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

[Sacrosanct]

And let us not forget that even with the two best noncombat feats combined would still be less non combat utility than every other class in the game except possibly the Barbarian.

Not true again. Seriously, I think you need to reread your PHB, because over the past week or so it sounds like you're not familiar with it. Ritual Caster feat allows you to cast ritual spells of a caster class of your choice. You're saying that "...every other class in the game except possibly the Barbarian" has better non-combat utility than that built in? I don't think so. There's also lucky, keen mind, and dungeon delver feats that bring a huge non-combat benefit.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

This isn't a choice thing here. Those claims are objectively untrue. Saying all a fighter can do is attack, or that they are no good out of combat, are false statements. Objectively false statements that have been roundly debunked over and over again. It doesn't matter how many times you, Tony, and Ashkelon repeat the same untrue things, it doesn't make them any more true. When you claim that something can't do something, and are shown exactly how they can, that definitively proves you wrong. Sorry, but that's a fact.

Shifting the goalposts like they are rubber bands (the rest of your post) doesn't help your argument one bit.

"All fighters can do is attack." Objectively false
"Fighters are no good out of combat" Objectively false.

So please. PLEASE stop repeating this crap.

Ahh, the good old semantics card. Ever the bastion of the wrong. No one is arguing that LITERALLY all fighters can do is attack. These are comparative statements.

 

[Minigiant]

The problem I see here is that people are too focused on single target DPR and short adventuring days.

The fighter's thing was NEVER that.
The fighter's thing and its legacy in every edition except 4th was combat generalist who could take a specialty.

The fighter's relationship to barbarian/paladin/ranger is the same as a wizard is to a bard/blastycleric/druid/sorcerer/warlock.

They are good vs solos and vs hordes. They are good at range, a reach, and in melee. They are good at offense and defense and have a good self heal.

The fighter has a better combined score in combat of all categories, period.

The cost of this is that they get no automatic noncombat features. They instead get 2 more ASIs or feats. Also they can afford to not powergame for combat unlike other classes.

Fighter is the Batman Wizard of weapons combat.
It's up to the DM to follow the guidelines and either make combat generalism favorable or to adjust the class accordingly.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Ahh, the good old semantics card. Ever the bastion of the wrong. No one is arguing that LITERALLY all fighters can do is attack. These are comparative statements.

Sorry again, but you don't get to decide how and when words mean different things from what was said.

If you keep making the comment "fighters are no good out of combat" (like Tony has), you don't get to come back and say you meant something else. Especially since you keep saying "fighters are no good out of combat" in every discussion like this that comes up.

What you're doing is arguing, "Don't buy a Lexus, because those cars can't perform on the race track." And people responding, "Yes they can. If you choose this option, they're just as fast and good on the track as an M5 or other similar car. Here is the proof and actual data that shows this." And your response to that is, "We just agree to disagree. the Lexus is no good on the track."



It's either the worst case of willful ignorance, or arguing just for the sake of arguing. You seem to think that your subjective opinion is fact, even in the face of hard data that directly counters it. I can repeat over and over that it never rains in Oregon, but that doesn't make it true, nor does it make it an opinion to be debated or "agree to disagree". It's flat out false.

 

[Celtavian]

The problem I see here is that people are too focused on single target DPR and short adventuring days.

The fighter's thing was NEVER that.
The fighter's thing and its legacy in every edition except 4th was combat generalist who could take a specialty.

For the most part that is true. He was the guy good with all weapons and in all types of battle.

 

[Celtavian]

The problem is the fighter isn't better than single target damage than everyone else. And he definitely isn't better at "combat". But he is dead last when it comes to usefulness outside of combat. That is fine, I guess. But the rogue can be just as good at single target damage, while also providing tons of non combat utility so clearly being good at combat doesn't have to come at the expense of non combat capability.



With a name like fighter, they probably should shine brightest in battle. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't also be moderately capable outside of combat. I'm not saying they should be great everything. I'm not saying they should even be great at many things. But they are literally the worst class outside of combat. And not by a small margin either.



Honestly it doesn't need to be the fighter. I think we would need to rebuild the class from the ground up to make it worthwhile or interesting. I'm completely fine with the legacy of the fighter being in 5e exactly what it was in 3e and 2e; A boring, repetitive, and simple class for newb players or grognarda who don't want to bother with tactical decisions or complexity. I'm fine with the fighter being the worst class when it comes to accomplishing tasks outside of combat. I merely want a martial warrior who is more representative of "fighters" from myth, legend, and fantasy.

Here are some possible ideas for non combat abilities for a mythic martial warrior (maybe in the form of special talents which are like warlock invocations but for martial warriors).

Larger than Life
You have proficiency with STR checks and your carrying capacity is doubled. You can also grapple or shove creatures as if you were one size larger.

Endurance
You have proficiency in Con checks and you recover 1 level of exhaustion whenever you complete a short rest.

Strength of Legends
You gain expertise is Athletics checks and your carrying capacity is doubled (yes, 2 doubles quadruples your carrying capacity).

Mighty Leap
Double the distance of any jump you make.

Leap of the Clouds
Your high jump distance is equal to your long jump distance.

Peerless Athletics
You gain a climb speed and a swim speed equal to your speed.

Demolisher
You have advantage on STR checks to break objects and your melee attacks deal double damage to objects and structures.

Mark of Prestige
You gain a mark of prestige (as detailed in the DMG).

Hero's Charm
You have advantage on Charisma (Persuasion) checks. When you successfully persuade a non-hostile creature, that creature is Charmed by you for 1 hour. While charmed, it treats you as a friend. The effect ends if you or one of your allies act in a hostile manner towards your new "friend".

