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

[Sacrosanct]

I know for a fact that this isn't true for me, which means it isn't a universal truth at all. The more valid options I have the harder I find it to make a decision, I get overwhelmed and have difficulty seeing the big picture. I prefer having a smaller filtered down set of options I can make an informed choice from, or at least an educated guess. Overwhelming me with choices just makes me feel every choice is random and that I'm losing agency.

There is a spectrum of opinion on this topic like in many others - people have different perceptions and learning styles, some want the freedom to go wild, others want limits to provide structure and direction and feel lost without it, most are in the middle somewhere. And people with different tastes may clash over it, obviously, as if some players want more structure and others want less structure there needs to be a compromise or a parting of the ways.

This isn't about personality or style preferences. This is about objective fact. Just because you find it harder to make a decision, doesn't mean there were less decision opportunities available to you. I totally get how a lot of people prefer to have more direction and that's totally valid*. But we're talking about available opportunities here, and there is no question that the fewer restrictions you are given, the more opportunities are available. When I say "universal truth", I say that because it's proven by basic math. Whether or not a person takes advantage of those doesn't change that at all. Neither does running into a bad DM.


*I do software testing for a job, and I've seen more of my share of "paralysis by analysis"

 

[Aenghus]

This isn't about personality or style preferences. This is about objective fact. Just because you find it harder to make a decision, doesn't mean there were less decision opportunities available to you. I totally get how a lot of people prefer to have more direction and that's totally valid*. But we're talking about available opportunities here, and there is no question that the fewer restrictions you are given, the more opportunities are available. When I say "universal truth", I say that because it's proven by basic math. Whether or not a person takes advantage of those doesn't change that at all. Neither does running into a bad DM.

*I do software testing for a job, and I've seen more of my share of "paralysis by analysis"

At an abstract level, it is true that lessening the constraints on a problem expands it's decision space and multiplies the available options. If all or most decisions lead to success, we probably have a trivial problem with an obvious solution. As you narrow the number of success paths, the problem gets more difficult, and the less likely random choice will result in success.

At the same time, RPGs are a human hobby and human tastes and limitations are also relevant. For those who prefer context and constraints, it isn't subjectively true that less constraints is better or leads to more practical choice.

 

[RotGrub]

The problem is, most DM's, myself included aren't very good at math, especially in the middle of a session. Say we use Sacrosanct's example of -4 to the attack to gain (effectively) +2 to attack that target for the rest of the combat. Thing is, it doesn't work. It's not worth it. In any fight with a high AC opponent, giving up an attack to deal damage to take a severe penalty to hit does not have enough pay out. If I need to roll a 14 or better to hit, for example, then taking that -4 means i might as well not even bother. My chances of success are just too low. I'm much better off, overall, of just straight up attacking. OTOH, if it's a low AC opponent, say I need an 8 to hit, I'm not going to bother because now it's just not worth it at all. So, we're talking a very, very narrow range of target numbers where this idea is even worth trying at all.

I don't agree.

When I play 2e I find that players use called shots/ improvised actions much more frequently at higher level when they hit more often and have more attacks. It often is worth performing a called shot on an easy to hit monster who has a ton of hit points. In addition, when you're up against a high AC creature that requires a near 20 on the roll you're more likely to use an extra attack to do something significant. It's important to remember that in 2e rounds go by rather quickly. There are often more misses than hits anyway.

When I DM 2e I have my monsters use improvised actions / called shots on high AC PCs all time. It's a ton of fun too because usually one of them gets through.

 

[RotGrub]

Here is a SoD feature of the warrior in 2e.

Death Blow: This skill allows warriors to strike deadly blows that can fell an opponent in a single stroke.
A death blow must be announced in a round’s player determination step. In the round’s resolution step, the warrior makes a single attack roll against any adjacent opponent. If the attack hits, the opponent suffers normal damage from the blow and must save vs. death magic or be slain immediately. The opponent’s defensive bonuses from protective devices (such as magical armor and rings of protection) always apply to the saving throw. If the DM wishes, the optional saving throw modifiers from Table 36 or from Table 38 can be used as well.
Opponents with more Hit Dice/levels than the warrior are immune to the effect. Creatures that would not normally be vulnerable to damage from the weapon the warrior is using in the attack also are immune.
When a warrior attempts a death blow, that is the only attack a warrior can make during the round. Attacks of opportunity (see Combat & Tactics, Chapter 1) are allowed, however, and a warrior can combine a death blow with an all-around attack. Only the initial target of the all-around attack is subject to the instant death effect, but this might allow the all-around attack to succeed when it otherwise might not.

Note, that player authorship/agency is not required to make the warrior one feared MF.

 

[Hussar]

Here is a SoD feature of the warrior in 2e.



Note, that player authorship/agency is not required to make the warrior one feared MF.

Note that because it has no effect on anything with more HD than the fighter, this is mostly useless. Monsters almost always have more hit dice than PC's have levels. You'd need to be 7th level to try this on a troll. A fairly easy monster by that level.

Never minding that a 7th level 2e fighter can flat out kill a troll in one round anyway. Two weapon fighting, specs in main weapon and an 18 Strength and you can pump out about 35-40 points of damage pretty easily. More than enough to kill trolls.

