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

[Imaro]

It hasn't even always been that way either. There are plenty examples of characters performing extraordinary tasks without needing to resort to supernatural abilities. In 2e, a high level fighter had ~90% chance to make any given saving throw. The high level 5e fighter has around 20% - 50% chance to make a save (depending on proficiency).

In 3e, a high level fighter could wrestle a giant and win, knock such a creature back with powerful blows, control the battlefield with multiple opportunity attacks, jump 50 feet in the air, cut through solid steel walls with ease, and lift 20,000 lb boulders without breaking a sweat. In 5e, a fighter can't grapple or shove a creature larger than an ogre. The 5e fighter can lift only a small fraction of the weight, and can jump 8 feet up at most.

Hell, even the 3e warblade couldn't do anything supernatural, but he could stun enemies, daze them, dash around the battlefield, hinder their movement, and otherwise create a variety of interesting martial effects that the 5e fighter simply cannot replicate.

In 5e a Fighter can draw on an extra reserve of energy (Action Surge) to move an extra 30ft/ use a skill/attack/etc....
In 5e a Fighter can heal himself with Second Wind...
In 5e a fighter can reroll failed saving throws...

The Battlemaster will have 7 of these maneuvers by 10th level...he can also gain more through feats if used...

In 5e a fighter can inflict the Frightened condition on a foe...
In 5e a fighter can give up a bonus action and a single attack (of the multiple he gets) to give an ally an immediate attack...
In 5e a fighter can disarm his opponents...
In 5e a fighter can give advantage to an ally for the next attack against an opponent he is facing
In 5e a fighter can increase his AC while moving...
In 5e a fighter can grant temporary hit points to an ally...
In 5e a fighter can give an enemy disadvantage to attack everyone except him...
In 5e a fighter can increase his reach on an attack by 5 ft...
In 5e a fighter can reduce the damage he takes from an attack...
In 5e a fighter can increase his chances to hit an opponent...
In 5e a fighter can push a Large or smaller opponent up to 15ft away...
In 5e a fighter can attack off turn if an opponent misses him with a melee attack...
In 5e a fighter can damage multiple enemies with one attack...
In 5e a fighter can knock any sized target prone...

The Battlemaster can also observe a creature and determine it's relative strength to his own...

This is all outside of the numerous attacks the fighter gets.

 

[Minigiant]

There has to be a trade off at a certain point, I mean this is like complaining the wizard's weapons or the cleric's weapons are limited... and his lack of armor proficiency is part of his mythical/mystical (not sure which is being argued for anymore) nature, he doesn't need armor...

Yes the monk's weapons are limited but it does include shortswords... and the class kind of gives explicit permission to reskin weapons... so why couldn't you create a ki swordsman? Again this seems to be a parallel to the ranger vs. fighter archer arguments around 4e... only for some reason now those who thought that was perfectly viable don't find the monk viable as a substitute...

A short sword isn't a real sword, man.

The 4e fighter ranger archer debate is just names. You still shot arrows.

The monk punches. Ki swordsman doesn't punch fools. Ki swordsman runs across the battle field and cuts a fool or six. But noooooo the design team says Martial Arts doesn't trigger with long swords, scimatars, great swords, and glaives. You can't cleave jack with monk weapons and monks are so soft. The mechanism don't match. I'm willing to give on something but not everything.

 

[Imaro]

A short sword isn't a real sword, man.

The monk punches. Ki swordsman doesn't punch fools. Ki swordsman runs across the battle field and cuts a fool or six. But noooooo the design team says Martial Arts doesn't trigger with long swords, scimatars, great swords, and glaives. You can't cleave jack with monk weapons and monks are so soft. The mechanism don't match. I'm willing to give on something but not everything.

And you are still using a sword... the only difference is the damage die you roll... Describe it as whatever sword you want the monk class gives you permission. The only thing you can't use the above listed swords for are martial arts... and you shouldn't be able to since it allows Dex to be used as an attack & damage stat. Everything else... Flurry of Blows, Stunning Strike, etc. all work with any weapon.

No one forces you to punch as a Ki swordsmen... you want to use a bigger damage die weapon... use it... the average damage probably pans out for the missing d4 punch you'd get with martial arts if you're using a bigger damage sword... again everything else is usable with any weapon. Now it seems we've gone from a Mythical/Mystical warrior archetype to a specific narrow build...

 

[Imaro]

The 4e fighter ranger archer debate is just names. You still shot arrows.

Wanted to address this separately... no it seems to be the same arguments you're using... different armor proficiencies... durability through lower hit points for the Ranger, etc.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It doesn't "have" to be... nothing "has" to be. But it is the way D&D 5e, at least in so far as the 3 corebooks are concerned has, for the most part concerning PC's, handled it...

You're absolutely right, on both counts. You have, thus, identified "what's exactly wrong with the fighter?" The three core books do not include space for this character type. I, and presumably those who agree with me, would like to see space made for this character type in 5e. Since we're agreed it doesn't "have" to be the way it is, the next question is, "Why do we have to continue to adhere to the way the three corebooks have handled it?"

It doesn't... but again we have the monk for the archetype of the warrior who uses supernatural feats... Why does calling such a warrior "fighter" matter so much?

For the same reason 4e got blasted for having "Fighters" that were always fundamentally able to protect allies and punish enemy attacks, and that you had to be a "Ranger" if you wanted to always fundamentally be able to smash/stab/shoot things to death, despite both having the potential (even from the beginning) to blend the two concepts together or even step entirely outside both of them. Names matter. The conceptual space behind a mechanic matters, just as the mechanic which instantiates a particular conceptual space matters.