Villain's Menace
You have advantage on Charisma (Intimidation) checks. When you successfully intimidate a creature, that creature is frightened by you for 1 minute. The frightened creature can make a Wisdom saving throw (DC = 8 + your proficiency bonus + your Charisma modifier) at the end of each of its turns to end this effect.

So you want a superhero? I don't want superhero fighters. I don't want them lifting tons. If I wanted to play a superhero, I'd play a superhero game.

You want the ability to build a charisma-based fighter? You can the charisma stuff multiclassing. Why would you need to lump it all under the fighter?

 

[Ashkelon]

So you want a superhero? I don't want superhero fighters. I don't want them lifting tons. If I wanted to play a superhero, I'd play a superhero game.

First off, these would be talents for a brand new martial class, not the fighter. The fighter can remain completely mundane for people like you who don't want fighters being similar to warriors from myth and legend. Secondly, you don't even have to choose the talents that make you "superheroic". Since the talents would be a list of options (similar to warlock invocstions), you can simply skip over any option that offends your delicate sensibilities.

Also how do these talents even make you "superheroic" in the first place. Do you think 4x your carrying capacity somehow makes you superheroic? That only brings your max carrying capacity to only 1,200 lbs. That is miles behind the likes of actual superheroes. Hell that is still way behind the likes of heroes like Lancelot (the strength of 10 men), let alone Hercules, Beowulf, Gilgamesh, CuCuchlain, and others that are given as examples of high level fighters in 2e.

If jumping 2x as far as normal seems superheroic to you, I should probably introduce you to an at-will warlock invocation that allows them to jump 3x as far as normal. Is the warlock also superheroic?

Besides, if you really want to play a super hero, you play a spellcaster. Everyone knows that! They have capabilities that would put even the most powerful superheroes to shame.

you want the ability to build a charisma-based fighter? You can the charisma stuff multiclassing. Why would you need to lump it all under the fighter?

Sure, I guess multiclassing could also work. 1 level of mystic gives you advantage on all Charisma checks, which is better than the two talents I proposed. Multiclassing rogue gives you expertise (among other benefits), which is also probably better overall for non combat utility. And sure, a spellcaster could make use of cause fear, charm, command, suggestion, dominate, and the like to be much better at interaction encounters. But why should you have to multiclass?

Why can't there be room for a persuasive or intimidating purely martial warrior? That archetype is common throughout fantasy. Why can't there exist a martial class that is actually decent at representing the typical martial warriors from fantasy media? And what if multiclassing doesn't fit your character concept at all? Lots of classes come with large amounts of baggage attached to them that makes multiclassing not always ideal. Some people don't want spells, or sneak attack, or psionics, or any number of features that clash with their concept. Why should they have to multiclass just because they want a non magical martial warrior with a small amount of non combat utility?

 

[Sacrosanct]

The fighter can remain completely mundane for people like you who don't want fighters being similar to warriors from myth and legend.

Yep. There are no examples of mythological or legendary mundane heroes.


Cuchulain
Alaric the Visigoth
Count Roland
Horatius Cocles
Attila the Hun
Yue Fei
Spartacus
Hannibal Barca
Miyamoto Musashi
Yennenga
Karna
Jason
Hector
Arthur and his knights
Ragnar Lodbrok
etc
etc

And for the record, I don't count any mythological hero descended from gods to count, because PCs aren't typically descended from gods. So wanting the fighter to emulate Hercules or Perseus is flawed from the get go.

Basically, I can want the fighter to emulate heroes from myth and legend and at the same time not want them to emulate heroes that had divine backing behind them and/or had superpowers.

 

[Minigiant]

A 16 Strength, 14 Dexterity, 14 Charisma level 4 fighter with Persuasion proficiency and heavy armor is just as good at noncombat as a 16 Strength, 14 Dexterity, 14 Charisma level 4 paladin with Persuasion proficiency and heavy armor.

The main difference is combat. The paladin is better at single target damage on elite foes. The fighter is better at pulling out his bow an shooting something with increased crit range, maneuvers, and action surge.

That's the fighter's legacy. That is why some fans were up at arms during 4th edition because fighters had a bad ranged attack.

 

[Ashkelon]

A 16 Strength, 14 Dexterity, 14 Charisma level 4 fighter with Persuasion proficiency and heavy armor is just as good at noncombat as a 16 Strength, 14 Dexterity, 14 Charisma level 4 paladin with Persuasion proficiency and heavy armor.

The main difference is combat. The paladin is better at single target damage on elite foes. The fighter is better at pulling out his bow an shooting something with increased crit range, maneuvers, and action surge.

That's the fighter's legacy. That is why some fans were up at arms during 4th edition because fighters had a bad ranged attack.

I actually prefer the distinction between lightly armored Dex based fighter and heavily armored STR based fighter that 4e gave us. I like how it made the classes more distinct. I feel that fighter-as-generalist somewhat suffers due to lack of identity and no clear focus to the class.

Sure, you can make a fighter with 16 STR, 14 DEX and medium armor, but that seems kind of like an outlier. Why not go 18 STR, 10 Dex and Heavy Armor or 10 STR, 18 DEX and light armor? It is generally better to specialize in D&D. And due to the way heavy armor and finesse weapons work in 5e, there is very little benefit to going for both a high STR and DEX.

The only characters I have seen who are good at both ranged and melee in 5e in actual play are DEX based ones and spelllcasters.

I'd rather not have a classes capabilities reduced due to the theoretical benefit another class build might potentially have. It seems strange to me that the STR based fighter's capabilities should be reduced due to the fact that someone somewhere might make a fighter with a high DEX and a longbow.