D&D 5E The Fighter Problem

[Miladoon]

1st level Fighter
Plus 19 levels of Mage
DM zap blue flame

 

[Corwin]

An equivalent feat would be resilient and the aura is better than that IMHO.

But that wasn't what you said. You didn't say, "compared to another feat that apply a bonus to saves". You said "way better". Always. So "way better" how? In what context? How often does the aura need to impact play to qualify as "way better"? Because there are feats that, arguably, can have an even bigger impact. Or others a slightly lesser impact, but more frequently. In ways other than save bonuses. Which I think is an (intentionally) narrow benchmark.

 

[Zardnaar]

I disagree. Let's talk about that Aura of Protection. You mentioned earlier how many games don't really reach high levels and one complaint was the fighter coming "on-line" too late. Well, while sharing out a bonus to saves is very helpful for higher levels, it's actually a relatively rare ability in the early levels. It's coming up less at 6th level than at higher levels, don't you agree? However, you'll be using your bonus action attack with Polearm Master every round at those levels. At earlier levels, the feat (GWM, or PM, or Sharpshooter, or Sentinel, or Shield Master, or whatever) will come up way more often than Aura of Protection.

And it will even out at higher levels, but then you'll keep getting more feats at higher levels too.



Feats are optional, but you're speaking from your experience and your experience involves feats. So let's talk about the reality rather than white-room theorycrafting. The reality is your players who play fighters can access those powerful feats earlier than other fighter-types, right?

There is no "completing the combo" here. The guy with Polearm Master and Great Weapon Master probably still wants Sentinel and Resilient, right? If he likes grappling he still wants to shove as a bonus action that comes with Shield Master, right? If he's multiclassing he almost certainly wants a feat that helps with some of that other classes abilities (Warcaster, Healer, etc..) right? They're not going to run out of powerful feats by the mid-game, and nobody else can keep up with how many they get. So while others can get these, none can get as many, and that's very powerful.

We do use feats (players like em). Even then though as I said some class abilities are better than feats. We also use pre published adventures a lot and they do not tend to have magical pole arms in them so PAM often starts becoming "deal half or zero damage". Magical great weapons are a bit more common but overall the PCs have stopped taking those feats due to the magic item thing or mostly due to cookie cutter PCs. Here comes another ranger with sharpshooter, here comes Bob 15 with GWM.

They have mostly stopped playing fighters full stop except for the dip though due to the combat pillar thing. Hunter rangers are better as archers for the most part, Paladins get the nod for the melee, Barbarians are even more rare. I'm more likely to run something lie Isle of Dread of Keep on the Borderlands and the fighters combat advantage is either not their or no significant enough. Last fighter I saw was a dex based battlemaster.

Maybe they are metagaming (lack of magical polearms) Magical longswords are a dime a dozen in adventures, greatswords a bit rarer, and things like magical hand crossbows and pole arms almost unheard of,

That is in the real world of D&D.

 

[jgsugden]

The problem is really one of perspective: It exists if you believe it exists. If you don't, it doesn't.

The most essential question is whether fighters are strong enough that they can be successful against the threats recommended by the DMG/MM when efficiently designed and played. Efficient is a much lower standard than optimized - basically, any choices that are thematic and not counterproductive.

The answer to that question is a very solid: "Yes". Under the recommended guidelines, a reasonably well built and played fighter is going to be effective.

If, however, you want to ask whether an optimized fighter is as strong as an optimized paladin, barbarian or ranger: Likely not for most of their career. I think that after you hit 11th level the fighter really starts to hold up with that extra attack - and that the 20th level fighter is the strongest melee combatant out there with the right build - but that from levels 2 to 10 the fighter falls behind the other classes. However, not to a degree that you can't enjoy the fighter class during those levels.

If I were to build a rebalanced fighter to try to adjust for those differences:

1.) Action Surge: Move it to 5th level. It is too powerful of an ability for level 2 dip by other classes.
2.) At 2nd level I'd give them the equivalent of the War Cleric War Priest ability to attack as a bonus action, but triggered on strength or dexterity and restoring on a short or long rest.
3.) Champion fighters would gain a +1 to weapon damage at 3rd level. That would increase to +2 at 7th level and +3 at 14th level.
4.) I'd add exotic weapons to the game. They'd be like martial weapons with an additional benefit. Only fighters would be proficient with them and multi-classing into fighter would not add proficiency with them (although you could get them with the feat that adds 4 weapons). The added benefit would be an effective increase of a die size (d8 to d10 or roll one extra die for 2d6 weapons and discard the lowest d6) over the martial equivalent, adding a two handed finesse weapon (d10), and then some low damage weapons that can do something fun on a hit (mancatcher can be used to grapple at reach, spiked chain can be used to restrain a foe, etc...)

