D&D 5E (2014) What Makes the Fighter Best at Fighing?

[Tony Vargas]

That is, what features of the class, itself, give it that title. Top 3, say. Feel free to wax eloquent about exactly how they synergize to make the Fighter top of the heap in combat.

For a clarification, the question is what makes the Fighter best at fighting, not what makes the fighter a unique design. If you're having trouble narrowing it down, think about which 3 features are least dispensable, or synergize the most strongly together. If the fighter didn't have a given feature, would it put him behind other classes that are good at fighting.

EDIT(2/20): Also, I'm pleased that so few people have voted that the fighter is not best at fighting, and how only one has even tried (sorry, Ezekiel, but I don't think you succeeded) to explain how another class might be better....

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

No singular feature, not even a trio of features, makes the fighter the best at fighting.

It is the class as a whole, integrally aided by sub-class, that makes the fighter the best at fighting.

Though if I were to entertain the premise of this thread, Action Surge, Indomitable, and having extra ASIs to better support varied combat style (i.e. having high strength and dexterity, rather than just one or the other) would be the leaders by a small margin.

 

[brehobit]

Though if I were to entertain the premise of this thread, Action Surge, Indomitable, and having extra ASIs to better support varied combat style (i.e. having high strength and dexterity, rather than just one or the other) would be the leaders by a small margin.

I'm surprised Indomitable is on your list. I view Indomitable as very (very) weak. It's a highly limited version of a feat (lucky). More restrictions on use and only usable once (at least until quite high level). A single ASI (to _get_ lucky) is at least 3x better. Am I missing something (quite likely, I've only played a fighter up to 7th level).

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

...Am I missing something (quite likely, I've only played a fighter up to 7th level).

If you are missing anything, it is my perspective.

In this case, that perspective that says analyzing each class at any level other than the entirety of the class compared to the entirety of another class is a failure because the classes are designed to be comparable as a whole, not on a level-by-level granularity.

Also, that perspective that feats, being an optional rule, need not be considered at all outside of specifically asking "how do feats affect the game if used?"

 

[I'm A Banana]

I think the question is really subjective. "Best at Fighting" could mean MANY different things to MANY different people, so there's not one definition we can all agree on. The Fighter might not even be considered the "Best at Fighting" depending on what metric you consider the most important.

So maybe to make it a bit more concrete: what I think makes the fighter distinct and powerful in a fight is its flexibility.

This identity is secured by level 2: Action Surge. At its most basic, this is a damage spike: you attack more.

But it can also be a Defense spike (Dodge action!), a Mobility spike (Dash/Disengage), a Support spike (Healing potion! Help action!), all without giving up whatever else you were going to do on that turn (which might be attacks, but might be some of these other actions). It can even help mitigate many action-denial abilities. Oh no, I'm restrained, time to escape and ACTION SURGE. You get to choose how to use it on the fly, using it however you deem useful.

Any fighter who is just using Action Surge to wail on monsters more is kind of phoning it in. It's the basic thing to do, and it's not usually a waste, but lots of classes can wail on monsters, and some can even rival your ability to do so (a raging barbarian, a smiting paladin). What you can do that they can't is take full advantage of the action economy.

So one possible answer: Fighters are the best at combat because they can adapt to any combat situation better than anyone else. Outside of the plain white box of theorycraft, in play where fights are messy, chaotic, and against varied opponents, they can deal with that variation more efficiently and effectively than most other classes. Action Surge is a key part of that, but other features (like weapon/armor proficiency for damage/AC, extra attacks for grapples, Second Wind for a quick emergency heal, ASI's for shoring up weak saves or doubling-down on strong ones or trading for feats to add more versatility...) play strong supporting roles.

But then maybe Paladins are best at combat because they can spike damage. Or maybe Barbarians are best at combat because rage. Or maybe no one's best at combat because classes are broadly balanced. Or whatever.

 

[MechaPilot]

Is the fighter actually the best at fighting? I mean, I'm not saying straight out that any specific class is a better fighter than the fighter, but I never really see the fighter stand out as being better at fighting than, oh, let's say the paladin.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Is the fighter actually the best at fighting? I mean, I'm not saying straight out that any specific class is a better fighter than the fighter, but I never really see the fighter stand out as being better at fighting than, oh, let's say the paladin.

This is more or less my position as well. The Fighter isn't best at fighting. He's supposed to be, but he's not. He's nearly equivalent to other, "main warrior" classes (specifically Barbarian and Paladin). But unlike the Paladin, the Fighter doesn't really have the option of being any more flexible; even the "magic" subclass, by RAW, only gets Evocation and Abjuration spells, which are very thin in terms of clearly non-combat utility, even with the extra spells from Elemental Evil (being limited to no higher than 4th level spells, and only one of those, and only at level 19/20, hurts almost as much as the school limitation). Admittedly, the Paladin spell list isn't exactly rich in non-combat utility either, but it's certainly a step up by comparison to the Eldritch Knight, especially with the Oath of Vengence or the Ancients.

However, in the spirit of the question, I believe it's the extra attacks and Action Surge that make the 5e Fighter capable of keeping up with the Joneses. They aren't enough to be the BEST, but they're competent, which is an improvement over the 3e Fighter.

 

[I'm A Banana]

He's supposed to be,

Was this a mechanical goal for the fighter design? Seems like a questionable goal to me - runs in the face of the idea of "class balance" if every fight is dominated by one dude with the right class selection.

 

[Zardnaar]

They are not until you get to the higher levels and get your 3rd+ attacks and extra feat/ASI. Its when they start getting the benefits of the extra feat, attack and action surge where they start to pull ahead. At low levels they are beaten by Paladins, Rangers and especially the Barbarian. The Barbarian is a bit of a one trick pony though, fighters make great archers as well. The Battlemaster compares well with the others.

Unfortunately the Paladin is more or less one of the best classes in the game and is great from level 2+. None of the fighters suck at least though. Various classes peak in power relative to the other classes at various levels and IMHO the fighter peaks level 11+.

 

[MechaPilot]

Was this a mechanical goal for the fighter design? Seems like a questionable goal to me - runs in the face of the idea of "class balance" if every fight is dominated by one dude with the right class selection.

Back when WotC was developing 5e, they had articles about their design goals for each class. I think they were Legends & Lore articles. The one for the fighter said they wanted it to be the best at fighting. I'm not sure how to get to the legends and lore article archive though. I keep getting that 404 error page.