D&D 5E The Fighter Problem

[Ashkelon]

You're assuming ASI, and I am specifying feats in the context of replying to Zard, who uses feats and favors the most powerful feats in the game. Let's not play this shell game where in one thread a guy is talking about how powerful Great Weapon Master, Polearm Master, Sentinel, Resilient, etc. are on the one hand, and then pretending none of those exist and it's only an ASI on the other hand. Keeping it consistent, Zard believes in using feats, and the most powerful ones, and he's the one making the assessment that the Fighter is lagging behind. So in that context, we should be assuming the feats, not the ASI. And not the Actor feat - but the powerful ones. The ones we all acknowledge tend to be more powerful than an ASI for the same fighter-type. The ones that give an extra attack as a bonus action, or an extra attack as a reaction, or which do +10 damage every hit, or which incapacitate a foe, those feats.

My point was that at level 6, the fighter will have the powerful feat and an ASI. The barbarian, paladin, or ranger will have just the powerful feat. The fighter isn't the only class who can take powerful feats after all, and most PCs really only need 1 (sentinel for defenders, shield master for bonus action shoving, great weapon master for melee damage dealers, and crossbow expert for ranged damage dealers). After that one powerful feat, it is generally better to max out ones primary attack stat. If you do however desire two feats for your build, you are only two levels ahead of every other class. Not even because a human can get two feats by level 4. In essence, the fighters bonus feat doesn't represent the versatility of all the best feats in the game, but rather only a players second or 3rd best feat choice.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

It's not information the characters should reasonably be aware of. Magic items are rare in 5e to begin with, and the default magic item generation method is random. Their awareness should be, "We have no idea what magic we might find." Zard was saying he finds those items because he's playing adventure paths, but WOTC has already said based on their surveys a majority of players are not even playing the published adventures but are using homebrew settings and adventures, and those "stories" the characters would have heard are not the FUTURE adventures they might be going on so they don't represent what's in the world based on the past stories. And, I addressed even Zard's experienced and mentioned feats that would go well with longswords and armor and shields and the predominant magic items for fighter-types anyway.

If ninety percent of all magical weapons are longswords, then ninety percent of the stories that people hear about magical weapons should also be about longswords. That's even more true if magic items are very rare in a setting, since every single magical weapon will be notable. A character growing up in such a world would likely have heard far more stories about magical longswords than they have heard about magical polearms, unless they're from a specific region that favors one type of weapon over others.

If the actual existence of different magical weapons is unknown until they actually show up, then that's a different matter entirely. I couldn't even begin to guess how many DMs roll randomly for loot, except that it's a sub-set of those running homebrew campaigns.

 

[Gradine]

In a game without Feats the only real way to improve your utility (skills) is to boost your ability scores, and Fighters are generally SAD & have more ASI's.

Your background can give you whatever skills & tool proficiencies you want. There's literally nothing stopping you from having a Fighter as an alt-thief. Or party face.

You're not going to compete with Rogue there but the Fighter is better off than most people seem to give them credit for. And when combat happens you're still a Fighter.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Mistwell]

My point was that at level 6, the fighter will have the powerful feat and an ASI. The barbarian, paladin, or ranger will have just the powerful feat.

But that's not the scenario we're discussing. It's two feats. Zard even specified "the feat tree" by which I suspect he means GWM and PM for example. He's definitely not talking about an ASI in that context. If his players are given the opportunity for 2-3 feats by 6th level, they're taking those 2-3 feats

The fighter isn't the only class who can take powerful feats after all, and most PCs really only need 1 (sentinel for defenders, shield master for bonus action shoving, great weapon master for melee damage dealers, and crossbow expert for ranged damage dealers).

Nobody "needs" any of this. But, more than one feat is very powerful, and I outlined earlier why and how. If you're defending, you not only want Sentinel, but you almost certainly also want Resilient (or else your weak wisdom will result in you attacking your own party), and you may well want Shield Master (to shove someone down, then grapple them, then attack them all in one round - they can now not move or leave that space, which makes you a great defender). And if you want damage, then Great Weapon Master PLUS Polearm Master is better than just one of those as you get an additional attack at +10 damage (and in fact Zard has posted about this combo himself many times). Ranged damage dealers with Crossbow Expert probably also want Sharpshooter. And then there are plenty of fans of feats like Lucky and Mobile.

My point is, an extra feat is powerful. Players don't tend to want to end at one feat. Most PC themes could use 2-3 feats, and the earlier you can do it the better.

After that one powerful feat, it is generally better to max out ones primary attack stat. If you do however desire two feats for your build, you are only two levels ahead of every other class. Not even because a human can get two feats by level 4. In essence, the fighters bonus feat doesn't represent the versatility of all the best feats in the game, but rather only a players second or 3rd best feat choice.

The second and third best feat choices are really quite good however. Better than a lot of these class abilities people keep talking about. You thought I was overestimating the power of feats, but I really think you're underestimating them if you think it's basically one feat and you're good.

 

[LapBandit]

[MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION] and [MENTION=15700]Sacrosanct[/MENTION]

So your argument is that the defining feature of the Fighter is his ASIs and the available feats? That doesn't seem like a good enough differentiator.

Forgetting archetypes:
Barbarians have Rage, Fast Movement, and Reckless
Paladins have Smite, Aura, Spells, Lay on Hands
Rogues get more skills, Expertise, and Backstab
Monks get Ki, Fast Movement, Unarmed Strikes, Stunning Strike, etc, etc
Fighter gets Action Surge (weak comparatively), Second Wind(weak comparatively) and much later Indomitable(weak comparatively) and even later Extra Attack (nice but far too late) .... not very interesting or more potent comparatively.

