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

[Matt121975]

I still think more could have been done with the fighter. Fortunately a lot could be still done with feats as Fighter do

On the noncombat front, a fighter could be so skilled at dueling and scratching their initials in the clothing of foes, their wrist and finger control is amazing and this aids in their penmanship. Perhaps as a feature feature or a feat, someone could get proficiency with forgery kits and get expertise on the check.

Or the old, warrior knows war history and is a war nerd and gets advantage on checks to remember facts about wars, armies, and battles and automatically knows all popular knowledge on them.

Or a warrior could have such amazing footwork, they have bonuses to dance performace, balancing, and stealth based on sound.

On the combat front, I just don't get why long rest, nonmagical, features are so hated. There are ways to justify it. Pitchers have pitch counts and rest times. Just because you have a short rest subclass and an at will subclass, doesn't mean a long rest subclass must needed. There's a magical one in eldritch knights. Why not have effect bigger than manuevers and have them on a longer recharge rate.

With fighter styles part of a subclass (champion), there must obviously be room for a swinging bonus. A subclass could offer a -4 damage/+2 AC or +4 damage/-2 AC option for attacks as their main thing.

I didn't expect the PHB to fit everything but it's not like there's nothing missing for the fighter. The class still works however.

*First post ever*

So much of this makes sense to me. But to me a lot of the things here are up to the DM and have not much to do at all with the class.

For example, I love your idea of the war history, and as a DM I could totally see using that, and I probably will. I can imagine the party coming across a famous battlefield, and it would be common knowledge that a battle took place, however the wise battle learned fighter would remember the nuances and ebb and flow of the battle, the formations used and the strategy behind it.

If you were at my table and played that into the narrative and story I would most certainly allow it, so that would be a really cool out of combat thing for the fighter to have.

 

[Hussar]

The fighter right now isn't simple so I'm not sure what you are talking about. Casters aren't complex in this edition.

There is always the Eldritch Knight. Look, there have been many examples showing a fighter can do what you are asking for.

I posted this already. By 10th level, a Battlemaster, which is considerably more complex than a Champion, has about 7 choice points. Five of them are made by 6th level. Between 6th and 10th, what choice points does a Battlemaster have?

My druid, which I'm currently playing, has at least two choice points every single level - do I switch out any spells known and what new spell known will I take every level. Casters are already more complex than fighters before we even get into things like sub classes.

And for the umpteenth time, I want a fighter that doesn't cast spells

Note, your fighter, which you listed above, isn't a mundane fighter. he casts spells. How often does he use those spells? Every adventuring day? And the stuff that he does outside of combat, which of those abilities came from the fighter class? I see how his race and background grant him stuff, sure. But, then again, you could be playing any class and get the exact same stuff. None of it has anything to do with a fighter as a class. Never minding that virtually every single class can do what you do outside of combat and do it better.

As far as "many examples" go, really? How do I impose a -2 AC penalty on an opponent and still deal damage? I don't mind if it's less damage, that's fine. But, how do I impose a -2 AC penalty? How do I shoulder throw an opponent so that he moves to another adjacent square to my fighter and lands prone? Where's the rules for that? These are pretty bog standard combat moves, yet, barring DM fiat, which we've already shown in this thread to be problematic, how can my fighter do them?

What was wrong with the Fighting Schools idea I had above that used the old Oriental Adventures martial arts rules as a basis. You have 5 fight schools, each level of fight school has four or five stunts, and you need two stunts in any school to take a higher level stunt. The five schools could be:

• School of Sword and Board - all centered around fun things you can do with a shield.
• Mounted combat - Fun things you can do with a horse
• School of tactics - Fun things you can do with your friends.
• School of Awesome - I'm such a paragon of man/womanliness that people fall over themselves to help me.
• School of something else that I can't think of right now.

There, done. I've just made a fighter that is every bit as complex as any caster, yet has no "special effects" powers and is nicely balanced with the system.

So, what's the problem?

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

The maneuvers scale through DC difficulty and the damage dice (whether it's significant or not with bounded accuracy in play is debatable, show me some math on why it needs to scale more with the Fighter's already formidable damge)...so both difficulty to resist and effect actually do scale. You don't like how it happens, that's fine but saying it doesn't happen is wrong... plain and simple.

