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

[Ashkelon]

Bolded for Emphasis: Hmm... do you think this was perhaps an issue with encounter design vs. an issue with the Battlemaster? I mean if 90% of your encounters were centered around taking down a single foe... well that would diminish the dynamic nature of many classes abilities.

When a fight has a lot of little enemies, it is better to save your dice and let the spellcasters AoE them down. The fighter excels at single target damage, but is rather lackluster when it comes to mobs of enemies. No point wasting superiority dice on weaker monsters. As I said, optimal use of dice mean you use it on a nova round to demolish a significant threat.

I can only speak to what I've seen in my own campaign, which is at 8th level right now. The Battlemaster in my campaign picked Riposte, Menacing Attack, Commander's Strike, Sweeping Attack and Trip Attack ... I'd say he uses all of them around the same amount with Commander's Strike being the most niche... but very useful when the Rogue is lined up for a big damage shot or facing creatures like fiends and undead and you want the paladin to attack more. I'm not convinced that dumping all your dice into the first round of combat is really optimal... unless you're only fighting a single enemy...

We had no rogue in our group, which mean commanders strike is useless (you trade your attack, your bonus action attack, and your ally's potential reaction attack all for just 1 attack). Tripping attack and sweep attack provide very little damage or utility compared to precise, menacing, and riposte.

Ah I see and they succeeded every time they attempted something so there was never a point where you backing them up mattered?

Sure, I could play backup. Woohoo. Fighter, the great backup player. Never gets to shine and is only there to help others when they roll poorly (assuming both that multiple attempts are allowed and that I can roll high).

In my game the Battlemaster handles most of the physical challenges, unless it's a group check, through skills and attributes but he also has the skulker feat and backs the Rogue up on scouting missions and the like in case something goes wrong... and sometimes it does.

Disadvantage on stealth meant no scouting for me. Well, that and the lack of darkvision. Our valor bard had better Athletics and Stealth than me anyway, so best I could do is play support. I was never the top choice for overcoming physical challenges.

Again it seems like 90% of the encounters you were in were designed so that this was the optimal solution... If I don't ever have a nature adventure... does that mean the Druid/Ranger classes are flawed or that my adventure/encounter design is off?

What are you talking about. That had nothing to do with encounter design. The fighter simply lacks agency to control the battlefield in 5e in ways other than dealing or absorbing damage. It had nothing to do with encounter design. The casters were all able to control the battlefield very effectively with walls, darkness, AoE, and zone effects. They could also disable enemies with spells like hideous laughter and hold person.

What were your spellcasters doing? I mean it's a team game so why weren't they getting you mobile and where you needed to be to maximize damage?

Because their actions were better spent contributing to combat than spent wasting rounds trying to buff me so I could somehow get into range.

Again interesting since gaining new maneuvers seemed to give more breadth to the Battlemaster in my campaign... and again when facing fiends throw the paladin extra atttacks... golems...none are bigger then Large so tripping, shoving, etc. work on them. Dragons and giants...Goading Attack, Rally, Commander's Strike, Disarming Attack(Giants not Dragons)... and a few others all work at range or allow you to affect the battle even if you can't reach the enemy.

Those maneuvers were not mechanically as potent as the first 3 I gained (menacing, precise, and riposte). Those maneuvers were not even as mechanically potent as 1st level spells. So while the wizard has a clear progression of capability (charm => suggestion => dominate, burning hands => fireball = meteor swarm, etc), the fighter gains the maneuvers you as a player care about least.

When we are fighting powerful monsters from myth and legend, the fighter feels like you are still in a low fantasy LotR game. The challenges you face scale with tier, but your capabilities do not. It is the same boring routine at level 13 as it was at level 3.

 

[Quajek]

When a fight has a lot of little enemies, it is better to save your dice and let the spellcasters AoE them down. The fighter excels at single target damage, but is rather lackluster when it comes to mobs of enemies. No point wasting superiority dice on weaker monsters. As I said, optimal use of dice mean you use it on a nova round to demolish a significant threat.

You're arguing that some things are "better" or "optimal" but the question of the thread was that Fighters are INCAPABLE. So maybe it's not mechanically optimal for the Fighter to attack four targets with TWF and Action Surge, but it's certainly possible.

We had no rogue in our group, which mean commanders strike is useless (you trade your attack, your bonus action attack, and your ally's potential reaction attack all for just 1 attack). Tripping attack and sweep attack provide very little damage or utility compared to precise, menacing, and riposte.

