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

[Hussar]

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.

Yet, for all that verbiage, none of the classes go to 20th level. Not a single one. So, how am I wrong again? Or is this just another overly pedantic issue that completely misses the point? The original claim was that every version of D&D before 4e went 1-20 levels. That's false. That was the point, not the exact levels to which it's false.

 

[Hussar]

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.

Most cases? I really, really doubt that.

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?

Nope. 2e fighters were the most powerful that fighters ever got. Can a 5e fighter kill a troll in a single round?

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.

Wow, talk about cherry picking examples. Most creatures in 2e range from about 7 to 2 for AC's. That's why fighters got to shine so well. At higher levels, and even at middle levels, they basically never missed. It's something that 5e has adopted.

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.

Why do I want to make the fighter more powerful? Who's asking to make the fighter more powerful? I want a fighter that's more interesting That means a fighter that has more tactical options than "I hit, I hit, I miss, I hit."

 

[Ashkelon]

People really seem to have a hard time grasping the fact that those of us who are dissatisfied with the fighter don't want it to be more powerful or for it to deal more damage. What we want is the ability to make interesting choices in combat that have a visible impact on the battle in ways that are not purely damage. We want to not be at the whims of the DM whenever we want to try something "cool". We want to have the scope of our capabilities increase with our level so that at level 20 we are not merely repeating the same tricks we could do at level 3.

I would gladly give up 20% of the fighters damage in exchange for dynamic and interesting combat capabilities.

 

[Tony Vargas]

People really seem to have a hard time grasping the fact that those of us who are dissatisfied with the fighter don't want it to be more powerful or for it to deal more damage.

The fighter dissatisfies some of us, but that doesn't even mean it needs to change. There just need to be some options that allow for a martial character in 5e to be something other than a striker.

That probably means at least one new class, since the parent classes (Barbarian, Fighter, Rogue) of the existing martial sub-classes (Berserker, Champion, Battlemaster, Thief & Assassin) are pretty tightly locked into their high-DPR functions.

What we want is the ability to make interesting choices in combat that have a visible impact on the battle in ways that are not purely damage. We want to not be at the whims of the DM whenever we want to try something "cool". We want to have the scope of our capabilities increase with our level so that at level 20 we are not merely repeating the same tricks we could do at level 3.

And, presumably, to do that without picking a sub-class that casts spells, otherwise you'd just pick EK at 3rd and go about your business.

 

[Hussar]

I think ashkelon makes a good point. What is the difference between a 3rd level fighter (of any subclass) and a 12th level fighter? The EK gets the most options, but that's only because he's a caster. A Battlemaster has what one or two more maneuvers? The Champion has better crit ranges. That's it.

Compare that to the difference between level 3 and 12 of any other class.

I want to see that breadth for fighters. Not power, just breadth.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

And, presumably, to do that without picking a sub-class that casts spells, otherwise you'd just pick EK at 3rd and go about your business.

How about an Awakened Immortal?

 

[Celtavian]

Most cases? Nope. 2e fighters were the most powerful that fighters ever got. Can a 5e fighter kill a troll in a single round?

Yes. Why do you think they can't? An average higher level fighter using feats (Sharpshooter or GWF) does an average of 19 to 20 points a hit. They can action surge an kill a troll in one round. Depends on their magic items as well. A 20th level fighter can easily kill a troll in one round. Without Action Surge one and a half rounds. Fighters built well can do a truck ton of damage.

Why do I want to make the fighter more powerful? Who's asking to make the fighter more powerful? I want a fighter that's more interesting That means a fighter that has more tactical options than "I hit, I hit, I miss, I hit."

If the tactical options are designed more like fighting styles than spells or magical effects skinned as fighting styles, I'd welcome it. I wanting fighting to feel like fighting and magic to feel like magic.

 

[Hussar]

Yes. Why do you think they can't? An average higher level fighter using feats (Sharpshooter or GWF) does an average of 19 to 20 points a hit. They can action surge an kill a troll in one round. Depends on their magic items as well. A 20th level fighter can easily kill a troll in one round. Without Action Surge one and a half rounds. Fighters built well can do a truck ton of damage.




If the tactical options are designed more like fighting styles than spells or magical effects skinned as fighting styles, I'd welcome it. I wanting fighting to feel like fighting and magic to feel like magic.

