D&D 5E Do Fighters Still Suck?

[pkt77242]

yes, and I wouldn't want to deprive them of a basic easy mode class... if you want it have fun. However for those of us looking for a complex martial class without spell casting... we are SOL even a year+ later...


fighters don't suck (not compared to 3e they rock) but they don't live up to the combat class a lot of us want

Huh? Isn't the battlemaster suppose to be the complex martial class. I could understand if you want an even more complex martial class, but I disagree that there isn't a complex martial class without spell casting.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Huh? Isn't the battlemaster suppose to be the complex martial class. I could understand if you want an even more complex martial class, but I disagree that there isn't a complex martial class without spell casting.

the battlemaster may be MORE complex then the champion, but it is far from a complex class. The Eldritch Knight is also More complex and gives you more power and versatility then the battle master, but it still is less complex then the full casters, and add to it that it is a spell caster

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

In 1e the fighter's % strength, full-CON-bonus-to-hps and superior saving throws at high levels made him potent at low level (with high enough stats, anyway), and very durable at higher levels.
In 1e+UA & 2e the Fighter was a quisinart of doom, able to dish damage like nobody's business thanks to double-specialization and extra attacks from TWFing (or higher RoF ranged weapons).

Quibble: if double-specialization existed at all in 2E, it was introduced pretty late, perhaps in the S&P era. In the general 2E case, single specialization was all you could get, except that multiple levels of specialization in unarmed combat were allowed by the Complete Fighter's Handbook.

Therefore, 2E deserves a separate category from 2.5E (S&P era), just as you've separated 1E from UA. In base/early 2E, fighters were solid damage dealers but not quisinarts of doom unless you happened to roll 18/00 Strength and abused darts or TWF.

 

[Mirtek]

Fighters are the best there is at what they do... what they do is fight

I wish they were, but in all expeditions I played with barbarians and fighters at the table, the barbarians have always outfought the fighters.

I guess the 3-battles-a-day format is be to blame, but barbarians are more accurate, do more damage and at the end of the day more durable.

What good is an AC 18 plate figher with heavy armor master when the AC 15 advantage-to-attackers-granting barbarian may be hit 50% more often but for only 50% damage while also having more hp to boost

 

[Tony Vargas]

yes, and I wouldn't want to deprive them of a basic easy mode class... if you want it have fun. However for those of us looking for a complex martial class without spell casting... we are SOL even a year+ later..

Y'know, I'd like a martial class that is flexible and versatile from adventure to adventure and round to round, and interesting to play, that contributes in other ways than always-on DPR.

But it doesn't have to be complex. If Mike Mearls can deliver all that, and an elegant simplicity of design to rival the 3.x fighter, I'd vote him ENies Designer of the Year.

I guess the 3-battles-a-day format is be to blame

That'll play havoc with the balance between any classes that are mostly at-will/short-rest-recharge on one hand, and more heavily long-rest-recharge on the other, sure.

Quibble: if double-specialization existed at all in 2E, it was introduced pretty late, perhaps in the S&P era. In the general 2E case, single specialization was all you could get, except that multiple levels of specialization in unarmed combat were allowed by the Complete Fighter's Handbook.

Whichever version had the increased #att/RoF.

Therefore, 2E deserves a separate category from 2.5E (S&P era), just as you've separated 1E from UA. In base/early 2E, fighters were solid damage dealers but not quisinarts of doom unless you happened to roll 18/00 Strength and abused darts or TWF.

Lol. I actually rolled up one of those dart fighters. Never played it, of course. But I thought 'abusing' TWFing was just par for the course.

Either way, you do enough damage in a game where the primary way of defeating enemies is by doing damage to them one at a time until they drop, you don't exactly suck. It's a matter of opinion whether you're fun, but you don't suck.

 

[Mirtek]

That'll play havoc with the balance between any classes that are mostly at-will/short-rest-recharge on one hand, and more heavily long-rest-recharge on the other, sure.

The irony is that between these two the fighter is the at-will/short-rest-recharge class while the barbarian is the long-rest-recharge. Yet that doesn't stop them from outfighting fighters in these circumstances

 

[Shiroiken]

3 total campaigns (2 still ongoing), plus 3 times running Lost Mines for players new to 5E, and I've NEVER seen a 5E group without a fighter in it. The Fighter is perfectly fine, even if you (or others) don't like it.