Sure, I could play backup. Woohoo. Fighter, the great backup player. Never gets to shine and is only there to help others when they roll poorly (assuming both that multiple attempts are allowed and that I can roll high).

Disadvantage on stealth meant no scouting for me. Well, that and the lack of darkvision. Our valor bard had better Athletics and Stealth than me anyway, so best I could do is play support. I was never the top choice for overcoming physical challenges.

So your party didn't have one of the main four roles covered, and you yourself couldn't do things you wanted to do because you chose to build your character in such a way that you couldn't do them. The Fighter doesn't just get Disadvantage on Stealth checks and no Darkivision, you had to pick that as what you wanted for your character. It's not the Fighter's fault that you wanted to be a Human in Full Plate instead of an Elf in a Chain Shirt.

What are you talking about. That had nothing to do with encounter design. The fighter simply lacks agency to control the battlefield in 5e in ways other than dealing or absorbing damage. It had nothing to do with encounter design. The casters were all able to control the battlefield very effectively with walls, darkness, AoE, and zone effects. They could also disable enemies with spells like hideous laughter and hold person.

Fighters can Push, Grapple, Trip, and Disarm. They can throw axes at torches and lanterns to create darkness. The can push over trees and throw boulders. The Fighter in my game the other night Grappled a Wizard that was (to quote the DM) "better than 50% chance of a TPK" and single-handedly ended the combat.

Because their actions were better spent contributing to combat than spent wasting rounds trying to buff me so I could somehow get into range.

My Level 6 Rogue has a Broom of Flying and Slippers of Spider Climb. Why don't you? Why are you limited to walking only at level 13?

Those maneuvers were not mechanically as potent as the first 3 I gained (menacing, precise, and riposte). Those maneuvers were not even as mechanically potent as 1st level spells. So while the wizard has a clear progression of capability (charm => suggestion => dominate, burning hands => fireball = meteor swarm, etc), the fighter gains the maneuvers you as a player care about least.

When we are fighting powerful monsters from myth and legend, the fighter feels like you are still in a low fantasy LotR game. The challenges you face scale with tier, but your capabilities do not. It is the same boring routine at level 13 as it was at level 3.

I can't speak to any of that stuff, as I've never played with a Fighter past level 6. But, the Fighter in my campaign is pretty important to the group, both in and out of combat.

 

[Imaro]

When a fight has a lot of little enemies, it is better to save your dice and let the spellcasters AoE them down. The fighter excels at single target damage, but is rather lackluster when it comes to mobs of enemies. No point wasting superiority dice on weaker monsters. As I said, optimal use of dice mean you use it on a nova round to demolish a significant threat.

Again our experiences differ...with numerous attacks and the fact that you can divide your movement up between them...this isn't the case in my game... especially when the foes don't clump up into a single group for AoE spells to easily wipe them all out...

We had no rogue in our group, which mean commanders strike is useless (you trade your attack, your bonus action attack, and your ally's potential reaction attack all for just 1 attack). Tripping attack and sweep attack provide very little damage or utility compared to precise, menacing, and riposte.

Having no rogue sucks but there are still other circumstances where giving a different character the attack is a better play than the fighter (like when you can't reach the creature in time)

Wait... tripping provides advantage while the creature is prone... you knock a creature down and everyone focuses fire on him till he gets up... that's advantage for everyone.

Sweep attack addresses exactly the problem you voiced above about multiple enemies and the Fighter not dealing with them well... menacing is good and so is riposte (to a point which if you're nova'ing I don't get how you use it) but precise is just a bonus to hit, is your fighter really going up against enemies with such high AC's that precise is a more optimal choice than giving everyone advantage for a round?

Sure, I could play backup. Woohoo. Fighter, the great backup player. Never gets to shine and is only there to help others when they roll poorly (assuming both that multiple attempts are allowed and that I can roll high).

So it's better to just fail... Woohoo!! the fighter comes through in a pinch is more like it.

Disadvantage on stealth meant no scouting for me. Well, that and the lack of darkvision. Our valor bard had better Athletics and Stealth than me anyway, so best I could do is play support. I was never the top choice for overcoming physical challenges.

Ah so what feat for non-combat utility did you take, and outside of Strength what are your high ability scores? Perhaps then I could help you to become more relevant outside of combat...

