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

[MechaPilot]

In my opinion selecting a fighting style and weapon is enough complexity for level 1.

I would agree with that assessment if weapons had more character.

In many cases, weapons have very little active character. One example that came up a few weeks ago on the WotC forums is the trident: it is virtually identical to the spear (although it weighs more and costs 5 times as much). If the trident had some additional quality, perhaps the ability to reroll a damage die result of one (to reflect the brutality of the three tines) or advantage on attempts to disarm an enemy (because of the trapping potential of the tines) it would have much more character.

As I have mentioned before though, that's largely an issue with the weapons on the list, and not the fighter class. However, when choice of weapon is one of the few distinguishing features for the fighter at the lowest levels it becomes something worth mentioning.

 

[Patrick McGill]

I've played one Champion fighter using feats. I took the Great Weapon feat and had a ball. It's fun to be Conan every once in awhile. Didn't play it high enough to see how it stacks up, but then again I DM a lot more than I play.

 

[Dargrimm]

Right now, the fighter is my favourite class. Enough customisation (although I would like a couple more martial archetypes), so you can play a wide variety of different fighters.

 

[Eric V]

Out of curiosity: Could people who have really enjoyed playing fighters note what levels they played them to?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I would agree with that assessment if weapons had more character.

In many cases, weapons have very little active character. One example that came up a few weeks ago on the WotC forums is the trident: it is virtually identical to the spear (although it weighs more and costs 5 times as much). If the trident had some additional quality, perhaps the ability to reroll a damage die result of one (to reflect the brutality of the three tines) or advantage on attempts to disarm an enemy (because of the trapping potential of the tines) it would have much more character.

As I have mentioned before though, that's largely an issue with the weapons on the list, and not the fighter class. However, when choice of weapon is one of the few distinguishing features for the fighter at the lowest levels it becomes something worth mentioning.

I can agree with that. Some little distinguishing features would have been nice.

 

[Ashrym]

Out of curiosity: Could people who have really enjoyed playing fighters note what levels they played them to?

I played a battlemaster up to 14th level in one campaign that ended shortly before my current campaign in which I am still a 5th level bard. I have playtested every class in the PHB at every tier and participated is many non-campaign adventures of various levels; usually those are 3rd level but several were medium and high levels.

It's been difficult to play a campaign to 20th level in a year, and I managed on a bard previously, and I have an 18th level thief in an alternate game that doesn't run as often as the current game.

Given the expected time frame for a campaign of a school year, I imagine not a lot of players have played full campaigns in many classes yet and should be about the same one or two high level characters with regular play. I would expect many players did what I did and tested to see what they liked before getting committed to a campaign, and many simply continued with old favourites.

My favourite 5e classes are bards, rogues, rangers, fighters, and warlocks. Pretty much in that order.

I had a lot of fun playing fighters and could have fun with any class at any level. I do find most wizards, druids, and some cleric domains boring, berserkers aren't for really my flavour but I can do something with them and I know a couple guys who like them, sorcerer subclasses aren't my flavour but managing sorcery points was fun for me, and elemental monks seem to costly without enough magic choices while I really enjoyed open hand monks.

I am not sure why you might be concerned that players enjoy fighters. WotC did enough different versions of them during the playtest to come up with the released version. The public poll had them listed as one if the most popular classes and Mike Mearls commented that it was the most popular class iirc. The most popular classes in the public poll were rogues, wizards, fighters, rangers, paladins, clerics, and bards (just for reference).

I didn't like 4e fighters. The power system felt gamey on the class and seemed to limit my choices instead of expand them. I found fighters okay in earlier editions but always preferred spellcasters. This is the only edition where fighters are one if my preferred classes that I really enjoy so after over 30 years of playing to finally get to that point I think they did something right in that playtest and new edition. ;-)

 

[Eric V]

I played a battlemaster up to 14th level in one campaign that ended shortly before my current campaign in which I am still a 5th level bard. I have playtested every class in the PHB at every tier and participated is many non-campaign adventures of various levels; usually those are 3rd level but several were medium and high levels.

It's been difficult to play a campaign to 20th level in a year, and I managed on a bard previously, and I have an 18th level thief in an alternate game that doesn't run as often as the current game.

Wow, you've played a lot of 5e in 1 year!!

I am not sure why you might be concerned that players enjoy fighters.

Where did I say I was concerned? I'm not concerned at all. It's just that most of the anecdotal evidence here is dealing with lower levels, that's all.

I didn't like 4e fighters. The power system felt gamey on the class and seemed to limit my choices instead of expand them.

I'll never understand how tons more powers/maneuvers limits people's choices rather than expanding them, but it seems to be a "feel" issue, so it becomes a non-issue (i.e. it's a taste thing).

I guess if one really wanted to play an archer but also really wanted to write the word "fighter" at the top of the sheet?

 

[Sacrosanct]

I'll never understand how tons more powers/maneuvers limits people's choices rather than expanding them, but it seems to be a "feel" issue, so it becomes a non-issue (i.e. it's a taste thing).

I can't speak for anyone else, but for me it's:

"I try to do X" Is it on your character sheet as a power/ability? No? Can't do it

vs.

"I try to do X" Ok, let's figure out how that would work mechanically.

The first is objectively limiting. The second may be limiting, but isn't necessarily.


I.e., any time you tighten the definitions of something, the more limited you are. This is true of everything, including D&D. I mentioned this the other day. If you're given 64 crayons, but told you can't mix colors, that is not more freedom than giving someone a dozen crayons but they can use them any way they want.

 

[MechaPilot]

I can't speak for anyone else, but for me it's:

"I try to do X" Is it on your character sheet as a power/ability? No? Can't do it

vs.

"I try to do X" Ok, let's figure out how that would work mechanically.

The first is objectively limiting. The second may be limiting, but isn't necessarily.


I.e., any time you tighten the definitions of something, the more limited you are. This is true of everything, including D&D. I mentioned this the other day. If you're given 64 crayons, but told you can't mix colors, that is not more freedom than giving someone a dozen crayons but they can use them any way they want.

When was anyone ever told they couldn't mix their crayons in 4e? Did DMs just not read the DMG, including page 42 about adjudicating actions the rules didn't cover?

 

[Sacrosanct]

When was anyone ever told they couldn't mix their crayons in 4e? Did DMs just not read the DMG, including page 42 about adjudicating actions the rules didn't cover?

Not just a 4e thing, but we saw it in 3e as well. People looking at their character sheet to see what they could do. In 3e, it was even worse because often they were discouraged from attempting anything because another player might have had a higher modifier. When I play my B/X games (especially with kids), they don't look at a character sheet. They say what they want to do, and many times it's very creative.

To use the whole sunder argument mentioned earlier? It was said that in 4e, it was easy because you had the daily power and just declared you were going to do it. What happens if you don't have that daily? Or had it but used it? Forget it right? Don't bother because you can't? Well, in my example of how I would handle it in AD&D, anyone could try. Just tell me what you want and we'll figure out a way to handle it. That's what I mean. It is objectively true that the more tightly you define how something works, the more limited outcomes you can have. It's basic math.