D&D 5E The Legacy of the Fighter in 5 to 10 years

[Bluenose]

Really... because the damage reduction they get in 5e sure seems to support them being able to take a blow and shrug it off (especially without the use of armor which has no relation to actual toughness) better than a fighter.

As to the damage differential... I spoke to that already, in most of the fiction I'm aware of the archetypal berserker doesn't do massive steady damage... he's usually inaccurate, wild and somewhat blinded to the best ways to attack by his rage, but kills things because he just can't be stopped or put down fast enough... not because he does the most damage overall. As a contrast the fighter is usually portrayed as more accurate, skilled and tactical in his attacks a disciplined warrior who does the most damage because he is purposefully measuring his opponent and choosing his attacks.

I guess we're reading very different fiction, then. The archetype I see in fiction with the berserker is someone ferocious in attack - more so than any other type of character - but if you can survive their initial furious assault then they're really not that hard to kill.

 

[Imaro]

I guess we're reading very different fiction, then. The archetype I see in fiction with the berserker is someone ferocious in attack - more so than any other type of character - but if you can survive their initial furious assault then they're really not that hard to kill.

No one is saying a berserker isn't ferocious... But yeah I think we definitely are reading different fiction... take Wolverine, not fantasy but probably the most famous "berserker" ever... He's ferocious but against skilled fighters he usually wins because he can shrug off the blows they land, blows that would kill most men, and keep coming... very rarely does he take someone out through massive damage before they hit him... unless they're mooks which every hero does that to.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Two of the most famous berserkers in pop culture:

 

[Tony Vargas]

Re: the generic feel of the fighter mentioned upthread, I think that's intentional as well, because unlike all the other classes that are pretty specialized archetypes, the fighter has to cover much more. Everything from the mercenary, to the soldier, to the brawler, to the samurai, to the knight, to the archer, etc etc

Yep, the fighter has more arechetypes to cover than any other class, and less to do it with. Arguably, the majority of heroic characters from fantasy, myth & legend, don't cast spells or have a lot of other supernatural abilities. 5e handles them with the Berserker (pretty specific), Rogue (the less prevalent 'trickster' sort of hero), or Fighter.

D&D has two fighter archetypes, the hard-hitting Champion, and slightly nuanced hard-hitting Battlemaster, to cover all of them, with a lot of attacks/round, Second Wind, a handful of minor class features, and 18 maneuvers to try to cover all of 'em. So, yeah, necessarily pretty generic.

If you look at the last three editions of the game, the Fighter has increasingly gained abilties beyond "I attack, I deal damage". From 3e's "Improved X" bonus feats, to 4e's powers, to 5e's maneuvers.

Not a steady increase, by any stretch of the imagination, though. The 3e fighter got 11 bonus feats from a list of a few dozen, the 4e fighter 16 or so exploits from a list of ~400.

In 5e one of the three Fighter archetypes gets to pick 6 maneuvers from a list of about 18. One of the other archetypes is prettymuch "I attack, I deal damage," and the third literally casts spells.

When you look back on D&D in 5 to 10 years, what do you think the legacy of the fighter be?

Will you consider Extra actions and Self Healing to be the Fighter's legacy?

Here is what Mearl's said in a recent podcast

"...and if we've done our job in 5-10 years people will think oh that's what fighters do, they get extra actions, they can heal themselves..."

Unless something changes:

"Fighters are only good in combat, where they multi-attack for lots of damage."

The self-healing thing is pretty trivial. Fighers do big DPR with multiple attacks, Champions add to that with crits, Battlemasters with CS dice, EKs, indirectly, with spells. The 5e fighter is a solidly-traditional-D&D DPR machine, in the mold of the 2e double-specialized fighter.

It's really the 2e fighter's legacy we're talking about:

Specialization - > combat style, feats
Multiple attacks - > multiple attacks, action surge
non-weapon proficiencies - > skill/tool proficiencies
Kits - > Backgrounds
d10 HD, full CON bonus - > d10 HD, Second Wind
Saves on a '2' at high level -> indomitable
Exclusive use of class-specific magic items - > optimal use of magic weapons that inflict extra damage


I suppose if the 5e fighter has added anything to the fighter's collective legacy, it's the spellcasting EK as a sub-class. But that's a stretch, since we had spell-casting "fighter sub-classes" (albeit, in a different sense) in AD&D and the EK first appeared in 3e.

 

[Sacrosanct]

In 5e one of the three Fighter archetypes gets to pick 6 maneuvers from a list of about 18. One of the other archetypes is prettymuch "I attack, I deal damage," and the third literally casts spells.

.....

Unless something changes:

"Fighters are only good in combat, where they multi-attack for lots of damage.".

These statements are not true. It has been explained over and over and over why they aren't true*, and yet here you are again, repeating the same false statements. Why do you keep doing that? Can I get an answer?


