D&D 5E Do Fighters Still Suck?

[Guest 6801718]

I wouldn't say that fighters suck. As I'm sure has been pointed out in the tons of posts before mine, they're consistent and specialized. Fighters are, of course, the best at straight up fighting. They get the most attacks, the most fighting styles, the most stat/feats and some durability features. They aren't flashy and the play style may not be for everyone, but they are effective. Fighters have always been lacking in the skills department sure. Then again, they merc, pit fighter or soldier types of characters aren't really meant to be the party face. I always think of Wolverine when I think of fighters: "I'm the best there is at what I do, even though what I do isn't very nice". The features aren't flashy. Smites are cool and you can't argue with a good rage feature, for example. But you can't really argue with 4 attacks and a good weapon style. My group uses feats, as we like our options. So that certainly helps a fighter in numerous ways. You can compensate for a weak save or pick up some great combat feats like GWM.

Fighters strike me as consistent and reliable but not flashy.

 

[Mistwell]

So, the fighter gets his first extra feat at 6, so before that, no benefit from an extra feat.

Yes. And?

A Variant human fighter has it even better, but any other fighter is /behind/ a variant-human non-fighter until 6th, and doesn't pull ahead until 14th.

This is, of course, a false comparison. If comparing to a human, the the fighter is a human. The race is a static factor across classes.

And feats are optional, anyway.

Again, false comparison. If you're not using feats, they get stat boosts, which will be highly coveted in a game with no feats. But let's be honest, we were discussing feats, and polls show an overwhelming majority of people use feats.

Bonus ASIs/feats are a nice nod to 3e bonus feats, but they're not that significant.

\

Yes, they are. They are VERY significant. They're the gold standard by which everything else in the game is measured. Class powers are routinely measured against them (and usually come up wanting). Feats, and their equivalents, are considered condensed highly powerful elements of this game by most people. They are not "little bells and whistles". Most builds depend on them, or highlight them as a major element.

 

[the Jester]

No, and they never did.

 

[Tony Vargas]

If comparing to a human, the the fighter is a human. The race is a static factor across classes.

Point is a bonus feat is not that big a deal, race is less significant than class, but race will get you a bonus feat much earlier. The fighter stands as solid class with or without feats or cute build tricks, on their combat prowess (DPR) alone.

 

[Mistwell]

Point is a bonus feat is not that big a deal

Ha, it's such a huge deal people routinely take Human purely for the feat bonus! It's why you even raised the issue, because humans get a feat and that's so noteworthy you tried to compare it.

The fighter stands as solid class with or without feats or cute build tricks, on their combat prowess (DPR) alone.

I agree with you on that point as well. But I think the feats/ability boosts are also a meaningful part of the class and should not be dismissed. Particularly when responding to Zardinar, who values feats very highly.

 

[Halivar]

Feats are of even more value to fighters than everyone else. They benefit disproportionately from the feats available in the PHB. So, they don't nova *AS MUCH* as a paladin or a rogue, but they do have some significant nova capabilities on top of their sustained damage throughput. On the outset of a BBEG fight, you better believe I am dropping some Action Surge goodness with Feinting Strike, and using Luck points to make sure I hit, using my Great Weapon Mastery to boost my damage. I don't have an absolute scale, really, but I often out-damage the dedicated battle caster 3 levels above me over the course of the battle.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Fighters don't suck, but this thread sure does.


yes, I know I'm just as bad for posting in it too.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Zardnaar]

Ha, it's such a huge deal people routinely take Human purely for the feat bonus! It's why you even raised the issue, because humans get a feat and that's so noteworthy you tried to compare it.



I agree with you on that point as well. But I think the feats/ability boosts are also a meaningful part of the class and should not be dismissed. Particularly when responding to Zardinar, who values feats very highly.

I have played without them and gave the players a choice to use them or not. I really do notice the feat thing from a variant human fighter vs a non human ranger or paladin.

I think feats are better than asis to the extent I don't think I would boost stats to level 8 or 12 outside of narrow cases like Paladins or double uneven scores via rolled stats.

A few of the power combos though are not as good in a real game vs theory craft. Magical hand crossbows for example seem rare vs longbows.

 

[Luciandevine]

The thing you always have to remember about Fighter is that their class name basically says it all. They aren't there to be a skill monkey, support others or cast spells. They are there to fight. One thing I did notice a long time ago when I started building fighters is that I had to think ahead. IF you take random stuff on a whim, it will likely suck, but if you plan everything out, synergize, etc, it should be very good at what it does...aka kill stuff.