 

[Sacrosanct]

It hasn't even always been that way either. There are plenty examples of characters performing extraordinary tasks without needing to resort to supernatural abilities. .

Not true. An AD&D fighter didn't do anything that was supernatural. Seeing as how that fighter existed from 1974 to 1999 (25 years), it seems very odd that you'd claim that it hasn't always been that way. It's been that way for most of D&D's lifecycle. You mentioned saving throws. There is nothing supernatural about saving throws in AD&D. You just were good at dodging the attack, resisting the spell, or fighting through the poison/disease. Nothing at all tied to the supernatural there. Same thing with the thief class. Outside of being able to read scrolls at 10th level, nothing supernatural with their abilities either.

 

[Imaro]

You're absolutely right, on both counts. You have, thus, identified "what's exactly wrong with the fighter?" The three core books do not include space for this character type. I, and presumably those who agree with me, would like to see space made for this character type in 5e. Since we're agreed it doesn't "have" to be the way it is, the next question is, "Why do we have to continue to adhere to the way the three corebooks have handled it?"

You don't... 5e makes it clear a DM is free to do as he will... It even gives you guidelines for creating a new class so yeah I don't think anyone is saying you can't make your own fighter class/subclass that uses supernatural feats... that wasn't what this thread was about. Now claiming there's something wrong (objectively) with the fighter because WotC chose to stick with spells and the monk to fill this archetype is what is in dispute...

Edit: And with a roughly 80% approval rating for the fighter in the other thread (and yes I know this is not definite proof) I'd say they probably made the right choice in how they approached the archetype...

For the same reason 4e got blasted for having "Fighters" that were always fundamentally able to protect allies and punish enemy attacks, and that you had to be a "Ranger" if you wanted to always fundamentally be able to smash/stab/shoot things to death, despite both having the potential (even from the beginning) to blend the two concepts together or even step entirely outside both of them. Names matter. The conceptual space behind a mechanic matters, just as the mechanic which instantiates a particular conceptual space matters.

And yet 4e fans argued it wasn't a big deal and that the Ranger was a perfectly viable archer fighter... go figure...

 

[EzekielRaiden]

You don't... 5e makes it clear a DM is free to do as he will... It even gives you guidelines for creating a new class so yeah I don't think anyone is saying you can't make your own fighter class/subclass that uses supernatural feats... that wasn't what this thread was about. Now claiming there's something wrong (objectively) with the fighter because WotC chose to stick with spells and the monk to fill this archetype is what is in dispute...

Sounds, to me, like just another example of "you're the DM, you figure it out" as a way to dismiss any criticism levelled at 5e.

And yet 4e fans argued it wasn't a big deal and that the Ranger was a perfectly viable archer fighter... go figure...

It was perfectly viable. People still didn't like it. Ergo, it was incorrect to believe that people were okay with the way things were.

I, personally, think the two issues have extremely important differences (e.g. the current issue is a normative one, that particular kinds of fiction simply don't and shouldn't exist in D&D, while the previous one was an issue of people having both the mechanical and fictional elements they wanted, exactly as requested, but those elements not having the correct title).

And, for the record? I don't actually think Monks make particularly good examples. Since, if you haven't noticed, a lot of their stuff is still explicitly mystical. There's even a subheading in their description: "The Magic of Ki." The description further elaborates on it being, explicitly, a form of magic. Many, though certainly not all, of its uses are also quite literally "copy the effects of <some spell>"--the Shadow and Element monks are totally replete with them, and even the Open Palm and un-subclassed Monk aren't free of them (Open Palm has Tranquility=Sanctuary, baseline Monk has Empty Body which includes Astral Projection).

 

[Minigiant]

And you are still using a sword... the only difference is the damage die you roll... Describe it as whatever sword you want the monk class gives you permission. The only thing you can't use the above listed swords for are martial arts... and you shouldn't be able to since it allows Dex to be used as an attack & damage stat. Everything else... Flurry of Blows, Stunning Strike, etc. all work with any weapon.

No one forces you to punch as a Ki swordsmen... you want to use a bigger damage die weapon... use it... the average damage probably pans out for the missing d4 punch you'd get with martial arts if you're using a bigger damage sword... again everything else is usable with any weapon. Now it seems we've gone from a Mythical/Mystical warrior archetype to a specific narrow build...

The fight to fight features of the monk relies on punching and being unarmored without a shield. Ki is supplementary.

I want to be able to fight with martial weapons and their advanced features as my common mode of attack while having a resource to tap into once maybe twice during noncakewalk fights to do amazing nonmagical feats or have an extremely powerful effect at a high cost.

The problem is the fighter has the "at will" but the monk has the "resource". And combining the two requires a very high level start.

The fighter could have came with a nonmagical resource or dailies. There was a choice not to. The question is why are we continuing it.

Wanted to address this separately... no it seems to be the same arguments you're using... different armor proficiencies... durability through lower hit points for the Ranger, etc.

The issue was never HP. 4E started with a n archer. The issue was the name was Ranger not Fighter.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Sounds, to me, like just another example of "you're the DM, you figure it out" as a way to dismiss any criticism levelled at 5e.

.

This is hardly a fair statement. You're asking for an outlier and complaining that it's not core. It would be like me complaining that there's no dedicated class or subclass that allows me to play the Grey Mouser as written, and someone saying, "sure there is, the game gives you freedom to modify or create a subclass to get what you want." And me responding with "You're just dismissing any criticism leveled at 5e."

At some point we need to realize that a criticism we may have is an "us" issue, and not a fair criticism of the game itself. There is no way the game can be designed to cater to everyone's desires. Criticizing the game for that just seems like sour grapes*


*Yes, it's used right. "I can't get what I want, so it must be bad."