D&D 5E Do Fighters Still Suck?

[GMforPowergamers]

As a player with almost 40 years under my belt, I second everything you just said here. I have always preferred fighters and other martial characters to spellcasters. Frankly, I don't like flipping through a deck of spell cards and trying to manage a limited power budget when I'm playing. It detracts from my immersion. With that stated, I've been mostly playing Barbarians in 5E. I like the flavor, and I love the mechanics. Damage resistance, advantage on Grapple and Shove, at-will advantage on attack rolls all make the game a lot more enjoyable for me as a frontliner, since I hate whiffing, and since I think that AC is overrated for purposes of damage mitigation in this edition.

OK, you like one thing I like the other, there is room for both. Right now you could play your way but my fighters don't have the options I need... is there any reason we can't have both?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Fighters are a class for new players, or players who don't care as much about in combat options or character variation. That's not meant as a negative.

I'll accept that you don't mean it to be negative, but it is one reason people think fighters suck. Lack of options, simplicity that can potentially shade into boredom under the wrong circumstances, and a 'training wheels' label tend to get people to give up on the class rather than explore what they might be able to do with it - or ask for more/better options from the class.

"2.5," 3e, PF, 4e & Next all tried to add interest to the fighter, in the process, the Barbarian became the easiest class for a new player to tackle in 3e, and the Archer-Ranger took over that spot in 4e, then handed it back to the much simpler daily-less Slayer sub-class of Fighter in Essentials (which is very similar to the Champion, while the very similar Essentials Knight was closer to a Sentinel Battlemaster build).

5e at least splits out the Champion as the training-wheels fighter, removing some of that stigma from the class. It resorts to spells (EK) to make it interesting/versatile, though (with the Battlemaster in relative limbo between the two, complex for little payoff, but amenable to system mastery to optimize for DPR).
But, still doesn't suck. There's just a lot of design space left for more versatile/interesting alternatives.

most of their strongest features are attainable by level 2-3, making it far more rewarding to dip than to dedicate. This is actually their biggest problem, design wise: while the Champion is supposed to be as simple as possible, and the EK gets spells, the battlemaster really needed more fiddly bits to play around with.

Maneuvers gated by level, for instance, would have extend the shelf life of the Battlemaster. If some maneuvers gained at high level were genuinely better than those picked up at 3rd, that is, not just different.

As a player with almost 40 years under my belt, I second everything you just said here. I have always preferred fighters and other martial characters to spellcasters. ...
With that stated, I've been mostly playing Barbarians in 5E.

You're so satisfied with 5e fighters that you won't play one?

Combat options and variation are almost solely dependent on my imagination: how I want to role play the character, and ideas to use the environment to my advantage in a fight.

Your DM's opinion of the options your imagination comes up with can be a pretty profound limiter on that kind of thing, too. But, sure, if you have your DMs number, you can probably get away with quite a bit. You could do so with any class, really, and the more variety the class brings to the table, the more you can leverage that to try other imaginative variations. The advantage of the fighter in that regard is like that of the 'brick' in Champions! - you can improvise and try daring things because you're more likely to survive screwing them up (though, no subsequent fighter has ever quite lived up to the high-level AD&D fighter with his butch saving throw matrix when it comes to that).

I'll also say that the battlemaster is just complex as any other class.

Let's see. You choose 3 maneuvers, and choose how to spend CS dice to activate them between rests. You can't swap the maneuvers out and don't get new ones for a while. That seems significantly less complex than a 1st level neo-Vancian caster. And, the Battlemaster never opens up new & improved maneuvers as he levels, while the neo-Vancian caster does so ever other level, he just picks from the slowly shrinking list of maneuvers that were balanced for use at 3rd level. Not spectacular. I think there's still an assumption of simplicity being desirable, even for the Battlemaster. That said, it does plenty of damage, and can blow it's CS dice and Action Surge to nova something fierce, so it's not without effectiveness, and a bit of resource management.

Still doesn't suck.

 

[Jester David]

As the title says.

You ask this like a question, and then provide a lengthy thread on why you think they do suck.
So I'm not sure you actually want a response.

A better thread title might have been "Why I Think Fighters Suck".
My response to that would be: so play other classes, there are lots of choices.

To answer the question you actually asked: no. They're a simple class for people who want simple classes and seem to be able to hold their own well into high levels, and can be adequately built to focus on both damage or tanking.

 

[Sacrosanct]

This is from a roleplaying/fluff perspective, which is fine. But following that mentality to its hyperbolic conclusion, you could play a game with commoners only and have it be interesting. However, some people enjoy the "ding" and more toys to play with though, and that doesn't preclude roleplaying or experience.