If you want a simple solution to bring them up to board, the Champion abilities could be rolled into the base class.

if you want a more complex solution to give them a clear purpose/benefit:

Fighters could get Extra Attacks earlier than other classes to signify their dedication to combat, I would suggest 4th, 9th, 13th.
Fighters could get more uses of Action Surge, I would suggest: 2nd, 11th, 17th.
Fighters could get Indomitable earlier and get more usages of it, I would suggest: 5th, 9th, 13th, 17th.
Fighters could get an ability no one else gets: Stances; allowing them to do things like force movement (5 ft per hit), turn their action and/or bonus action into reactions, turn their reaction into a defensive ability, give them the "flanking" advantage, etc. They could gain these stances progressively starting at 5th, adding more each odd level.

This would make them the unquestioned masters of combat (which you assumed they trained to be) and give them a feeling of deadly physical potency that other martials couldn't match (completely on purpose).

 

[Flamestrike]

So there you have it. If you want to be a good archer player a hunter ranger

When it comes to archery, fighters win against the ranger hands down. Barring low level (when +1d8 and hunters mark on a handcrossbow using archery ranger can pump out some impressive damage) and 17-19 (where the Ranger gets to spam Swift quiver getting 4 attacks with the bow a few levels before the fighter does).

if you want to tank and deal good damage be a barbarian,

Only when raging. Presuming your DM sticks to the average recommended adventuring day length, then thats only for half the encounters per day. Some days will be shorter and some days will be longer. The fighter is always on.

If your DM isnt sticking to the 6-8 encounters per day rule, and your barbarians are raging round one, in every combat they enter, then its not the Fighters fault, its the DMs.

if you want a gish play a Paladin or MC the fighter.

Tough criticism on the fighter as a class when your argument is 'he makes a mage unless you multiclass'. Only one sublclass even gets spells, and its a 1/3 caster.

A well built battlemaster is decent in the right party (read Rogue or sharpshooter player in the group). Only play a fighter if you start at level 11+ or if you know the game is going to high levels and you have a realistic chance to reach those levels and play to level 15 at least. Action surge is cute/great but its not really enough vs the other options. Can you have fun playing a fighter absolutely but I can also have fun with Toast the RPG where the goal is to play as a piece of toast and aim for various spreads. Mechanically the fighter is outclassed for half its career and probably all or most of it in the real world.

They're in your games because you dont stick to the [6-8 encounter/2-3 short rest] meta. Deviating from this messes with class balance in a big way.

If you really think fighters are compared to paladins, casters and barbarians (all long rest based classes), simply give out more short rests (and more encounters) between long rests.

If having 6-8 encounters in a single day doesn't feel right to you, then make long rests take a whole week (gritty realism long rests) and leave short rests at an hour.

Problem fixed.

 

[Mistwell]

If ninety percent of all magical weapons are longswords

Why should we discuss such a ridiculous scenario though? Nobody said or implied that sort of figure. Zard mentioned it tends to be longswords first, then two handed weapons, and on down from there. It's not 90% though or even close. It's not even a majority weapons for that matter, as a lot of it is magic armor and sheilds and such, which the fighter can use anyway. The "stories" people might hear will include the whole array I assume, and depend a lot more on the hero and their deeds who used them than anything else.

For what it is worth in the most recent adventures I read, there was a notation in there from WOTC saying the DM should feel free to replace magic item packages with items more tailored to the party in question, and also magic items which will just say things like, "+1 armor of a type appropriate for your adventuring party" sometimes. I really don't think this is a real issue. I've certainly never heard of someone making, for example, a polearm themed PC and then never finding a magic polearm to the point where they quit using their theme. DMs tend to not be jerks like that and will usually find a way for the PC to find that weapon or buy it or switch it out for something else or trade it with someone else, etc..

And again, even if you agree with Zard's point (which I do not), I still gave him an answer about lots of feats which address longsword-users anyway. Why are we acting like this was a good point for this thread still?

 

[Sacrosanct]

[MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION] and [MENTION=15700]Sacrosanct[/MENTION]

So your argument is that the defining feature of the Fighter is his ASIs and the available feats? That doesn't seem like a good enough differentiator.

I can't speak for MIstwell, but no. I don't think those two extra feats are the defining feature of a fighter. I think they are a feature of the fighter, just like action surge, second wind, or any other feature. Personally, I think it's a great idea, because unlike every other class that has its features hard baked into the class, the designers clearly are saying "We are allowing you to customize your fighter how YOU want without needing to multiclass or suffer any other drawbacks. Want a stealth fighter? The use on of your EXTRA feats for stealthy. Want a magic using fighter but not quite as magic heavy as the EK? Then use one of your extra feats for magic initiate or ritual casting. Want to be the baddest combat warrior? The use your EXTRA feats for things that do that." Etc, etc.

If they got rid of the level 6 feat, and instead hard baked in the lucky feat, no one would say they never had a class feature to help out of combat situations. So why do they say it now? With those two extra feats (which are a class feature), you can give your fighter those out of combat abilities. Or not, if you don't want to.

 

[Flamestrike]

The only problem with the Fighter is in the other classes. The Fighter is absolutely working as-intended, especially the Champion. On the other hand, the Barbarian is raging in every encounter and the Paladin is smiting with every attack, because a single adventuring day with six meaningful encounters is a rare exception rather than the rule.

If this is happening in your games, and you cant find a way to get the six or so encounters into the one day, all you need to do is make long rests harder to get, and/or make short rests easier to get.

The Gritty realism variant (long rest = 1 whole week of resting, short rest = overnight) means that you can have your recommended 6-8 encounters spread over several weeks instead of all pushed into a single day. It also slows healing down which is an added bonus.