in normal play don't pan out. Like giving the fighter his "keep up with the Joneses" stuff starting at 11th level, when not many games make it that far - by their own statistical data. By that time the Joneses have already moved from the neighborhood.

If you actually follow the guidelines, the fighter is the best at combat. If you don't follow the guidelines, the fighter is hurt but then it is up to the DM to adjust the game.

Guidelines are exactly that, guides. It would be good if the guides used normal play as their basis. There is a reason 6-8 combat encounters in a day don't happen that often in normal play. Since they don't happen that often the guides should have used the norm as the basis for evening out the playing field, not the other way around.

You must have 6-8 combat encounters so that everyone gets a chance to shine does not seem much like a guideline, but more like a requirement for the game to even out.

If you only have 1 fight a day, the base sorcerer is straight up overpowered and the bard is the weakest caster.

But if you have 3-5 in a day how does the sorcerer then stack up?

If the group is only doing 3-4 encounters between long rests and the group has a fighter, the DM should adjust the fighter. double all short rest features or maybe just action surge.

Sure, but it still does not speak to the real problem. The baseline is skewed in a direction that normal play does not usually fall into. Like having the real good stuff starting at 11th-17th level, a level that a large amount of groups will probably never play at.

But you can't say "I'm not following the game how it is designed and the base fighter doesn't work now."

I think that what is being shown is that the game was not necessarily built with the robustness necessary to allow the fighter to shine in his expected area of expertise, when normal play comes to the fore. If 6-8 combat encounters a day was the norm, without the DM having to make any adjustments, then I would agree with you. But 3-5 encounters is what we have been seeing for a very long time now, and that is the norm.

The game should play at its best within the norm (levels 1-10, 3-5 encounters/day, etc.) It should not require additional adjustments to classes, adventures, rest periods, or encounters based on assumptions that don't seem to occur often. The guidelines should take the norm as their baseline. And when the guidelines suggest different approaches (variant rest periods, etc.) they should warn about possible consequences (impact to rest period dependent classes).