D&D 5E Do Fighters Still Suck?

[Zardnaar]

Again, hypotheticals don't mean anything in practice. Nobody in the group is a paladin. It doesn't matter what a paladin might do to this party. Even if a fighter is outperformed, it's hard to argue that the fighter sucks just because they're not the very best.



That ranger would be giving up all those delightful reaction attacks that makes the fighter in this game such a powerhouse.



And absent theorycraft, this fighter is...frankly kind of wiping the floor, at least as of last game!

Well you can wipe the floor with a paladin ranger and barbarian as well and have other stuff as well.

Thats the main problem fighters have. That and ranged attacks being the best at damage.

 

[fuindordm]

Three out of six players in my current game chose to play fighters (one str-based great weapon, one dex-based archer, one dex-based battlemaster). So the class is certainly attractive to my players.

 

[Istbor]

Three out of six players in my current game chose to play fighters (one str-based great weapon, one dex-based archer, one dex-based battlemaster). So the class is certainly attractive to my players.

That actually sounds like an interesting party/campaign.

 

[Tony Vargas]

My main beef is almost everything that looks like a "power option" is also a limiting option. Like Polearm Master, and Sharpshooter.

Specialization has been kind of a blind alley design-wise since 1e UA.

Even if a fighter is outperformed, it's hard to argue that the fighter sucks just because they're not the very best.

Sadly, not that hard.

But, yes, it would be more valid to say that the farther the fighter is from 'the best' class (the Tier 1's or whatever) in a given instance, the worse the game is, not the worse the fighter is. The fighter's been /fairly/ consistent.

And absent theorycraft, this fighter is...frankly kind of wiping the floor, at least as of last game!

Well you can wipe the floor with a paladin ranger and barbarian as well and have other stuff as well.

Thats the main problem fighters have.

They're stuck wiping floors?

 

[Zardnaar]

Fighter gets more feats than the Paladin though. It's an important aspect of the fighter in fact. Unique to them in the quantity of feats.

True but most of the feat combos only require 2 feats.

We also have not made it past level 14 yet bt if you have to wait to level 15+ to be good I don't regard that as a great thing. Like level 20 fighter builds might have great DPM theory crafting but what about the other 19 levels, ranged combat and out of combat situations?

 

[Mistwell]

True but most of the feat combos only require 2 feats.

Right, so Fighter can get two feat combos while others are still only working with one. This is not a good argument.

 

[Zardnaar]

True but most of the feat combos only require 2 feats.

Right, so Fighter can get two feat combos while others are still only working with one. This is not a good argument.

Not if they get the feat combo at level 4 though. Fighter just geys the next stat buff or feat sooner.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

True but most of the feat combos only require 2 feats.

We also have not made it past level 14 yet bt if you have to wait to level 15+ to be good I don't regard that as a great thing. Like level 20 fighter builds might have great DPM theory crafting but what about the other 19 levels, ranged combat and out of combat situations?

It is perfectly true to say that Fighters get "two extra feats," eventually--but, IMO, that's a somewhat...not "misleading," but...aggrandized way of looking at it. It front-loads the concept, when it's really very, very back-loaded.

Fighters are a feat ahead at 6th level: two levels later, they get a second-tier pick (since there are few builds that get anywhere near as much benefit from a third feat, and Fighters don't have a core secondary stat like Rangers or Paladins do) at level 8, when everyone else is finishing their first-tier stuff (whether it be maxed prime stat, two feats, or a feat and an ASI). Fighters then remain "one ASI/feat ahead," which has diminishing marginal utility as more are gained, until 14th level when the next ASI/feat comes in. But at that point, even the non-Fighter has 3 ASI/feats, which allows maxed prime stat and a powerful feat (like GWM or SS). The Fighter can thus max a secondary stat that has little to no impact on their mechanical abilities (arguable, I guess, if that stat is Con, since a total of +28 HP isn't bad) or pick up a feat or two that gives benefits vastly inferior to most 1st level spells (Actor vs. disguise self being a pretty serious example*, but arguably Inspiring Leader vs. heroism).

Part of the real problem with "but it [eventually] has extra feats!" is that, while feats are (allegedly) "bigger" in 5e, I find them often either "boring but powerful" or "interesting but weak." Lucky, GWM, SS, PM, Resilient (Con, for casters, of course)...boring but powerful. Athlete, Actor, Linguist, Keen Mind...interesting, even awesomely so, but weak.

*Disguise self is a pretty egregious example here because, by the time a Fighter is getting to their second more-quickly-gained feat (that is, the point at which they're hitting the maximum number of feats available to most classes, and thus actually getting "more feats than anyone else can have"), a Warlock has been running around with Mask of Many Faces for (potentially) 12 levels, and that absolutely blows Actor out of the water.

 

[Bardbarian]

Having played fighters for a while now I feel the white room approach is leading to the impression that they are somehow behind other melee classes. I find this to be far from true. Damage wise they can keep up with all the other melee classes though 1 - 10 and begin to exceed them at level 11.


The problem is that they are being compared to each class in the single thing they each excell at individually and expected to beat them all simultaneously.


Sure a paladin can spike damage better than a fighter, but they also spike damage better than a ranger or barbarian also.


A barbarian can take crazy amounts of raw damage, more so than a fighter, however the paladin and ranger likewise fall behind.


Rangers can do excellent dual wield damage with hunters mark but lose their bonus action on the first round and every time that they have to swap to a now target.


The fighter is all about a steady flow of consistent damage that after level 11 leaves the others trailing behind aside from the occasional burst.


