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

[Celtavian]

I totally agree.

In fact, I'd argue that in a world with magic matrial classes would also be using it. They might not access magic directly as a spell caster, but they certainly would access it indirectly via items. Of course, the fighter's use of magical items was an actual class feature in 2e.

I always give martial characters I run a cool magic weapon. That is also a major part of fantasy fiction. I like that 5E has limited items to encourage the DM to make magic items meaningful, so they feel like a unique part of the character rather than a disposable, upgradeable piece of technology. I never could get into the magic item Christmas Tree of past editions. You would never imagine Arthur trading in Excalibur for some upgraded items. Sting lasted Frodo his entire career. I could give a +3 sword with special abilities to a low level 5E martial and not beak the game. I love that I can do that in 5E.

 

[Fralex]

Whatever the fighter's flaws are, they don't appear to be significant enough to discourage many people from playing them. So it's prolly fine.

 

[RotGrub]

I always give martial characters I run a cool magic weapon. That is also a major part of fantasy fiction. I like that 5E has limited items to encourage the DM to make magic items meaningful, so they feel like a unique part of the character rather than a disposable, upgradeable piece of technology. I never could get into the magic item Christmas Tree of past editions. You would never imagine Arthur trading in Excalibur for some upgraded items. Sting lasted Frodo his entire career. I could give a +3 sword with special abilities to a low level 5E martial and not beak the game. I love that I can do that in 5E.

Yes, handing out magical items has returned to being a carefree pleasure and not a guilt stricken requirement to ensure the math works.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I totally agree.

In fact, I'd argue that in a world with magic matrial classes would also be using it. They might not access magic directly as a spell caster, but they certainly would access it indirectly via items. Of course, the fighter's use of magical items was an actual class feature in 2e.

To what 2E feature do you refer?

 

[Celtavian]

In that sense, we're really in agreement. We both realize that the fighter has been consistently short-changed in D&D, you just find that positively desireable.

I do not think the fighter has been short-changed. He could use some more skills for my tastes. I think the majority of his abilities should be at will as in usable like a side kick or in specific circumstances like a jumping kick. I don't think they should be 1/day or things like this. A fighter's power is based on skill, not a force like magic. The fighter is that mundane fighting man that can do what he does all day. His best schtick is killing things with weapons. He's not a ranger outdoorsman or a noble knight paladin. He's the gritty, get his hands dirty soldier that steps into the fray with armor and weapons and kills things. I want him built with that in mind. I feel D&D for the most part captures that with their fighter.

Sure, more skills would allow a little more flexibility outside of battle. Maybe you can make a good diplomat. We all know historically the fighting man without skills had a hard time rising in rank to rule. I think you can accomplish that in 5E by spending a feat to get four skills if you want to make that type of guy.

Nod. Any PC might be good at that, if they have that background. They might be good at a lot of other things, as well, by virtue of their class, or already be good at the woodsy stuff, and be able to take another background.

There's never been much the fighting man can do other than fighting very well that others can't do out of combat. So that fits as well. Aragorn was highly skilled, but he was also 80 years old and trained by elves. You could emulate this with a background in 5E. It would take some DM allowances and make your particular fighter a bit more powerful than average. Then you might step on some other player's toes. You have to be careful about that.

I think 'the best' isn't as definitive as it sounds. They're both high-DPR classes, so, really, is the Rogue, just in a very different way.

Not sure what you mean by this. In my experience they are both the best at what they do well, though someone what dependent on build.

Also not a martial class, unless you're talking about the UA variant...

Also not a martial class.

If a class casts spells, it's not a martial class even if its damage comes primarily from martial damage as in having to use a weapon to do it. Hmm. I don't agree with that. Paladins and rangers have always been martial classes with a limited spell selection intended to imitate some of the magical capabilities the archetype is based on. They are still considered martials.

Given the right campaign emphasis, any class can be - class can even be irrelevant, with other RP considerations having more to do with the fun of the character. The 5e rogue is less marginal in combat than the AD&D rogue, and actually delivers on it's non-combat abilities better than it did with 'special' abilities in AD&D. It's about on par with the 3.x rogue, really. Maybe a little less stand-out, because the gap between proficient and non-proficient is narrower.

I like it better than the 3E rogue. Seems more fun to me in the context of the game.

Also, (ironically, as an archetypal 'martial artist), not a purely martial class (supernatural Ki abilities).

Now I'm finding out we differ on what a martial class is. I think if its primary damage comes from a weapon or martial source, it's a martial class.

Not a false statement, but a misleading one. The fighter has /never/ been well-balanced out of combat. Among the best (top 2? top 3?) in a field of 5, all of which are bad, is really not saying much.

Perhaps. I like the 5E fighter. In play he seems very capable. You do have the option of adding some highly useful non-combat abilities with feats. And you do have the most feats, so you can expend one to obtain a useful non-combat ability easier than other classes.