EDIT: I'd love to see a damage comparison between a fighter and a caster that shows the BM's damage or effects need to scale up more than they already do, especially since the maneuvers are on top of regular attacks/damage of which the fighter gets multiples a round... So... show me.

EDIT 2: Zen moment... Whether the fighter has a problem or not is so subjective that I don't see a consensus ever being reached, so I say more power to those that want to "fix" it... in fact hey that's what rpg's are all about imagination and home brewing... so why not go start a thread in that area of the forums and put something together... In fact I might even be surprised and find it useful for my 5e game. I and my players don't have a problem with the 5e fighter, but if you do just go create something. How does a never ending discussion about whether your opinion or mine is correct benefit those who are unhappy with the fighter? It seems like that tme and energy would be better spent brainstorming a solution...

The effects man. The effects. A wizard goes from charming to paralyzing to dominating and the number of targets improves as well. They spit a single bolt of fire, to shooting a fan of flames, to throwing a ball of fire to making a wall of fire and then finally calling in a tac-nuke. Clerics start by stabilizing, move to healing, then condition removal, then bringing the dead back. Illusions go from tiny sight OR sound to big to sight AND sound to warping reality.

Its not JUST the damage that does up, its not JUST the save DC that goes up on the casters, its the scope and magnitude of how they impact the battlefield. THAT is the scaling that is missing on the battlemaster. And their spell scaling is on top of cantrip scaling that is the fighter attack equivalent (particularly so in the case of a warlock). It's not the damage that's really the problem, its the lack of effects.

But throw in some "narrative simulation game" mechanic, and certain people get their v-tude panties in a twist, because they cant conceive of how a fighter can manuever a big monster without making 75 different checks, opposed rolls, and consulting 12 charts like in Pathfinder. Never mind that abstraction works just fine for casting a spell, where you should have to see if the moons are in alignment, if your request for a divine miracle is in accordance with your god's plans, whether a demon intercepts your miracle and usurps it. Nope, nope, we get fire and forget abstract magic (that somehow are rare despite taking no longer to learn than hitting someone with a sword slightly better and seem more reliable than my stupid iphone).

 

[Imaro]

The effects man. The effects. A wizard goes from charming to paralyzing to dominating and the number of targets improves as well. They spit a single bolt of fire, to shooting a fan of flames, to throwing a ball of fire to making a wall of fire and then finally calling in a tac-nuke. Clerics start by stabilizing, move to healing, then condition removal, then bringing the dead back. Illusions go from tiny sight OR sound to big to sight AND sound to warping reality.

Its not JUST the damage that does up, its not JUST the save DC that goes up on the casters, its the scope and magnitude of how they impact the battlefield. THAT is the scaling that is missing on the battlemaster. And their spell scaling is on top of cantrip scaling that is the fighter attack equivalent (particularly so in the case of a warlock). It's not the damage that's really the problem, its the lack of effects.

But throw in some "narrative simulation game" mechanic, and certain people get their v-tude panties in a twist, because they cant conceive of how a fighter can manuever a big monster without making 75 different checks, opposed rolls, and consulting 12 charts like in Pathfinder. Never mind that abstraction works just fine for casting a spell, where you should have to see if the moons are in alignment, if your request for a divine miracle is in accordance with your god's plans, whether a demon intercepts your miracle and usurps it. Nope, nope, we get fire and forget abstract magic (that somehow are rare despite taking no longer to learn than hitting someone with a sword slightly better and seem more reliable than my stupid iphone).

Hey [MENTION=31506]ehren37[/MENTION]... I don't want you to think I'm ignoring you or being purposefully rude but I've decided to step out of this discussion as I don't think anything one side says or the other is going to convince anyone of the validity of the other's view. I also feel like until I see people actually creating this new fighter class all this discussion is kind of pointless wasted energy, and since it doesn't really affect my game since I and my players are ok with the current fighter... I just feel like Meh, I'll keep having fun with the 5e fighter as is. Like I said earlier... perhaps something concrete (like an actual class around what it is those clamoring for an alternate fighter want) might convince me and then I'd be using it in my game... but otherwise this is just a round and round discussion that really isn't accomplishing anything.

