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

[Sacrosanct]

"The poll results don't reflect my personal opinions, so obviously the poll must be flawed."

 

[Mercule]

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.

I'm still neutral about the subclass at first level idea. I'll agree with you on the first two levels being a bit of a slog, though. As a DM, I could tell that my players were really not feeling "empowered" until about 3rd level. It's not just the Fighter, either. I'm not sure if that's something new with 5E, or if it's always been that way and was just not noticed and/or considered business-as-usual.

Either way, I'm fully in favor of the "3rd level is the new 1st" mentality. I'm not sure whether I'll start a typical campaign at 3rd level, but I sure won't be fighting those ridiculously low XP requirements for advancement. I do like the option of having "squire levels", though, just because I've run enough campaigns where starting the PCs off as marginally-trained was meaningful.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I'm still neutral about the subclass at first level idea. I'll agree with you on the first two levels being a bit of a slog, though. As a DM, I could tell that my players were really not feeling "empowered" until about 3rd level. It's not just the Fighter, either. I'm not sure if that's something new with 5E, or if it's always been that way and was just not noticed and/or considered business-as-usual.

Either way, I'm fully in favor of the "3rd level is the new 1st" mentality. I'm not sure whether I'll start a typical campaign at 3rd level, but I sure won't be fighting those ridiculously low XP requirements for advancement. I do like the option of having "squire levels", though, just because I've run enough campaigns where starting the PCs off as marginally-trained was meaningful.

Yeah, it's important to remember that the game was intentionally designed that way because a lot of gamers like the "zero to hero" model, and like using level 1 and 2 to feel your way out. It was actively encouraged to start at level 3 if you were the type of player who preferred a more "start at hero" approach.

 

[AlmirEldignor]

I had loads of fun playing my fighter (Great-weapon style EK who used a renamed glaive as a scythe) when my group ran the HotdQ/RoT books, she was awesome. I got some necromancy spells with the off-school features, and with warcaster for her human variant feat it was good to go. things only got better when i received a flame-tongue "scythe" from an npc we saved somewhere

 

[MechaPilot]

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.

I didn't say the fighter wasn't strong at first level. If I may ask, where did you get the idea that I was saying that?

I said that there isn't much mechanical differentiation of fighters before getting their subclass. To me, all fighters feel practically the same at level one and two. Sure, you get fighting style at level one and you can pick whatever weapons you want to use, but that only creates the very little difference that I've seen in the lowest level fighters.

Also, many of the fighting styles are passive bonuses, and I find that quite boring as it blends into the background. I'm glad they're there for people that like that kind of thing, but I would have loved a couple of more active options.

 

[MechaPilot]

Yeah, it's important to remember that the game was intentionally designed that way because a lot of gamers like the "zero to hero" model, and like using level 1 and 2 to feel your way out. It was actively encouraged to start at level 3 if you were the type of player who preferred a more "start at hero" approach.

My issue with the delay of subclasses to third level to enable the zero-to-hero mentality is that it's implemented in a lopsided manner. Clerics and sorcerers get their subclass at first level, druids and wizards get theirs at second, and everyone else gets theirs at third. Why? The reasoning that was given in a Legends & Lore article during the playtest was that the choice of subclass was more intrinsic to some classes at first level. Assuming for the moment that I buy that line of reasoning (which I don't, by the way), then you simply adjust all the classes to get the subclass choice earlier.

With regard to subclass being a more intrinsic choice for certain classes, I can buy that argument for the sorcerer (who is supposedly born magical) but not for the others. There is no need for the wizard's school specialization, or the druid's circle choice, to occur one level earlier than a martial archetype, roguish archetype, ranger archetype, monastic tradition, or a paladin's oath. The cleric is a similar affair. Yes, the cleric (under the traditional model of the cleric) should have a chosen deity at first level. However, many deities have more than one domain. It's sort of like a priest deciding whether they want to be a fire-and-brimstone preacher or a forgiveness and love type of preacher.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

"The poll results don't reflect my personal opinions, so obviously the poll must be flawed."

Isn't that why you created the poll? To cheerlead your personal vision?

I could post a poll asking "could the fighter have been designed better, or include options for more appeal to those who want a more complicated play style".

 

[Sacrosanct]

Isn't that why you created the poll? To cheerlead your personal vision?

Um, no. I created the pool asking if people had fun playing the fighter, and was ready to accept any and all answers. How is that cheerleading my personal vision? Isn't having fun the most important part of the game? Did you not read my original post where I talked about things like balance being wrapped up into the "fun" umbrella. It's not like I created a poll, and if the results didn't turn out the way I want, decided to claim it was flawed or otherwise invalid.

Your sour grapes are showing.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

With regard to subclass being a more intrinsic choice for certain classes, I can buy that argument for the sorcerer (who is supposedly born magical) but not for the others. There is no need for the wizard's school specialization, or the druid's circle choice, to occur one level earlier than a martial archetype, roguish archetype, ranger archetype, monastic tradition, or a paladin's oath. The cleric is a similar affair. Yes, the cleric (under the traditional model of the cleric) should have a chosen deity at first level. However, many deities have more than one domain. It's sort of like a priest deciding whether they want to be a fire-and-brimstone preacher or a forgiveness and love type of preacher.

Wizards presumably get their subclass at second level because WotC tries to avoid "dead levels" where nothing is happening. At second level, fighters get their Action Surge, clerics get a Channel Divinity shtick, and wizards get Minor Conjuration/Portent/whatever. At third level, fighters get a subclass and wizards and clerics get second level spells. Moving wizard and cleric subclassing to level three would make level two a dead level.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Isn't that why you created the poll? To cheerlead your personal vision?

I could post a poll asking "could the fighter have been designed better, or include options for more appeal to those who want a more complicated play style".

I dare you to do so. Just make sure you include an option for "No, it's fine."