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

[Mephista]

There are a multitude of issues with 5e. I don't think the Fighter is really one of them.

In my experience, the only "issues" that crop up with Fighter is that Eldritch Knight and Battlemaster, while fun in themselves, don't hit certain people's expectations for "warlord" or "spellsword" archetypes. And that has more to do with recreating something from previous editions than this edition, on its own, being bad.

 

[aramis erak]

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?

As a player - none outside of combat. The Ambush Drake is an NPC. Outside of combat, he's mine. And he's an interesting (and surprisingly capable) NPC, despite being Int 6 Wis 12... And he can't even speak. He's a monster with added character levels - I figured Battlemaster was the suitable choice for the "oldest wild ambush drake in the range"...

I don't get out from behind the screen much. But my players who are playing fighters (and those who have before hand) - Gabe, Chris, Chris, Worthy... each of their characters was different. None of them have particularly suffered outside the combat pillar, tho' none of them have shone brightly outside it, either.

 

[Votan]

Best fighter since 2E.

Agree.

The first two things I played in 5E were a Gnome barbarian and a human fighter. Both have been surprisingly effective and fun. And the fighter is a Champion, which I worried would be too limited. I was wrong about that.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

According to the WotC polls, fighters have consistently ranked as players' favorite class, regardless of edition. So it's not surprising to see people saying that they like it. They would have had to totally botch it to change that.

I think they did a great job. I tweak Second Wind for playstyle reasons, but I have no complaints about the class. I've played a hill dwarf battlemaster "monster-hunter" with 200 hp at 14th level, and I'm itching to play a human champion with no feats whatsoever.

I think a fighter's ability score increases are great, even without feats. If you are trying to increase their combat prowess, that's 4 more points that you can dump straight into Con, for an extra 2 hp per level, etc. If you prefer, you can use them to expand their exploration or interaction versatility by putting them in Charisma, for instance.

Action Surge is just straight up fun to use, and all of the subclasses have Fun Inside™.

As for "tendentious," call it what you like. I will always be very skeptical of the significance of a forum poll, regardless of what the general result is, because it falls prey to most of the worst difficulties such things possibly can: volunteer sample, unkown representativeness of population...

That's the big one. I'm always wishing we could get these online surveys up to the magic 2,000 number for better results, but alas, we can't seem to get enough lurkers to join the polls.

Fortunately, WotC own polls seem to be well within the statistically significant sample size parameters.

 

[Celtavian]

For all the complaining about caster-martial disparity, in my experience some players like to play a simple character that uses weapons to hit things real hard. The player's imagination does the rest as far as providing a satisfying experience hitting things. Plenty of fighter or martial players like to describe the hits or have you describe the hits taking visceral satisfaction in killing an enemy in physical combat. The relative power of the martial isn't even part of their thought process.

Fighters and martials appeal to a lot of people. Most of those players in my experience don't want a complex character. They want a very direct character that fights well meaning high DPR and killing power. Give them a cool magic weapon and a few other cool items, they're generally very satisfied with their character.

 

[Henry]

Speaking on behalf of my player for my biweekly game, he seems to enjoy the heck out of his low level fighter, and just now hit 3rd and plans to go Eldritch Knight. He seems to kick much ass and has at least two ongoing plot threads where his knolwedge of history and nobility has played a major part.

I also like the way the battlemaster plays out, where he can be swashbuckler, tactician, skilled Legolas-type archer, or any archetype,where skill is the key over brute arms-force. I've played one briefly, and I created a Swashbuckler Battlemast for a one-shot that the player really seemed to enjoy.

 

[Ashrym]

I was just at my sister-in-law's wedding and 2 of the children, ages 6 and 8, were almost LARPing. I've let them both watch me play and they are in the next generation of players, clearly. The were hunting imaginary zombies out on the lawn, with the older swinging his imaginary sword and axe (he was TWF) and the younger was running behind him shooting an imaginary bow.

I don't think either cared for complexity of options. They had their idea of what they were playing by using their imaginations and had fun. That's what RPG's are about. They were both fighters ;-)

 

[MechaPilot]

I voted yes because I generally enjoy the fighter, but I have two footnotes to that vote.

1) While I enjoy the fighter in general the first two levels feel like a slog to get to my subclass abilities. Subclass abilities really should have been a first level thing for all classes.

2) I definitely want to see more options for the fighter.


I could also gripe about the weapons (they feel like they could use more differentiation), but that is an actual gripe about the weapons and not the fighter class. However, it is related to the fighter class since the fighter's schtick is using weapons, so i figured it bore mentioning despite the issue resting with the weapons and not the class.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

According to the WotC polls, fighters have consistently ranked as players' favorite class, regardless of edition. So it's not surprising to see people saying that they like it. They would have had to totally botch it to change that.

<snip>

That's the big one. I'm always wishing we could get these online surveys up to the magic 2,000 number for better results, but alas, we can't seem to get enough lurkers to join the polls.

Both good points. Especially the first; "Fighter" has always been incredibly popular regardless of how good/bad/indifferent it is, whether within the particular edition in question, or across multiple editions (or even multiple games).

Also, it seems I had largely understood what Sacrosanct was going for, but may have had my standards a little too high (entering the squishy zone of "how many sessions do you need to see most sides of a given character?"--which will always be a matter of interpretation.) Since I have nothing further to add, I'll not post here further unless someone specifically wants me to (e.g. replies to one of my posts) and I feel a reply is particularly warranted.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I voted yes because I generally enjoy the fighter, but I have two footnotes to that vote.

1) While I enjoy the fighter in general the first two levels feel like a slog to get to my subclass abilities. Subclass abilities really should have been a first level thing for all classes.

2) I definitely want to see more options for the fighter.


I could also gripe about the weapons (they feel like they could use more differentiation), but that is an actual gripe about the weapons and not the fighter class. However, it is related to the fighter class since the fighter's schtick is using weapons, so i figured it bore mentioning despite the issue resting with the weapons and not the class.

Actually the fighter is one of the strongest classes at level 1 (looking at the numbers)
Compare it to the ranger, paladin or monk, who get their main abilities at level 2.
Also the first 2 levels are over pretty quickly. I´d rather have everone get their subclass abilities at level 3.
But that is personal taste.