What are you talking about. That had nothing to do with encounter design. The fighter simply lacks agency to control the battlefield in 5e in ways other than dealing or absorbing damage. It had nothing to do with encounter design. The casters were all able to control the battlefield very effectively with walls, darkness, AoE, and zone effects. They could also disable enemies with spells like hideous laughter and hold person.

You're wrong here... You've decided the optimal way to play a fighter is pure damage and hitting things... There are maneuvers, and I've listed them that allow a fighter to exercise battlefield control (menacing is just one example)... It sounds like you've purposefully sacrificed battlefield control so you can get a bonus to hit on one enemy...and attack if an enemy misses you. In other words outside of menacing you've chosen to focus on pure DPR...

Because their actions were better spent contributing to combat than spent wasting rounds trying to buff me so I could somehow get into range.

Wow so they were throwing themselves on the front line with concentration spells against dragons... and they weren't afraid of being hurt so bad they lost concentration and went splat... yeah the casters in my party are more than willing to let the fighter handle front line fighting... while they provide buffs and ranged attacks.

Those maneuvers were not mechanically as potent as the first 3 I gained (menacing, precise, and riposte). Those maneuvers were not even as mechanically potent as 1st level spells. So while the wizard has a clear progression of capability (charm => suggestion => dominate, burning hands => fireball = meteor swarm, etc), the fighter gains the maneuvers you as a player care about least.

I don't even understand what you are saying here... how is tripping a creature (advantage for everyone until it stands up) or granting a creature disadvantage to all attacks that aren't on you (Goading) or gaining the reach you just complained about was lowering your ability to engage enemies(lunging attack) less potent than +1d8 to hit for a fighter? I am not understanding this at all...If you wanted a simple DPR machine why not just go with the champion?

When we are fighting powerful monsters from myth and legend, the fighter feels like you are still in a low fantasy LotR game. The challenges you face scale with tier, but your capabilities do not. It is the same boring routine at level 13 as it was at level 3.

IMO.. your problems seem based, at least somewhat, around encounter design... but moreso the fact that you've pretty much chosen to play a Battlemaster as a Champion and then become upset because your play experience is simplistic... And honestly I remain unconvinced that the tactics you use.. Precise/Riposte/Menacing are actually optimal except in encounters lacking n diversity.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Again interesting since gaining new maneuvers seemed to give more breadth to the Battlemaster in my campaign...

Those maneuvers were not mechanically as potent as the first 3 I gained (menacing, precise, and riposte). Those maneuvers were not even as mechanically potent as 1st level spells. So while the wizard has a clear progression of capability (charm => suggestion => dominate, burning hands => fireball = meteor swarm, etc), the fighter gains the maneuvers you as a player care about least.

It is the same boring routine at level 13 as it was at level 3.

For whatever reason, they declined to make better maneuvers that were available only at higher levels. It really is like a Paladin or EK getting only 1st level spells his whole career (except that even 1st level spells represent more versatility than CS maneuvers, that is).

 

[Sacrosanct]

So your party didn't have one of the main four roles covered, and you yourself couldn't do things you wanted to do because you chose to build your character in such a way that you couldn't do them. The Fighter doesn't just get Disadvantage on Stealth checks and no Darkivision, you had to pick that as what you wanted for your character. It's not the Fighter's fault that you wanted to be a Human in Full Plate instead of an Elf in a Chain Shirt..

This right here covers most of the issues people seem to have. In almost every complaint, it boils down to:

"The fighter can't do/sucks at X because I chose to specialize in another area." Well, if you wanted the fighter to be better at X, you could have spent more of the class choices towards that instead of what you did.


I also take issue with the claim that commander's strike is useless without a rogue. Most of the time in our games, it was given to the paladin (me) when I wanted to go nova with divine smite. Other times it was given to the PC who was actually in the middle of combat that round, like giving the monk an extra attempt to stun the opponent.

 

[Celtavian]

For whatever reason, they declined to make better maneuvers that were available only at higher levels. It really is like a Paladin or EK getting only 1st level spells his whole career (except that even 1st level spells represent more versatility than CS maneuvers, that is).

Higher level maneuvers would have been interesting. Even the Ranger has some higher level abilities.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Except that the Arcane Trickster more than covers it. (If you want him using magic from level 1, variant human and the right feat and/or Background, too). Really, if your concept calls for magic, D&D has that part of it covered. The 5e Rogue might feel a little shy of the Mouser's swordsmanship, though, but then, that's a 'mundane' ability.

