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

[spectacle]

Many of us think that a good thing.

What makes it a good thing?

 

[Sacrosanct]

What makes it a good thing?

Because a lot of people don't want to play D&D like a boardgame.

 

[Minigiant]

If you take the Sentinel feat and the Petection fighting style, you get 90% of the 4e fighter. Sure it takes 4 levels but a level 1 4e PC is like starting at level 4.

Add the marking rules from the DMG and you are mostly golden.

I can imagine how beastly a defensive 5th edition fighter is in an old school hallways and doorways dungeon.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Only takes 1 level if you're a human

I can imagine how beastly a defensive 5th edition fighter is in an old school hallways and doorways dungeon.

The Breachgnome is back! (from 2e)

 

[Obryn]

If you take the Sentinel feat and the Petection fighting style, you get 90% of the 4e fighter. Sure it takes 4 levels but a level 1 4e PC is like starting at level 4.

Add the marking rules from the DMG and you are mostly golden.

I can imagine how beastly a defensive 5th edition fighter is in an old school hallways and doorways dungeon.

You're still left with severe reaction limitations, since OAs use those up.

Lighten up on those, and it looks better.

 

[Corpsetaker]

I've always disagreed with the notion that the martial classes can't engage with the social pillar of the game. Each person values different attributes and are much more likely to respond positively to someone that they can relate to. So when you need information from the miners enjoying a drink at the tavern you don't send the bard with manicured nails and perfect skin. You send the dude who has battle scars and can down an entire mug of ale in one gulp. When you need to talk to the captain of a nearby military installation you send the guy who has experience in the military. The backgrounds encourage this by giving an ability that is more or less "you are good at interacting with this social group." These exist so that each character has a place in the social interaction pillar.

Also IME, the character that ends up doing the most in the interaction pillar is often the one played by the player that actively engages in it. I've played a fighter with a -1 charisma modifer who did most of the talking for our group just because the other players wouldn't step up. Yes, I failed most of the persuasion and deception rolls that came up but I wasn't dead in the water in every social interaction. A lot of NPC's didn't need to be manipulated in any way. If you're nice and polite most people are happy to tell you about the troubles they've been having, sell you that thing you wanted (at market price), or (if they are the adventuring type) accompany you as a hireling. I will admit that YMMV on this though, it requires a DM that is on the same page as you.

Monkeez

You have hit something here that I would like to further comment on. What you describe is how I run my games and I believe it is basically the design goal of 5th edition. I think the problem that some people have, well Tony Vargas said it in his post, is resolution mechanics. I think these people are used to a bit of hand holding when it comes to situations. I think they are more used to everything being about the numbers in an almost robotic sense. Any situation that arises calls for everyone to start looking at their list of powers to see if there is a power that can be used in order to resolve the situation. You have a list of DC's followed by a list of situations that try and fit into almost everything, where then the DC is chosen and the person with the highest score rolls.

The beauty of 5th edition actually enables characters to become more involved and engage with a living world and not just numbers. Your example of the group of fighters is a classic example of how things work in my games. Backgrounds are very important, they are not just a list of numbers. Backgrounds affect how the world interacts with you. Let's take your fighters sitting in the tavern for example and you want some information. If your Fighter PC has the Soldier background, then these guys sitting round the table are going to notice things like the way you move, the worn grip on your sword, the way your armour is cared for etc... Sure you may not have the highest Charisma, but NPCs have to want to interact with you first. Having the highest CHA does not grant automatic audience with these people. Since these guys identify the soldier fighter as a comrade or a fellow man in arms, then the DC to interact with them is going to be low while anyone else is going to have a more difficult DC.

 

[Tony Vargas]

If you take the Sentinel feat and the Petection fighting style, you get 90% of the 4e fighter. Sure it takes 4 levels but a level 1 4e PC is like starting at level 4.

You get a fraction (less than 90%, surely) of the fighter's Combat Challenge and Combat Superiority features. You're still down 5 builds and like 400 maneuvers.

I can imagine how beastly a defensive 5th edition fighter is in an old school hallways and doorways dungeon.

As a beatstick and meatshield it's just fine, it does lots of damage, every round, and is reasonably durrable.
A worthy rendition of the 2e fighter.

It's a little less worthy of the 3.5 fighter. Not so elegant, only does a few of the many possible 'builds,' via combat styles, and a few more if optional feats are used.

And it's nothing at all like the 4e fighter which was both a functional defender (sometimes argued to be the 'best' in the game) and, well, balanced with the other classes out there, even the casters.

 

[Ashkelon]

If you take the Sentinel feat and the Petection fighting style, you get 90% of the 4e fighter. Sure it takes 4 levels but a level 1 4e PC is like starting at level 4.

Add the marking rules from the DMG and you are mostly golden.

I can imagine how beastly a defensive 5th edition fighter is in an old school hallways and doorways dungeon.

Not really. There are a number of reasons for this.

1. In 5e you are limited to one reaction per round. In 4e, you had 1 reaction per round, but you could make any number of OAs per round. This allowed a melee warrior to threaten multiple enemies.

2. A fighter's OAs were extra accurate and stopped enemy movement. Combined with the first point, this meant a 4e fighter could lock down multiple enemies. A 5e fighter can lock down 1, at most.

3. A 4e fighter's OAs dealt as much damage as their at-will attacks. In 5e, the fighter's OAs are half as good at level 5 and only get comparatively worse as the fighter levels. This means a 4e fighter's deterrent was significantly more meaningful than a 5e fighter's.

4. The marking mechanic gave enemies an incentive to go for the fighter instead of the squishy targets in the back.

5. The fighter also had a variety of maneuvers usable with a high degree of frequency that could control the battlefield. This included AoE attacks, attacks that push enemies, attacks that slow enemies, attacks that knock enemies prone, and more. This gave the 4e fighter the ability to shape the flow of combat in a way the 5e fighter could not hope to match.

 

[aramis erak]

What makes it a good thing?

Because a martial having exceptional effects beyond reach violates the very concept of martial vs magical. Something that seems to have been totally beyond the grip of the 5E team.

Because a lot of people don't want to play D&D like a boardgame.

That, too. But some of us enjoy the boardgame aspects, while still not wanting 4E style "Everything is equal except the fluff."

 

[famousringo]

I feel like Eldritch Knight doesn't get enough credit.

Maybe not the greatest subclass for damage output, but flexible enough to do effective damage in melee or at range, and probably the hardest tank in the game to kill if you take a good selection of abjuration spells (plate mail + Blur + Shield and rage doesn't seem so strong anymore, bonus Absorb Elements for that dragonbreath). Even with the school restriction on most of your spells, a few smart picks will get you the utility some feel the class is missing even before you spend those extra feats.