*I'm not going to repeat the same arguments here again because they exist in a lot of other threads where you were also an active participant in so I know you've read them.

 

[Tony Vargas]

These statements are not true. It has been explained over and over and over why they aren't true*, and yet here you are again, repeating the same false statements. Why do you keep doing that? Can I get an answer?

I'm sorry, does the Battlemaster have 17 (or 12? or 34?) maneuvers, not 18? By all means, correct the number if it's wrong. I wouldn't want to make any factually incorrect statememts. Does the Eldritch Knight not cast spells? I'd be surprised to hear that, but you included the fact that it does in the quote that you declared to be false statements. So if you have some stunning new information about that, feel free to let us see it. Does the Champion do much more than attack & deal damage? If you've heard of some non-combat feature it gets that's significantly better than the usual two ASIs and the non-stacking half-proficiency bonus of 'Remarkable' Athlete, please, share that, as well.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

These statements are not true. It has been explained over and over and over why they aren't true*, and yet here you are again, repeating the same false statements. Why do you keep doing that? Can I get an answer?


*I'm not going to repeat the same arguments here again because they exist in a lot of other threads where you were also an active participant in so I know you've read them.

Just because you refuse to accept the answer, doesnt mean he's wrong. The class has squat for meaningful non-combat features that other classes don't also get (backgrounds, skills). Sure, they could blow their extra feat on non-combat, but frankly they need those to compete in combat vs classes like the paladin until they pull in their 4th attack (at a level few play to, or at for long).

 

[Celtavian]

Just because you refuse to accept the answer, doesnt mean he's wrong. The class has squat for meaningful non-combat features that other classes don't also get (backgrounds, skills). Sure, they could blow their extra feat on non-combat, but frankly they need those to compete in combat vs classes like the paladin until they pull in their 4th attack (at a level few play to, or at for long).

How many classes could you argue have great non-combat choices other than those provided by backgrounds? 5E is very combat centric. Most editions of D&D are. That makes what the fighter does well an extremely potent capability that affects a good 70 to 80% of the primary resolution mechanic: combat. This may not fit for people that like to run games without as much combat. Then again D&D out of the box isn't built as a great game for non-combat adventures. It's built for people that like a lot of combat in their game. The fighter is great at that part.

 

[famousringo]

I don't think there will be a legacy of self healing, since second wind is pretty weak after level 2 or so. I think the legacy of the 5e fighter in 5 to 10 years is going to be:

* one of the best combat machines in the game
* a class full of choice (with two extra feats above and beyond every other class, which is huge since feats are broad and offer several abilities).

For example, I just saw a player play a fighter where he didn't care about optimizing DPR with GWM or anything like that. He was human, and had the lucky, heavy armor mastery, and magic initiate (shield spell) feats. He also had the defensive fighting style and was a BM with maneuvers like parry. The dude just couldn't be hit, and when he was, he was able to absorb some of the damage. His staying power was truly impressive.

On top of the class' high internal customizability, it's also one of the best classes for multiclassing. Basing abilities on either Str or Dex means it provides good benefits to any other martial class, while Eldritch Knight combos nicely with any full caster class.

The flexibility basically allows it to add more martial to whatever build you're going for, and in a way that isn't cheesy like how anybody can dip two levels into warlock and get good DPR.

 

[Ashkelon]

How many classes could you argue have great non-combat choices other than those provided by backgrounds? 5E is very combat centric. Most editions of D&D are. That makes what the fighter does well an extremely potent capability that affects a good 70 to 80% of the primary resolution mechanic: combat. This may not fit for people that like to run games without as much combat. Then again D&D out of the box isn't built as a great game for non-combat adventures. It's built for people that like a lot of combat in their game. The fighter is great at that part.

Bard: Jack of All Trades, Expertise, More skills than most classes, spells
Cleric: domain, spells
Druid: wild shape, spells, various exploration related class features
Monk: the ability to jump 2x as far as normal and run on water
Paladin: divine sense, spells, auras
Ranger: favored terrain, favored enemy, more skills than most classes, spells
Rogue: most trained skills, expertise, reliable talent
Sorcerer: spells
Warlock: spells, invocations
Wizard: rituals, spells

The 3 worst classes when it comes to noncombat challenges are the fighter, barbarian, and monk. The barbarian can use rage outside of combat (advantage on STR rolls), and eventually gets primal might. The totem barbarian features can also be quite useful outside of combat. The monk gets very minor utility outside of combat, but still significantly more than the fighter, who gets nothing.

Every other class in the game has non-combat capabilities way more powerful than the baseline. You could give the fighter 3 more bonus feats and it still wouldn't match the non combat capabilities of 75% of the classes in the game. No amount of feats can match the utility of 4 first level spells, 3 second level spells, and 3 third level spells. No amount of feats can match the utility of expertise in 4 skills and the ability to treat any skill check of a 9 or less as a 10. No amount of feats can match the utility 8 invocations.