In addition, the fighter has the single most versatile ability in the game aside from perhaps wish. I am referring to Action surge which so far everyone seems to think can only be used to attack with. Action surge is a free action that can be used for interacting with traps or other dungeon apparatus, Healing an ally with a potion, moving to engage an enemy out of melee reach, pulling the maiden out of the dragons clutches, taking a dodge action or just about anything else that can be done. The fighter can do it more. While any character can do a single action in a goal based encounter, the fighter often breaks such encounters by changing the action economy. This is one reason so many classes choose to dip fighter at the loss of spell advancement.


As for actual play, the battle master is far and away the strongest of the archetypes but does require some mastery to get the most out of it. If you somehow manage to get all the maneuvers you want at level 3 then you are missing out on the potential. While I generally take precise attack as damage wise it is the strongest maneuver, I find it hard to choose between 4-5 others that all have strong tactical uses based on situation and party makeup. I will generally not have what I want until I have 5-7 maneuvers and will likely take the feat for additional maneuvers once I shore up the core.


The fighter is the core package that others may occasionally pass with daily resources but unless the day is a throwaway "lets give em a fight so they aren't bored" encounter, the fighter will generally be at the top of physical damage.


Also missing from the talk on versatility is the ability to be both effective at range and melee. The strength fighter is a bit weaker in this route than the dex fighter but what self respecting fighter doesn't have the trip maneuver to use with that Javelin? Sure you can only draw a limited amount of weapons per round, but why do you need a weapon when you can grapple that guy you just proned? "never happens" you say? Perhaps the dragon I fought 2 Friday nights ago would beg to differ but alas he no longer can speak on account of being mounted on my wall. Next time the DM will know not to get within longbow range.


As for optional rules. Feats are a part of adventurers league and I have yet to play a game without them so in my experience are pretty standard. Having extra ABI that can be feats is a huge advantage. Lets assuming all things are equal and by level 12 we all have 1 combat feat and a maxed stat, I may choose a non offensive option like Resilient Wisdom which is an extremely useful feat or even just lucky to turn disadvantage into super advantage. Most classes will not have anything except the core GWM or PM or whatever. Or lets be boring and say I just took +2 to Con making my hp equal to that of the barbarian. The extra bonuses of the class stack up.


The longer the day goes the better things get.




Minor Spoiler:






Playing pre-written adventures like Mines of Phandelver or HotDQ you can expect 6 - 10 fights in an adventure day. During that time 2-3 short rests can easily occur.


Adventurer league games can often have 3 - 8 combat encounters.


All of these drain the daily resources but Fighters and Warlocks start to shine.


The short answer is fighters don't suck but your expectations do not match the fighter class. I recommend you take one of the other options that do, Ranger or Paladin seem more your speed and simply call them Mr Fighter Guy. Your impressions basically boil down to expectation not matching the name of the class.

 

[UnadvisedGoose445]

It is perfectly true to say that Fighters get "two extra feats," eventually--but, IMO, that's a somewhat...not "misleading," but...aggrandized way of looking at it. It front-loads the concept, when it's really very, very back-loaded.

Fighters are a feat ahead at 6th level: two levels later, they get a second-tier pick (since there are few builds that get anywhere near as much benefit from a third feat, and Fighters don't have a core secondary stat like Rangers or Paladins do) at level 8, when everyone else is finishing their first-tier stuff (whether it be maxed prime stat, two feats, or a feat and an ASI). Fighters then remain "one ASI/feat ahead," which has diminishing marginal utility as more are gained, until 14th level when the next ASI/feat comes in. But at that point, even the non-Fighter has 3 ASI/feats, which allows maxed prime stat and a powerful feat (like GWM or SS). The Fighter can thus max a secondary stat that has little to no impact on their mechanical abilities (arguable, I guess, if that stat is Con, since a total of +28 HP isn't bad) or pick up a feat or two that gives benefits vastly inferior to most 1st level spells (Actor vs. disguise self being a pretty serious example*, but arguably Inspiring Leader vs. heroism).

Part of the real problem with "but it [eventually] has extra feats!" is that, while feats are (allegedly) "bigger" in 5e, I find them often either "boring but powerful" or "interesting but weak." Lucky, GWM, SS, PM, Resilient (Con, for casters, of course)...boring but powerful. Athlete, Actor, Linguist, Keen Mind...interesting, even awesomely so, but weak.

*Disguise self is a pretty egregious example here because, by the time a Fighter is getting to their second more-quickly-gained feat (that is, the point at which they're hitting the maximum number of feats available to most classes, and thus actually getting "more feats than anyone else can have"), a Warlock has been running around with Mask of Many Faces for (potentially) 12 levels, and that absolutely blows Actor out of the water.

I seem to have a very different take on this. By the time everyone is maxing their primary ability score, you have a powerful feat. Honestly, I feel like feats that are powerful are plenty interesting, but we've grown accustomed to them. Polearm Master, Great Weapon Master, and Sharpshooter in particular feel like taxes to really maximize a character, but the benefits provided are usually interesting flavorful for given style of combat/weapon. This is obviously all my opinion, but I think it's still valid, just as yours is.

What I would like to see are more feats that provide benefits that aren't as blindingly obvious prime picks. I think Shield Master is an excellent example. A bonus action shove is really only situationally useful. Adding the shield's bonus to Dex saving throws (that only target the shield wielder and no one else) is even more situational. Using a reaction to be granted the effects of "Evasion" on a successful Dex save is something that actually might come up more often, but is also situational. All together, I think they provide a nice set of bonuses that are fun and flavorful to use, but it doesn't feel like if I'm not taking it, I'm really not optimizing my given style of play. I'd like to see more feats along this line for different styles of combat (where are you Daggermaster?).