D&D 5E 5e Fighter, Do You Enjoy Playiing It?

[Sacrosanct]

It's pretty much a few people lodging the same complaints over and over again. They create a lot of noise for a small group.

IMHO the fighter is just fine.

Looking at the list, it appears you are correct.

 

[aramis erak]

I've only gotten to play fighters as NPCs... but my players have played them. And I've enjoyed watching the change between 2rd and 4th level... as they branch out into a variety of different types. I gave my party a 5th level fighter (battlemaster) ambush drake NPC, just to see how a second fighter would change my party. (He's controlled by the other fighter most of the time - that's a 5th level Fighter (EK)...

Or the two now 4th level battlemasters in my AL game. Watching them take charge of the battlefield by being right up in the enemies' faces. It's a joy to watch how they all differ. And how they all have learned to get where they want to be so that others are not viable targets.

(On the other hand, watching my 6th grader take advantage of their proximity to the enemy to make her sneak attack and assassinate matter... Shudders of pride...)

So I've enjoyed using the Ambush drake fighter against them, and then with them, and enjoyed watching the fighters soak it up so that others don't. Yes, I like the current fighter.

 

[Bohemond D'Arlac]

Currently playing a maul wielding, ritual caster mountain dwarf EK7. While from a fluff perspective I lament the lack of racial substitution options for the class/archetype, it's really nice to see how effective he is both in and out of combat. Huge melee damage potential with GWM, decent ranged options with Firebolt, Scorching Ray and bonded handaxe, high defenses with Shield (not to mention Protection from Evil when dealing with really bad guys), good utility with rituals... unlike the grim days of 3.x I always feel my character is actually pulling his weight.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I've only gotten to play fighters as NPCs... but my players have played them. And I've enjoyed watching the change between 2rd and 4th level... as they branch out into a variety of different types. I gave my party a 5th level fighter (battlemaster) ambush drake NPC, just to see how a second fighter would change my party. (He's controlled by the other fighter most of the time - that's a 5th level Fighter (EK)...

Or the two now 4th level battlemasters in my AL game. Watching them take charge of the battlefield by being right up in the enemies' faces. It's a joy to watch how they all differ. And how they all have learned to get where they want to be so that others are not viable targets.

(On the other hand, watching my 6th grader take advantage of their proximity to the enemy to make her sneak attack and assassinate matter... Shudders of pride...)

So I've enjoyed using the Ambush drake fighter against them, and then with them, and enjoyed watching the fighters soak it up so that others don't. Yes, I like the current fighter.

Is it really "playing the Fighter" if you've only done so with enemies? How many of these Fighters have you played for more than one combat apiece--and how many have you played when they weren't in combat (which no one denies Fighters are good at, as long as mobility isn't an issue)?

I don't mean to make light of the enjoyment you've seen in your players. As long as people have fun, I really, truly couldn't care less what they play.* Given things like the ending caveat--"don't vote if you aren't cool with playing Fighters"--I had thought the spirit of the poll was to get info from people who have, for lack of a better term, "really experienced" the Fighter. That is, played one (or more) enough to make an informed opinion about it in any of the "pillars" rather than relying on "theory" for any typical/expected part of the play experience--hence why I didn't vote, because I do not have that experience. If I'm wrong about that, Sacrosanct, please correct me.

*Well, unless they play FATAL, but nobody plays that...right?

 

[Uchawi]

I believe the fighter works for those that want a simple, or easy to use class. The same principle applies with other martial classes.

If you look at 5E classes like a wizard or cleric, you see a blend of all the traditions of D&D and new innovations from daily to encounter based abilities, rituals, and reserving spell slots. The fighter lacks an equivalent level of blending or innovations. It is my opinion they could not decide on what direction to take so you have three distinct classes within a class, i.e. battlemaster (4E), champion (1E/2E) and EK (3E). The other thing that really hurts martial characters is simplified combat. The masters of mundane have very little room to expand, even if they had an equivalent to spells like maneuvers.

Recent polls just reconfirm what current players of 5E like. There is little hope for 5E changing (by WOTC or via OGL) for those that do not like the fighter. So the people that have a negative response will be in the minority and tend to be the same posters. I guess we will eventually move on

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I did now vote because I have played a lot of npc fighters and they played very nicely in combat at least. And I thought I put a vote in for my players as well.
For those who want more 4e:
use protection style, marking optional rule sentinel feat and battlemaster and try it.
Maybe it is more fun than you think.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Is it really "playing the Fighter" if you've only done so with enemies? How many of these Fighters have you played for more than one combat apiece--and how many have you played when they weren't in combat (which no one denies Fighters are good at, as long as mobility isn't an issue)?