 

[Corpsetaker]

What was wrong with the Fighting Schools idea I had above that used the old Oriental Adventures martial arts rules as a basis. You have 5 fight schools, each level of fight school has four or five stunts, and you need two stunts in any school to take a higher level stunt. The five schools could be:

• School of Sword and Board - all centered around fun things you can do with a shield.
• Mounted combat - Fun things you can do with a horse
• School of tactics - Fun things you can do with your friends.
• School of Awesome - I'm such a paragon of man/womanliness that people fall over themselves to help me.
• School of something else that I can't think of right now.

There, done. I've just made a fighter that is every bit as complex as any caster, yet has no "special effects" powers and is nicely balanced with the system.

So, what's the problem?

These already exist in the game. It seems to me that all you want is a magic button that you click and everything is done for you.

• School of Sword and Board - all centered around fun things you can do with a shield. (There are already things you can do with a shield)
• Mounted combat - Fun things you can do with a horse. (You can already fight mounted but I'm sure more will eventually come out)
• School of tactics - Fun things you can do with your friends. (This already exists with maneuvers and just general planning with your DM and other party members).
• School of Awesome - I'm such a paragon of man/womanliness that people fall over themselves to help me. (This done with good old campaign world interaction. You don't need a power in order to develop a reputation.
  
  Have you actually ever played a 5th edition fighter?

 

[Hussar]

Ok, Corpsetaker, just because someone has a different opinion than you does not mean that they don't know what they're talking about. Sometimes, people honestly just disagree with you.

For the record, I've been playing a Champion fighter in a Dragonlance campaign for the past year.

Look, you can claim that I don't need mechanics all you like, but, at the end of the day, just like others don't get to be the guardians of plausibility, you don't get to tell me what I do don't need in the game. Again,

These mechanics are not for you and are not meant for your game. They are meant for my game and my players.

Clear enough?

 

[Hussar]

Y'know what, [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] has the right idea here. It's pretty obvious that the OP isn't interested in actually getting opinions, but, rather simply wanted an echo chamber where everyone parrots back his own ideas.

The question was asked - what's wrong with the fighter. The question was answered - people want a more complex fighter option. End of conversation.

 

[Corpsetaker]

Ok, Corpsetaker, just because someone has a different opinion than you does not mean that they don't know what they're talking about. Sometimes, people honestly just disagree with you.

For the record, I've been playing a Champion fighter in a Dragonlance campaign for the past year.

Look, you can claim that I don't need mechanics all you like, but, at the end of the day, just like others don't get to be the guardians of plausibility, you don't get to tell me what I do don't need in the game. Again,

These mechanics are not for you and are not meant for your game. They are meant for my game and my players.

Clear enough?

Then play another game.

I'm not interested in options because the core fighter works just fine. You are trying to claim there is something wrong with the class when it is actually down to you. Just because you don't apples doesn't mean there is something wrong with them and this is the case. The class isn't for you I get it, but you talk about the class not being able to do this and that and people have proven you wrong over and over again. A champion fighter is not the same as a Battlemaster fighter. You aren't comparing like for like. You are merely looking at it written on paper and then trying to pass off your opinion as fact. Homebrew whatever you like if you feel the class isn't good enough for you.

Nobody here has proven one way or another that the class is lacking. All we've seen here is that some people's preferences aren't met with the current design of the game. My preferences weren't met with 4th edition so I stopped playing it.

 

[Corpsetaker]

Y'know what, [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] has the right idea here. It's pretty obvious that the OP isn't interested in actually getting opinions, but, rather simply wanted an echo chamber where everyone parrots back his own ideas.

The question was asked - what's wrong with the fighter. The question was answered - people want a more complex fighter option. End of conversation.

The answer to the question is there is nothing wrong with the fighter. Your preferences just do not match what the class has to offer.

 

[I'm A Banana]

• School of Sword and Board - all centered around fun things you can do with a shield.
• Mounted combat - Fun things you can do with a horse
• School of tactics - Fun things you can do with your friends.
• School of Awesome - I'm such a paragon of man/womanliness that people fall over themselves to help me.
• School of something else that I can't think of right now.

You could probably do all those by giving up Action Surge and/or some of the high-level Extra Attacks and getting some other sauce (make a shield bash! your horse/ally/lackey can attack!)

But I think this might be a tough sell - Action Surge and the Extra Attacks are already probably some of the sexiest stuff in 5e, especially from a damage and flexibility perspective.

It's not complex, but I imagine in a lot of folks' minds, that's a plus, not a minus.