Not exactly like the Mouser. He was as good in combat as Fafhrd. The arcane trickster isn't close. There's no way to recreate the Mouser exactly unless I want to tweak sublcasses on my own.

Which I should be totally willing to do if the theme I want is an outlier.

Except when the Next playtest started the goal /was/ to be as inclusive as possible - and there's nothing impossible about providing a fighter and other martial classes with more balanced options, since it's actually been done.

The real sticking point hasn't been what people want, but what people /don't want to let others have/. It's not about you getting what you want, it's about denying someone else. A fighter with more cool stuff or a warlord or martial controller wouldn't keep you from playing a caster or a Champion (or banning anything you didn't want in your campaign as a DM), it'd just be an option - at this late date an, obviously, an opt-in one not found in the Standard Game.

I'm not denying you anything, and the sooner you stop trying to present yourself as some sort of victim who is being treated unfairly, the better. The bottom line is that you only have so many pages you can put in a book, so they go with what the majority of gamers want, and give you tools to create that option you want that isn't included.

Demanding and complaining that your outlier concept isn't part of the core rules screams of laziness and entitlement. Because you can do it. You just don't want to put in the effort to do so, but are more than willing to put in weeks, months, or even years complaining about it online.

That's what I meant by needing to get over ourselves. We're not any more special than anyone else, and I certainly don't expect WoTC to devote the time/energy/and page count to something that only a few people would end up playing. Especially when they've given me the tools and guidance to do it myself.

Also, I have no idea why some fans of 4e were expecting exact copies of classes in 5e. It was never implied or inferred that that would be the case. 5e pays homage and takes inspiration from every edition, but can't be exact due to the nature of it and the context of the conflicting natures between editions. The battlemaster fighter is as big of a nod to 4e as any other thing in 5e is to any other edition. Wanting a class in 5e to emulate exactly what the 4e fighter is, is like me complaining that 5e doesn't have a THAC0 option. If it's that important to you, stick with the game you like better. I promise I won't go to your house and put a gun to your head and force you to play 5e or burn you 4e stuff.

 

[Tony Vargas]

You're arguing that some things are "better" or "optimal" but the question of the thread was that Fighters are INCAPABLE. So maybe it's not mechanically optimal for the Fighter to attack four targets with TWF and Action Surge, but it's certainly possible.

It's possible for a wizard to just hit enemies with his staff, too. It's just a bad idea. As you & Sacrosanct both point out, below, sub-optimal choices are sub-optimal...

you yourself couldn't do things you wanted to do because you chose to build your character in such a way that you couldn't do them.

That does beg the question of what Ashkelon was struggling to get out of his benighted character for 13 levels.

[MENTION=6774887]Ashkelon[/MENTION], what was the concept you were going for, and what kind of play experience were you trying to wring from it?

The Fighter in my game the other night Grappled a Wizard that was (to quote the DM) "better than 50% chance of a TPK" and single-handedly ended the combat.

My Level 6 Rogue has a Broom of Flying and Slippers of Spider Climb. Why don't you? Why are you limited to walking only at level 13?

Those both sound like DM issues. So your DM is generous with items and over-estimates the threat posed by wizards who set themselves up to be grappled, and his wasn't? It happens, styles vary. The game isn't supposed to assume magic items the way 1e, 3e & 4e did, anyway, so characters should (and most classes can) handle level-appropriate challenges without 'em.

This right here covers most of the issues people seem to have. In almost every complaint, it boils down to:

"The fighter can't do/sucks at X because I chose to specialize in another area." Well, if you wanted the fighter to be better at X, you could have spent more of the class choices towards that instead of what you did.

Starting to sound like the definition of a "trap choice."

Say you wanted a character who's a great athlete. You might pick a Champion Fighter, get your STR as high as you can (20 at 4th level), take Athletics proficiency and figure 'Remarkable Athlete' is going to make you, well, Remarkable, y'know, at Athletics. But, it turns out, it does nothing, since you're already proficient, and the next high-STR, proficient character is just as good as you - and the one with Expertise, though not quite as strong, is better. Not the fault of the class that it's nothing special at Athletics, it's your fault for choosing it.

We had no rogue in our group, which mean commanders strike is useless (you trade your attack, your bonus action attack, and your ally's potential reaction attack all for just 1 attack)

I also take issue with the claim that commander's strike is useless without a rogue.