I don't mean to make light of the enjoyment you've seen in your players. As long as people have fun, I really, truly couldn't care less what they play.* Given things like the ending caveat--"don't vote if you aren't cool with playing Fighters"--I had thought the spirit of the poll was to get info from people who have, for lack of a better term, "really experienced" the Fighter. That is, played one (or more) enough to make an informed opinion about it in any of the "pillars" rather than relying on "theory" for any typical/expected part of the play experience--hence why I didn't vote, because I do not have that experience. If I'm wrong about that, Sacrosanct, please correct me.

Wanting to play a fighter and being mostly stuck behind a DM's screen are not mutually exclusive things.

I thought Sacrosanct was trying to prevent this from becoming a poll on "which class is best?" instead of "is the 5E fighter good enough?" If someone thinks magic is awesome and weapons are lame, his presumed desire not to play a fighter says nothing about the design of the 5E fighter. If someone thinks weapons are awesome but has no desire to play a 5E fighter (e.g. Tony Vargas), his dissatisfaction with the class says rather more. This is true whether or not Tony has been stuck behind a DM's screen watching other people play fighters.

For context, here is what Sacrosanct said:

One disclaimer: This poll should be for people who want to play fighters. If the class never appealed to you from the get go because you prefer casters, then this poll isn't really designed for you.

Nothing there about "please only vote if you have played a fighter as a PC in multiple non-combat situations."

 

[Mercule]

Voting by proxy for my wife. She's an avowed fan of elven light fighters and is enjoying her character (dual-rapier, Battle Master) a ton. The superiority dice, especially, give her enough toys to be interesting without being overly complex. She's a good tactical player and typically ends up as leader or co-leader of the group, but despises anything resembling a need for system mastery -- she's there to play the game, not do algebra problems.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Wanting to play a fighter and being mostly stuck behind a DM's screen are not mutually exclusive things.

I thought Sacrosanct was trying to prevent this from becoming a poll on "which class is best?" instead of "is the 5E fighter good enough?" If someone thinks magic is awesome and weapons are lame, his presumed desire not to play a fighter says nothing about the design of the 5E fighter. If someone thinks weapons are awesome but has no desire to play a 5E fighter (e.g. Tony Vargas), his dissatisfaction with the class says rather more. This is true whether or not Tony has been stuck behind a DM's screen watching other people play fighters.

For context, here is what Sacrosanct said:



Nothing there about "please only vote if you have played a fighter as a PC in multiple non-combat situations."[/COLOR]

I added the disclaimer there because I wanted to get the feedback from people who actually like playing fighters. I don't like elves. So it would be disingenuous for me to go to a poll asking people if they enjoyed playing elves when I'm predispositioned to say no. The race clearly isn't designed for me, so I shouldn't judge it based on my dislike for it, especially if I haven't played it.

Secondly, I think it is important for people to have actually played the fighter at some point as well. At least a session or two. Why? Because one thing I've said about 5e all this time is that you can't really make a good judgment about something (class/rule/etc) until you've actually seen it in play, because 5e more than any other edition IMO, often has actual play results different than white room analysis. I suppose if you yourself haven't played a fighter but have a friend who plays one, you could vote by proxy.

"I haven't played one, but Bill has, and he enjoys it."

 

[Ashrym]

I added the disclaimer there because I wanted to get the feedback from people who actually like playing fighters. I don't like elves. So it would be disingenuous for me to go to a poll asking people if they enjoyed playing elves when I'm predispositioned to say no. The race clearly isn't designed for me, so I shouldn't judge it based on my dislike for it, especially if I haven't played it.

Secondly, I think it is important for people to have actually played the fighter at some point as well. At least a session or two. Why? Because one thing I've said about 5e all this time is that you can't really make a good judgment about something (class/rule/etc) until you've actually seen it in play, because 5e more than any other edition IMO, often has actual play results different than white room analysis. I suppose if you yourself haven't played a fighter but have a friend who plays one, you could vote by proxy.

"I haven't played one, but Bill has, and he enjoys it."

Funny thing about that, I always preferred spell casters in previous editions. 5e implementations changed that. I don't care for fighters without the feats as much, but they were definitely fun.