Mechanically, the fighter is pretty frontloaded. Claiming people aren't using enough "theater of the mind" type combat doesn't change that.

Hyperbolic conclusion? Yeah, you can play an interesting game with just commoners. It's been done before in fact. Nothing hyperbolic about it. Also, I never made the claim that people aren't using enough TotM. It was you who made a claim that simply isn't true, and I simply explained why.

I meant easy to play, and I didn't say it was a bad thing, the champion fighter fills a needed void... but there are other voids...

Again, every class is easy to play, and no class requires special skills or anything that a 1st grader can't handle. You're projecting again.

well yes...it's 'easy to make choices just swing sword' is what I meant...

Is that how your game play goes? That you only do things on your character sheet, and if you don't have specific powers, all the fighter can do is swing a sword? Man, you're really missing out. If you're ever in the Portland area, let me DM a game for you.

level 8 wizard knows 4+int mod spells +2 per level so about 21 spells they range in level from 1-4 and even the level 1 ones may be usable in higher slots to higher effect. SO my choice points are 'pre game' what spells I know and what ones I prepare, at table witch prepared ones I use and in witch slot... I also have 3-4 at will spells... and my spells can be pure combat, or no combat, or a mix of the two. I can recall a few spells on a short rest....there is a lot going on. I have a huge list of spells to pull from, and bet I can make 5 or 6 wizards with little to no overlap just form the pHB alone.

because magic is, well, fake, we don't have real life examples to pull from, or general rules to use. So whereas you need a separate defined rule for each spell you use, you don't need a unique rule for every maneuver you want to do to, like tripping, or throwing an object, or swinging down from the ledge to land on top of your opponent, or to fling your halfling friend (because halflings are expendable anyway) into a group, or any number of things you can do in combat as a fighter that aren't "swing my sword". It doesn't mean the wizard is any harder to play than the fighter.

battle master at level 20 has 6dice he can use, they all come back on a short rest, and 1 comes back if I have none and roll initiative I have 8 of 16 special manuvers that I could have chosen any of at level 3... I can't make a 3rd battlmaster without some over lap, and the manuvers are rather dull some are even just basic options from privus editions.... he is a damage mechine and has more attacks then 2 average adventurers, but he is far from complex...

the two are night and day... look at Bo9S in 3.5 or a 4e fighter to see all the options you could have...


I want as many bells whistles and I think they call them ribbons on my 16th level fighter as a wizard half my level (see above 8th level wizard) That is in no way "outside what 5e can do"

Basically, it comes down to you thinking the only options you can do are those defined on a character sheet. Step out of this mindset and a whole new world will open up for you.

 

[imabaer]

I'll accept that you don't mean it to be negative, but it is one reason people think fighters suck. Lack of options, simplicity that can potentially shade into boredom under the wrong circumstances, and a 'training wheels' label tend to get people to give up on the class rather than explore what they might be able to do with it - or ask for more/better options from the class.

"2.5," 3e, PF, 4e & Next all tried to add interest to the fighter, in the process, the Barbarian because the easiest class for a new player to tackle in 3e, and the Archer-Ranger took over that spot in 4e.

5e at least splits out the Champion as the training-wheels fighter, removing some of that stigma from the class. It resorts to spells (EK) to make it interesting/versatile, though (with the Battlemaster in relative limbo between the two, complex for little payoff, but amenable to system mastery to optimize for DPR).
But, still doesn't suck. There's just a lot of design space left for more versatile/interesting alternatives.

Maneuvers gated by level, for instance, would have extend the shelf life of the Battlemaster. If some maneuvers gained at high level were genuinely better than those picked up at 3rd, that is, not just different.

Let's see. You choose 3 maneuvers, and choose how to spend CS dice to activate them between rests. You can't swap the maneuvers out and don't get new ones for a while. That seems significantly less complex than a 1st level neo-Vancian caster. And, the Battlemaster never opens up new & improved maneuvers as he levels, while the neo-Vancian caster does so ever other level, he just picks from the slowly shrinking list of maneuvers that were balanced for use at 3rd level. Not spectacular. I think there's still an assumption of simplicity being desirable, even for the Battlemaster. That said, it does plenty of damage, and can blow it's CS dice and Action Surge to nova something fierce, so it's not without effectiveness, and a bit of resource management.

Still doesn't suck.

I agree, for the record.

The Fighter fulfills a niche, both in terms of flavor and complexity; that niche for complexity just happens to be low-op.