But thing is, you're still not permitted to add any status effects other than death.

 

[RotGrub]

Note that because it has no effect on anything with more HD than the fighter, this is mostly useless.

It's not useless. The fighter is not always fighting creatures with more HD than himself. In most cases they are the same HD or lower.

Monsters almost always have more hit dice than PC's have levels. You'd need to be 7th level to try this on a troll. A fairly easy monster by that level. Never minding that a 7th level 2e fighter can flat out kill a troll in one round anyway. Two weapon fighting, specs in main weapon and an 18 Strength and you can pump out about 35-40 points of damage pretty easily. More than enough to kill trolls.

Can a 7th level fighter in 4e kill a troll in one round? So let me get this right, you want to take that power away from the fighter (all those extra attacks) and give him authorship powers that keep that troll alive much longer?

Btw, your example stinks because your forgetting about all those levels above 7th (ie. level 12 vs 12 HD). Your also forgetting that in 2e there is very little correlation to a monsters AC and its HD. A Will o'wisp for example has an AC of -8 and only 9HD.

But thing is, you're still not permitted to add any status effects other than death.

what rule is that? Never read a rule like that in 2e.


I'm still not understanding why player authorship/agency is required to make the fighter more powerful.

 

[aramis erak]

Umm, what other editions? Only 1 edition in all of D&D went 1-20 (well, two now) and that was 3e. All other editions went either 1-36 or 1-30. Since we're talking about misinformation as fact...

And you're doing so as well. Hopefully in simple ignorance.

AD&D 1E varies by class - clerics 29, druids 14 hard limit (expands to 23rd in UA), fighter has no table dependent abilities and thus can be any level, Cavalier & Barbarian as with fighter, paladin tables cap at 20, rangers at 17, MU 29, Illusionist 26, thief at 17th, assassin hard limit 15, monk hard limit 17...

OE only provides 16th level for wizards and 10th for clerics. Fighters (the only other core class) are only detailed out to 10th. Given that, in core box, HP are not a simple 1HD per level progression, those limits are much harder than in the expanded version.

OE+Supplements, fighter is effectively unlimited, as is Paladin; wizard is expanded to 22, cleric to 20, thief only to 14, monk to 16 hard cap, Assassin to 13 hard cap, druids to 13 hard cap.

Holmes: level 5.

BX: Cleric, Fighter, wizard, thief to 14; halflings to 8, dwarf to 12, and elf to 10.

BECMI and Cyclopedia: C, F, W, T to 36; Mystic to 16, Halfling to 8, dwarf to 12, elf to 10.

AD&D 2E core: F, Pal, Ranger, Wiz, Illus, Druid, Cler, Thief, Bard: all to 20;

Really helps to know WTF you're talking about, or failing that, to LOOK IT UP. I don't have access to my CO:HLC book to check the expanded.

20 is a perfectly reasonable limit, set by AD&D 2E, and comparable to the average level covered in OE or AD&D 1E.

 

[Gillywonka]

I'm new to 5e and running a game now. We're at 4th level. I know the figher is built to fight, but the barbarian does it better. He has more hit points and his barbarian abilities give him better fighter abilities (takes less damage, does more damage). I'd rather have a barbarian, but i'll just call him a fighter.

As a barbarian, I can still wear good armor, as long as it's medium, it wont inhibit my rage. So now i can use a breast plate or half plate and i still have a solid AC (i dont care if the barbarian's con adds to his AC, unless the con is on the higher side, a breastplate or half plate is only med armor and gives a better AC, so what i cant sneak as well).

My point being, as a fighter my job is to fight and win. So far from actual play, the barbarian is doing it much better.

 

[Ashkelon]

I'm new to 5e and running a game now. We're at 4th level. I know the figher is built to fight, but the barbarian does it better. He has more hit points and his barbarian abilities give him better fighter abilities (takes less damage, does more damage). I'd rather have a barbarian, but i'll just call him a fighter.

As a barbarian, I can still wear good armor, as long as it's medium, it wont inhibit my rage. So now i can use a breast plate or half plate and i still have a solid AC (i dont care if the barbarian's con adds to his AC, unless the con is on the higher side, a breastplate or half plate is only med armor and gives a better AC, so what i cant sneak as well).

My point being, as a fighter my job is to fight and win. So far from actual play, the barbarian is doing it much better.

The fighter doesn't really "shine" at being better at fighting than others until level 11. Barbarians, paladins, and rangers all have the same number of attacks from levels 1-10. The fighter gets action surge once per short rest, but the other classes get abilities that have a much greater impact on their combat capabilities overall (hunters mark, haste, smite, reckless attack, rage, etc). At level 11+ though the fighter does manage to barely climb to the top in terms of damage done, but is still behind the others in both utility and durability.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm still not understanding why player authorship/agency is required to make the fighter more powerful.

It's not. Trying to get the fighter some more player agency might require making it more powerful, but moar power isn't the point, less boring and/or more meaningful contribution is the point (well, more to the point - player agency is a big topic, so I'm sure Forgeers will explain that I'm missing the/a/some point(s), too...).