Umm, a Troll has 84 HP. A 10th level or lower fighter, which is what we're talking about, is still only doing about 80 points with feats and action surge, and against an AC of 15 is hitting about 50% (barring cheesing out with things like bless, which the fighter can't cast himself) I suppose a Battlemaster blowing all his superiority dice might be able to kill a troll, if he's lucky and hits all four times while using Feint to gain advantage) but, then he's done for the day. Again, presuming the use of feats, a Great Weapon Fighter, and some fairly lucky die rolls. He might do it, but, it's not bloody likely.

20th level fighter? Why even bring it up?

But, on the topic of limitations, why are fighters locked into specific fighting styles? I choose my fighting style at 1st level (and again at 10th or 11th) but, I cannot change that once it's made. So, if I choose a defensive style fighter, but the group finds a really cool two handed magic sword, I can't really use it because I lose my class abilities. It would be like a wizard who loses access to his spells if he picks up a certain kind of staff. Sure, that staff is cool, but, how cool would it have to be to give up spells? Why can't I change my specialisation after a long rest? Something as simple as that would make a big difference in granting fighters more breadth without increasing power. So, I know that if we're going to face flying opponents tomorrow, I choose archery. If I know we're going to be fighting lots of mooks, maybe I go defensive. So on and so forth.

As it stands, fighters are the "simple class". And there is certainly room in the game for a simple class. I have no problems with that. I LIKE fighters. But, I also think there is room in the game for a complex class. No one is saying replace existing fighters. What we want is more complexity. We want a fighter subclass with more breadth. So, you can stick to your Battlemaster or whatever makes you happy, and I can get my Crusader (to pick a name from Bo9S) or Swordsage and we're both happy.

Why does the existence of options for me reduce your enjoyment? Who cares if I get a fighter that looks like a wizard? Why is this a zero sum game?

 

[RotGrub]

Most cases? I really, really doubt that.

read a few 2e modules

Nope. 2e fighters were the most powerful that fighters ever got. Can a 5e fighter kill a troll in a single round?

I don't know if the 5e fighter can kill a troll in one round, I have the books but they are collecting dust.

Wow, talk about cherry picking examples. Most creatures in 2e range from about 7 to 2 for AC's. That's why fighters got to shine so well. At higher levels, and even at middle levels, they basically never missed. It's something that 5e has adopted.

I also thought that you were cherry picking. The point is that as you gained levels in 2e it became easy to hit and that allowed you use your extra attacks for special actions.

Why do I want to make the fighter more powerful? Who's asking to make the fighter more powerful? I want a fighter that's more interesting That means a fighter that has more tactical options than "I hit, I hit, I miss, I hit."

ok I understand the problem. You're missing something.

Allow me to explain with a quote from the 2e DMG

Creating Vivid Combat Scenes
Since this isn't a combat game, the rules are not ultra-detailed, defining the exact effect of every blow, the subtle differences between obscure weapons, the location of every piece of armor on the body, or the horrifying results of an actual sword fight. Too many rules slow down play (taking away from the real adventure) and restrict imagination. How much fun is it when a character, ready to try an amazing and heroic deed, is told, "You can't do that because it's against the rules."

Players should be allowed to try whatever they want--especially if what they want will add to the spirit of adventure and excitement. Just remember that there is a difference between trying and succeeding.

To have the most fun playing the AD&D game, don't rely only on the rules. Like so much in a good role-playing adventure, combat is a drama, a staged play. The DM is both the playwright and the director, creating a theatrical combat. If a character wants to try wrestling a storm giant to the ground, let him. And a character who tries leaping from a second floor window onto the back of a passing orc is adding to everyone's fun.

The trick to making combat vivid is to be less concerned with the rules than with what is happening at each instant of play. If combat is only "I hit. I miss. I hit again," then something is missing. Combats should be more like, "One orc ducks under the table jabbing at your legs with his sword. The other tries to make a flying tackle, but misses and sprawls to the floor in the middle of the party!" This takes description, timing, strategy, humor, and--perhaps most important of all--knowing when to use the rules and when to bend them.

I see no reason why the above doesn't apply to every edition of D&D.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

But, on the topic of limitations, why are fighters locked into specific fighting styles? I choose my fighting style at 1st level (and again at 10th or 11th) but, I cannot change that once it's made. So, if I choose a defensive style fighter, but the group finds a really cool two handed magic sword, I can't really use it because I lose my class abilities. It would be like a wizard who loses access to his spells if he picks up a certain kind of staff. Sure, that staff is cool, but, how cool would it have to be to give up spells? Why can't I change my specialisation after a long rest?

I think that sounds absurd from a roleplaying perspective, like developing fluency in a different language every night, but since we don't play at the same table don't let that stop you from houseruling it any way you like if you like the flavor.