D&D 5E Do Fighters Still Suck?

[GMforPowergamers]

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.

notice what fighter has the most options...eldritch knight has about 1/3 the options of a wizard... and as it goes at level 16 he knows 11 spels and 3 cantrips he has 10 spells per day broken up over 3 levels...

 

[Tony Vargas]

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 really don't. Take games like Ars Magica or M:tA, for instance, you don't need a separate defined rule for every spell, you just put together new ones any time you like. D&D has generally done magic in discrete little rule packages called spells, but there's no necessity to do it that way, because they're magic. It's a fairly arbitrary design decision.

you don't need a unique rule for every maneuver you want to do to, like tripping, or throwing an object,

I suppose you don't /need/ it, but we have had more or fewer rules for such things at various times. 3.5/PF has rules for tripping (and they're not so bad in PF, I hear), for instance, throwing an object is attacking with an improvised thrown weapon, etc... So, similarly, nothing about maneuvers that makes them impossible to do up in discrete, clear little packages of rules that always work the same way.


D&D has taken both approaches with the fighter, for instance, and in neither case has it sucked.

 

[Sacrosanct]

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.

No, this is what you said:

"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. Their shtick is consistency and reliability. Even their best power is basically "swing one more time," which is great from a numbers perspective, but not particularly exciting."

And I simply explained why that isn't true. Because it isn't. Funny thing about quotes, we can go back and look at them. I wasn't making a claim at all other than to say you're assessment isn't accurate.

Shame on me though, I knew this was a troll thread, and got caught up in it anyway. Just not by the OP as I initially expect. I swear, you listen to some peoples' arguments here, and you'd never think that for decades, hundreds of thousands of players had fun playing PCs in D&D that didn't have a ton of options, and all they did was "I swing my sword again." I mean, it's not like B/X/BECMI weren't the best selling version or anything....oh wait.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Fighters don't suck now, and have never sucked as much as some might indicate in past editions.

It all comes down to people confusing that they don't like how something works with that thing not actually working for what it was meant to work for.

I actually think the champion fighter is kind of a "sleeper" because people read it, or run math that inherently misses various points comparing it's average to some other build's average, and it looks like it is behind the curve - but when you get one at the table with someone actually playing it and rolling the dice, it is plenty effective despite that it is extremely straightforward to play and derives any "spice" entirely from the player.

And I will also add myself to the people that have been playing D&D for "forever" that are the exact folks that actually asked for and like the champion fighter, and that is true even though my other favorite class is and has always been the wizard.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I swear, you listen to some peoples' arguments here, and you'd never think that for decades, hundreds of thousands of players had fun playing PCs in D&D that didn't have a ton of options, and all they did was "I swing my sword again." I mean, it's not like B/X/BECMI weren't the best selling version or anything....oh wait.

the funny part is part of those games where people who like fighters and almost always played them, and people who liked wizards and almost always played them, and at least 1 player (me) who liked both but then got tiered of the fighter class but still wanted to play concepts. All I want to do is play my martial no spell caster concept with the same amount or at least similar of bells and whistles and ribbons... I'm even willing for it to be it's own class (in 3.5 Bo9S classes replaced fighter for most in my groups)

 

[imabaer]

No, this is what you said:

"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. Their shtick is consistency and reliability. Even their best power is basically "swing one more time," which is great from a numbers perspective, but not particularly exciting."

And I simply explained why that isn't true. Because it isn't. Funny thing about quotes, we can go back and look at them.

Shame on me though, I knew this was a troll thread, and got caught up in it anyway. Just not by the OP as I initially expect. I swear, you listen to some peoples' arguments here, and you'd never think that for decades, hundreds of thousands of players had fun playing PCs in D&D that didn't have a ton of options, and all they did was "I swing my sword again." I mean, it's not like B/X/BECMI weren't the best selling version or anything....oh wait.

You're trying hard to use semantics at this point, and I'm not sure why. The fighter has limited options. Action Surge lets them do one of those limited options, again. Whether it's a trip, grapple, maneuever, or attack, they don't gain anything new from Action Surge, mechanically.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

And I will also add myself to the people that have been playing D&D for "forever" that are the exact folks that actually asked for and like the champion fighter, and that is true even though my other favorite class is and has always been the wizard.

what if we want to keep the champion as an option but also have a class/subclass more for me and mine...

 

[Shiroiken]

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

Because many others do like it, as I showed in my post. You can't get everyone to like everything. That way lies madness.

 

[Sacrosanct]

You're trying hard to use semantics at this point, and I'm not sure why. The fighter has limited options. Action Surge lets them do one of those limited options, again. Whether it's a trip, grapple, maneuever, or attack, they don't gain anything new from Action Surge, mechanically.

Semantics? Look, you said the fighter is only for new players, or "players who don't care as much about in combat options or character variation". There's no semantics about it. That's simply a wrong statement, end stop. Shifting the goal posts doesn't change the fact that your claim is wrong.

 

[imabaer]

Semantics? Look, you said the fighter is only for new players, or "players who don't care as much about in combat options or character variation". There's no semantics about it. That's simply a wrong statement, end stop. Shifting the goal posts doesn't change the fact that your claim is wrong.

How is that shifting the goal post?

"Only for new players" - It's a relatively low complexity, easy class to play with limited options.

"Players who don't care as much about in combat options" - Fighters have less mechanical combat options. If you want more combat options, it's not as good of a choice.

"Or character variation." - Fighters, again, have less mechanical options, most of which any character can do. If you want a character that plays different, you're not going to want a pick a fighter.

What part of that is false?