That's always been the story. Spells are a daily resource, whacking with a weapon or making checks are unlimited, so spells can be much more powerful. I know it looks, on paper, like 5e casters - relative to 3e or earlier casters - have fewer daily spell resources. But, they also can use those resources more efficiently. Neo-Vancian casting means that no slot is ever wasted due to an un-needed spell being memorized into it, for instance, and gives casters at-will spells to spam when slots aren't called for.

You forget that they must carefully choose those memorized slots. Before a wizard could fill each spell slot with a different spell. He often obtained magic items like bracers of defense to eliminate his need to take mage armor. He might grab a few scrolls to fill in other spells. He can't do that in this edition.

My experience with the wizard is it can be very hard to take 10 slots and fill it with the proper variety at say 6th level. It doesn't become much easier as you get higher level. Once you pick those slots, you're locked in for the day. The versatility at first appeared extremely nice. It doesn't work in play like you would expect. There aren't a lot of "I win" spells in the game. All the damage spells don't come close to matching martial output. The effect spells are limited and short duration. You could cast haste and it lasts a minute no matter what level you are or what slot you use. Long spell durations in older editions gave a lot of bang for the buck for a particular spell. In this new edition coupled with the Concentration mechanic and short durations, you really have to pick carefully. A spell is usually good for one combat. So one combat spell equals one combat. In previous editions you might cast something like stoneskin and have it last all day. Durations were tied to level rather than a flat number.

It makes things very different mechanically for the wizard or any caster. The spell slots and neo-Vancian memorization create the illusion of more, while the other spell limitations like Concentration and short durations actually lead to less in play. You pretty much have to accept when you cast something it is one combat and done. Woe to you if you get something dispelled. It is gone. Dispel works automatically if appropriate level. That can be painful for certain classes like the warlock.

Relative lack of magic items doesn't exactly hurt casters - it makes their spell resources more valuable by contrast.

Exactly, More valuable and careful in use. Don't blow them off and expect to rest. You better be careful using them or you might find yourself in a lot of trouble with no teleport or invisbility scroll to rely on. That martial can kill you because your AC and hit points suck badly. You have no out. Do not blow your slots unless you're sure you're going to win. If you don't win, you're going to die.

Wizards are amongst the easiest class to hit unless you multiclass into a class that gets armor. At higher levels even armor starts to fail with Bounded Accuracy.

5E is a very different game for casters. You have to be much more careful and thrifty with spell slots even with greater spell versatility, which is more of an illusion than something that truly has an impact in the game.

With 3.x/Pathfinder being the rest of the 'first' such editions. So, really, it's the second such edition - and, that, only in the sense of the semantics of the 'fighter' class label.

It really wasn't very viable in 3rd edition. Skill points too low. Not a cross class skill in 3E or a class skill in Pathfinder. Pathfinder warriors were often reliant on heavy armor even if dex-based because it provided the highest AC by quite a large margin. If you wore less than heavy armor, no access to heavy fortification, the most desirable armor modification due to the power of critical hits. Then there was the negative modifier to Stealth for wearing armor. I'm including 3E. A dex-based stealth fighter in 3E often wasn't optimal like it is in 5E.

 

[tyrlaan]

Dissociation is a valid concern. The idea is that in a roleplaying game, the player's thought process should resemble the character's thought process. Stuff that is relevant to the player's decisions should map to stuff that is relevant to the character's decisions. Now, it's true, a well-written justification can smooth over a lot of dissociation. But the further you stretch, the harder that becomes. It's like if there's a plot hole in a book or movie: a good writer can fix some of it, but it's hard for a really big plot hole, and the fixes become more obviously just fixes.

That's why when I talked about justifying a fighter resource system in my previous post, I began by stating that it seemed plausible. But if I'm wrong about that and some players find it implausible, then the mechanic would be dissociated for them. The would feel like what they know their characters can do does not match up with what their characters believe they can do.

But then it's fair to say what qualifies as disassociated for one person can easily be different for another, right? In other words, it's subjective and therefore handy for describing personal taste but not so handy for objective criticism.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I do not think the fighter has been short-changed. He could use some more skills for my tastes. I think the majority of his abilities should be at will as in usable like a side kick or in specific circumstances like a jumping kick. I don't think they should be 1/day or things like this. A fighter's power is based on skill, not a force like magic.

I could get on board with that idea from earlier of making battlemaster maneuvers once per round instead of X per short rest, as a house rule.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I do not think the fighter has been short-changed. He could use some more skills for my tastes. I think the majority of his abilities should be at will as in usable like a side kick or in specific circumstances like a jumping kick. I don't think they should be 1/day or things like this. A fighter's power is based on skill, not a force like magic.

I could get on board with that idea from earlier of making battlemaster maneuvers once per round instead of X per short rest, as a house rule.

 

[RotGrub]

To what 2E feature do you refer?

It's simply part of the class description

While fighters cannot cast magical spells, they can use many magical items, including potions, protection scrolls, most rings, and all forms of enchanted armor, weapons, and shields.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

It's simply part of the class description

I always viewed that as description, not a class feature/rule. E.g. you still can't use a Holy Avenger even though that paragraph says "all" weapons.