I'm sure it's good for anyone who's single extra attack is that valuable. Rogue was probably just one example - I'm sure he'd've noticed anyone else in his party who happened to have more than double his per-attack damage potential.

Not exactly like the Mouser. He was as good in combat as Fafhrd. The arcane trickster isn't close. There's no way to recreate the Mouser exactly unless I want to tweak sublcasses on my own.

Nod, like I said, not quite the swordsman the Mouser is. Not that the Rogue lacks DPR or doesn't do well with two weapons, just, no multiple attacks, no combat style, it doesn't really scream 'skilled swordsman' by 5e standards.

Then again, what if you did have a character like the Grey Mouser - as skilled as a Rogue, as good in a fight as a Battlemaster, little teeny bit of familiarity with magic - would that really be so broken?

I'm not denying you anything.

Your position is that something the game was providing before, but isn't now, should be off the table and never considered for re-inclusion. If that's not what you've been meaning to say, of course, please feel free.

The bottom line is that you only have so many pages you can put in a book, so they go with what the majority of gamers want, and give you tools to create that option you want that isn't included.

That's still at odds with the inclusiveness that was claimed during the playtest. What people want, sure - what people want excluded, not so valid. It's not like you can't have a simple, combat-specialized fighter and another sub-class or marital class with more depth (if not quite so much damage) in combat and more meaningful out-of-combat abilities.

I have no idea why some fans of 4e were expecting exact copies of classes in 5e. It was never implied or inferred that that would be the case.

It really was. Not only that you could have characters that felt just like each respective edition, but that you could play them at the same table. Obviously, that one was a little fanciful. But the ideal was inclusiveness, and, while 5e retains plenty of d20 era mechanics, it's really much more suggestive of AD&D than 3e or 4e. That's in spite of 3e classes like the Warlock and Sorcerer making the cut.

5e pays homage and takes inspiration from every edition, but can't be exact due to the nature of it and the context of the conflicting natures between editions. The battlemaster fighter is as big of a nod to 4e as any other thing in 5e is to any other edition.

Not really. It's one sub-class out of 38. None of the the other sub-classes 'nod' to 4e. And, you have to admit, the neo-Vancian casters are a /lot/ closer to fully realizing what they were like in past editions, than the Battlemaster is to the 4e Fighter. Not that the 4e fighter was really a strong candidate for inclusion: the Fighter was in every edition, you'd expect it to reflect that (1e saves, 2e DPR, 3e customizeabillity, 4e tanking support, perhaps). The Warlord is what you'd've expected to see from 4e in the PH1, and it didn't have other versions to compromise among, so there's no reason it couldn't have been a faithful rendition. Of course, it was cut entirely, never even glimpsed in the playtest.

Wanting a class in 5e to emulate exactly what the 4e fighter is, is like me complaining that 5e doesn't have a THAC0 option. If it's that important to you, stick with the game you like better. I promise I won't go to your house and put a gun to your head and force you to play 5e or burn you 4e stuff.

Really, though, this thread is about what's wrong with the fighter in 5e, and that can't just be summed up as "it's not the 4e fighter." For one thing, it's also very much not the 3.x/Pathfinder fighter...

...but, more to the topic, no version of the D&D fighter has ever come through and delivered on the archetypes from genre it's left to handle on it's own. 5e was another missed opportunity, in that sense.

 

[Celtavian]

I'm sure it's good for anyone who's single extra attack is that valuable. Rogue was probably just one example - I'm sure he'd've noticed anyone else in his party who happened to have more than double his per-attack damage potential.

It's pretty good for a ranger as well, especially if the target has hunter's mark on them.

 

[Ashkelon]

@Ashkelon, what was the concept you were going for, and what kind of play experience were you trying to wring from it?

Mainly, I wanted to play D&D with my friends. I typically like martial characters, and I absolutely loathe anything to do with vancian spell slots. That limited my options significantly. My options were barbarian, rogue, or fighter.

I decided on fighter because my first 3e and 4e characters were both fighters. I figured it couldn't be too bad.

I think I was too used to the interesting and unique capabilities of late 3e fighters/warblades and 4e fighters. I missed having interesting options usable on a round by round basis. I missed depth and complexity. I missed resource management per encounter, instead of superiority dice which IMHO take all the worst parts of 4e encounter powers and combine them into an atrocious amalgamation.

I went into the game with an open mind, but quickly felt bored during combat. I stuck with it til the end of the campaign though as it was a friends game.