Level gating battlemasters maneuvers is one very good solution. Getting all your maneuvers at level 3 can be overwhelming at first, and boring within a few levels. Warlocks unlock invocations as they level, so there's already precedent for that sort of mechanic.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Let's see. You choose 3 maneuvers, and choose how to spend CS dice to activate them between rests. You can't swap the maneuvers out and don't get new ones for a while. That seems significantly less complex than a 1st level neo-Vancian caster. And, the Battlemaster never opens up new & improved maneuvers as he levels, while the neo-Vancian caster does so ever other level, he just picks from the slowly shrinking list of maneuvers that were balanced for use at 3rd level. Not spectacular. I think there's still an assumption of simplicity being desirable, even for the Battlemaster. That said, it does plenty of damage, and can blow it's CS dice and Action Surge to nova something fierce, so it's not without effectiveness, and a bit of resource management.

Still doesn't suck.

I disagree. The complexity is not significantly different. A couple extra options =/= significantly more complex. You don't need any special skill set or talent to play a caster over a battlemaster. It's like arguing that subtraction is a lot more complex than addition. Maybe literally, but in practice, to who? Everyone I know can do both easily. "significant" difference in complexity to me mean addition to algebra.

 

[Psikerlord#]

I think Fighters are fine and personally intend to play a champion fighter next, I just REALLY like the idea that any 19+ will be a crit. You never know when you might tear up combat with a few lucky rolls.

I think slow healing and injuries at zero hp make Fighters more desirable. That short rest heal is important when a long rest only gives you half your HD back and no HP. They can fight on longer and will tend to drop to zero less, accumulating less injuries.

I also think paladins are borderline OP or OP. And this tends to mean most players will choose a paladin over a fighter. I suspect many handwaive the oath codes which doesn't help, as that is a balancing factor for paladins in my view (less choice about what you can do without risking becoming an oathbreaker). The massive single target novas paladins can do (more and more as they level) is the best and most reliable way of killing BBEG's in the game. But on top of that, fantastic AC and fantastic saves. Plus other quirky powers. You put all that together and fighters are UP in comparison.

But it's really not that Fighters are weak. Compared to most classes they're good. It's paladins are a bit too strong. Esp in "short work" days of less than 6-8 fights a day, which I suspect is most campaigns most of the time... It's often hard to justify that many fights between long rests without being artificial about it (especially if the adventure is in wilderness or a city - dungeons not so much).

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Is that how your game play goes? That you only do things on your character sheet,

no, we do outside the box stuff based on the situation, but that is equal to the whole player base, the most common things we do are those things on our character sheet though, and as such the more of a caster you are the more options you have (you don't loose any ability to improvise by getting those character sheet choices).

and if you don't have specific powers, all the fighter can do is swing a sword? Man, you're really missing out. If you're ever in the Portland area, let me DM a game for you.

no thanks, one that the wrong coast (new England boy here) and two I have no need to be 'shown you can improvise'...

because magic is, well, fake, we don't have real life examples to pull from, or general rules to use.

but we have high fantasy examples of both, can't the non magic casters get a few high fantasy options?

So whereas you need a separate defined rule for each spell you use, you don't need a unique rule for every maneuver you want to do to, like tripping, or throwing an object, or swinging down from the ledge to land on top of your opponent, or to fling your halfling friend (because halflings are expendable anyway) into a group, or any number of things you can do in combat as a fighter that aren't "swing my sword". It doesn't mean the wizard is any harder to play than the fighter.

is there any of those things that a fighter gets options of that the ranger, or wizard or cleric doesn't... no of course not...

Basically, it comes down to you thinking the only options you can do are those defined on a character sheet. Step out of this mindset and a whole new world will open up for you.

that isn't my issue, maybe you think you can put some lable on someone and pretend they are having an issue that they are not...

 

[imabaer]

It was you who made a claim that simply isn't true, and I simply explained why.

There's not much to refute as false. My claim was that fighters have less mechanical combat options than other classes, especially spell casters. Some people find that boring, especially since there's already a variant of fighter that's supposed to be the "stripped down" version.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I disagree. The complexity is not significantly different. A couple extra options =/= significantly more complex. You don't need any special skill set or talent to play a caster over a battlemaster. It's like arguing that subtraction is a lot more complex than addition. Maybe literally, but in practice, to who? Everyone I know can do both easily. "significant" difference in complexity to me mean addition to algebra.

number of options... how about we just want number of options and choice points...

an 8th level wizard knows 21 spells and can prep 12 of them and they come with lots of options maybe if we could have that type of choice by say level 16... but even at 20th there aren't that many... and they doen't give you as much versatility as magic either...