 

[HardcoreDandDGirl]

Quibble: if double-specialization existed at all in 2E, it was introduced pretty late, perhaps in the S&P era. In the general 2E case, single specialization was all you could get, except that multiple levels of specialization in unarmed combat were allowed by the Complete Fighter's Handbook.

Therefore, 2E deserves a separate category from 2.5E (S&P era), just as you've separated 1E from UA. In base/early 2E, fighters were solid damage dealers but not quisinarts of doom unless you happened to roll 18/00 Strength and abused darts or TWF.

combat and tactics introduced Weapon mastery (3rd weapon prof) weapon high master (4th weapon slot) and Grand mastery (5th weapon slot) between them they gave more attacks better initiative higher die of damage and a +2/+1 that stacked with weapon specialization.

 

[HardcoreDandDGirl]

3 total campaigns (2 still ongoing), plus 3 times running Lost Mines for players new to 5E, and I've NEVER seen a 5E group without a fighter in it. The Fighter is perfectly fine, even if you (or others) don't like it.

if people don't like it how can it be fine?

 

[Corpsetaker]

As the title says. I have not seen a fighter rolle dup since late 2014 and we play a lot of D&D- 14 hours worth in the last week and sometimes 3-5 sessions a week with 3-4 DMs. The players who like fighter types are starting to gravitate towards Paladins and Rangers with some of the more adventurous making gish type PCs (Favoured Souls and Warlock/Valor Bard builds). I thought it may have just been my group but other groups seem to be doing it as well. This seems to be for the following reasons.

1. The fighter has no damage dealing advantage over the other martial classes and is probably inferior to things like Barbarians. Rangers and Paladins tend to be using hunters quarry and colossus slayer/horde breaker to actually deal more damage than the fighters.

2. Strength based PCs suck at range being reduced to throwing javelins often at disadvantage. As a further kick in the balls they can only make 1 attack a round since you can only draw 1 weapon a round. Paladins can cast bless on the ranged PCs or moonbeam if they are the Oath of the Ancients. Gish PCs do not care to much at the worst resorting to cantrips or just lobbing a fireball.

3. Dex based melee tends to be underpowered along with dual wielding which uses the bonus action. That bonus action is often better off used for Polearm Mastery, Great Weapon Fighting, or moving around hunter mark/hex or casting quickened hastes or whatever.

4. Most classes casting spells.

5. Other classes tend to be better targets for haste/twinned haste. THis is due to spells like hex/hunters mark and advantage to hit that Barbarians and Avenger Paladins can easily get.

Sure fighters have other class abilities as well but something like action surge tends to pail against Paladins auras to saves which in effect makes Paladins proficient in all saves at level 6.

Party number 1. My Group lvl 8.

1 Favoured Soul (tempest domain) Mountain Dwarf.
2. Oath of the Ancients Paladin
3. Ranger (tempest)
4. Warlock (tomelock fiend pact)
5. Cleric1/Lore Bard 7
6. Valor Bard.

Party number 2, level 3.

1. Barbarian
2. Paladin (avenger, my PC)
3. Rogue
4. Wizard (abjurer)
5. Sorcerer (Dragon: fire)
6. Warlock

And as I said the last fighter I saw rolled up was late 2014 and that was a crossbow expert+sharpshooter combo build. The highest DPR type min/max builds are also ranged with CE+SS combo for martials and Sorlock (Warlock 2/SorcererXYZ) leading the charge there.

We have also tried no feats game and almost everyone went dex based including things like clerics. The Battlemaster fighter seems to be the best one over all, the Eldritch Knight might be the best fighter at higher levels and the Champion seems to be the worst one of the bunch as it is just damage and it is not even really that good at that. Sure the fighter does technically get a 3rd attack at level 11 but at those levels spell effects start to kick in more for Paladins/Rangers (haste, swift quiver, destructive wave etc) or class abilities like charisma to damage+hex for bladelocks and at higher levels several of the gish classes can also cast foresight along with hasting themselves. Or you know not suck at range with spells anyway. Since combat doesn't always take place in a 10' by 10' room.

They never sucked to begin with.