Optimizers would be able to bring that up to snuff with other classes and the Champion would be balanced out. Also, no more double dip for action surge.

 

[Zardnaar]

The problem is really one of perspective: It exists if you believe it exists. If you don't, it doesn't.

The most essential question is whether fighters are strong enough that they can be successful against the threats recommended by the DMG/MM when efficiently designed and played. Efficient is a much lower standard than optimized - basically, any choices that are thematic and not counterproductive.

The answer to that question is a very solid: "Yes". Under the recommended guidelines, a reasonably well built and played fighter is going to be effective.

If, however, you want to ask whether an optimized fighter is as strong as an optimized paladin, barbarian or ranger: Likely not for most of their career. I think that after you hit 11th level the fighter really starts to hold up with that extra attack - and that the 20th level fighter is the strongest melee combatant out there with the right build - but that from levels 2 to 10 the fighter falls behind the other classes. However, not to a degree that you can't enjoy the fighter class during those levels.

If I were to build a rebalanced fighter to try to adjust for those differences:

1.) Action Surge: Move it to 5th level. It is too powerful of an ability for level 2 dip by other classes.
2.) At 2nd level I'd give them the equivalent of the War Cleric War Priest ability to attack as a bonus action, but triggered on strength or dexterity and restoring on a short or long rest.
3.) Champion fighters would gain a +1 to weapon damage at 3rd level. That would increase to +2 at 7th level and +3 at 14th level.
4.) I'd add exotic weapons to the game. They'd be like martial weapons with an additional benefit. Only fighters would be proficient with them and multi-classing into fighter would not add proficiency with them (although you could get them with the feat that adds 4 weapons). The added benefit would be an effective increase of a die size (d8 to d10 or roll one extra die for 2d6 weapons and discard the lowest d6) over the martial equivalent, adding a two handed finesse weapon (d10), and then some low damage weapons that can do something fun on a hit (mancatcher can be used to grapple at reach, spiked chain can be used to restrain a foe, etc...)

Optimizers would be able to bring that up to snuff with other classes and the Champion would be balanced out. Also, no more double dip for action surge.

Its kind of my point. From level 1-10 the fighter more or less reads 1 bonus feat and action surge vs a whole heap of class abilities for the other classes. Fighter tends to come up short in practice IMHO. Not drastically so but I have seen Monks dealing more damage than low level fighters for example.

 

[Otterscrubber]

Wait, how can a Fighter be front loaded and have too many key abilities arriving late?

I also found this a bit confusing. Seems a little contrary to the point the OP was trying to make.

 

[Corwin]

Fighter tends to come up short in practice IMHO.

Really? Not in my practice. Though, clearly YMMV. But definitely YMINS (Your Mileage Is Not Standard). I find fighters to be ahead of the curve, if anything. At least at my tables.

Not drastically so but I have seen Monks dealing more damage than low level fighters for example.

Given your other recent thread here, I've come to believe you have an observable tendency to find whatever newly discovered flavor you're on to be the bestest flavor evar.

 

[Mistwell]

We do use feats (players like em). Even then though as I said some class abilities are better than feats. We also use pre published adventures a lot and they do not tend to have magical pole arms in them so PAM often starts becoming "deal half or zero damage". Magical great weapons are a bit more common but overall the PCs have stopped taking those feats due to the magic item thing or mostly due to cookie cutter PCs. Here comes another ranger with sharpshooter, here comes Bob 15 with GWM.

Magic items can be anything and you're arguing the players are entirely metagaming. Which is fair given that's your experience, but neither is a knock on how the class is built. But even if that's the case, sword and board is a fine option, and Shield Master and Sentinel are fine feats to go with it. But maybe more importantly this might be a good argument for more feats to choose from.

As for cookie-cutter, here comes another Paladin with Aura of Protection. Here comes another raging Barbarian. Here comes another archer Hunter Ranger. All the other fighter-types you mentioned are even more cookie-cutter than a Fighter who at least has 6 good feats to choose from. Why aren't those other fighter-types viewed as cookie cutter as well? My guess is it's because of hold-over prejudices from prior editions regarding what feats "should" be rather than actual lack of versatility with fighters.

 

[Azzy]

I'm talk RAW fighters can't use the shield spell very well withut having a free hand or the warcaster feat. GFB seems ok at level 14, then crap then ok form level 7-10 then crap again.

I'm playing a EK, and with plate armor not having a shield isn't that big a deal. (Though, if you luck up and find an animated shield—that's always nice.) I've found that the EK tanks quite well.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*