D&D 5E The Fighter Problem

[Mistwell]

I just wish classes were balanced around a single encounter day, not this ridiculous 6-8 encounter notion (which doesn't even appear in WoTC adventures AFAICS).

ONE encounter per day? That's something I've never seen.

And yes, 6-8 encounters before a long rest has been pretty typical in the WOTC adventures I've played (which is many of them).

 

[Mistwell]

This. Also I got sick of catering to powergamers in 3E.

If you pick a "powerful" option you might get a magic weapon but don't expect it.

I don't think anyone is saying "expect" it, but if a certain type of weapon tends to be the most powerful in your setting (because your setting includes feats), then it makes sense for that setting that it would be a more common weapon in the world, and therefore a more common weapon for magical weapons as well. If the dagger is a fairly ineffective weapon in your world and the glaive is a highly powerful weapon in your world (perhaps because your world includes feats that benefit the glaive a lot), then it would be reasonable for magic users who enchant magic weapons to enchant a lot more glaives than daggers. In fact it would make almost no sense to spend those precious magical resources enchanting a highly ineffective weapon like a dagger when they could just as easily enchant a highly effective weapon like a glaive. Which is why I say nobody "expects" their magic weapon of choice, but they might "expect" your world to have at least some internal consistency. If you're going to include feats in your world, then your world should operate as if it has feats.

 

[Sacrosanct]

ONE encounter per day? That's something I've never seen.

And yes, 6-8 encounters before a long rest has been pretty typical in the WOTC adventures I've played (which is many of them).

Yeah, same here. Sometimes less (usually in wilderness exploring), and sometimes more (like a dungeon or stronghold). Player's don't dictate when a long rest is available. What's going on in the game world does. So they may want to take a long rest by staying in room #3, but if it stands to reason the rest of the area is alerted to their presence, chances are they will not be able to stay there for 8 hours un-accosted.

 

[S'mon]

I see 1-3 fights in a day rarely more. When travelling rarely more than 1. 0 is common too.

 

[Ashkelon]

Pretty much every 5e game I have ever played in has had 3-5 encounters between long rests with 0-1 short rests taken per day.

It would be interesting to see what percent of games actually make it through 6-8 medium to deadly encounters per day and 2 short rests per day.

 

[LapBandit]

Every single Fighter ability in your list either scales or benefits a Bounded Accuracy game feature (which of course scales). Let's go through them

Fighting Style: Defense gives a bonus to AC which stacks with everything. AC is one of the bounded accuracy features of the game, which means it benefits (by definition) for the entire course of the game. Similarly Archery gives a +2 bonus, which stacks with all other attack bonuses, and is part of bounded accuracy. Same goes for the other styles but you get the point.

Second Wind: It's "plus fighter level" so scales.

Action Surge: An additional set of attacks scales. When you get more than one attack per attack action, that means Action Surge gives you those additional attacks, therefore scales very well.

Feats: Most scale well. (now go ahead and tell me how feats are optional while leaving out that your group uses feats and almost everyone here reports using feats)

Indomitable: Saves happen throughout all levels of the game and therefore advantage on them scales well with the game.

Extra Attack: Of course this scales, as it's using all the things involved with your attack (most of which scale). You always want more attacks regardless of level.

So yes, it's fine. I am calling it fine - it all scales well. Are you still not sure how I can call it fine?

Fighting Style: Paladin and Rangers get this too, it is not unique and the only scale fighters will see from it is Riposting Battlemasters and their 3rd attack, weak.

Second Wind: 1d10 + Fighter level respective of HP totals and how hard a difficult CR monster can hit you is nothing compared to Lay on Hands or the monk ability. Should be a straight 3x Fighter level.

Action Surge. It's for one round per rest until 17th level, that's pretty static.

Feats. Everyone has access.

Indomitable. Paladin aura and monk save ability are MILES better. Should be like Legendary Resistance where you choose to "auto-save" if you fail.

Extra Attack: All Fighter Extra attacks come too late, they should get theirs first (4th as opposed to 5th, and 9th as opposed to 11th).

Nothing a Fighter has scales as well as Paladins, Barbarians, or Monks.

 

[Warpiglet]

My biggest issue with saying fighters are without identity is that we are in fact including MORE identities by having more general warrior classes.

Feel free to add more subclasses by all means, but for some, a "champion" is an iconic hero of a race. This may even be a classic Greek hero sort. We all know the swordmaster from popular fiction.

My concern would be injecting too many specifics into a Champion template. This has such wide applicability and can be made to fit quite a few stories. Keep it as an option.

With regard to the other two subclasses, I do not think they are without background easily tweaked for the individual story.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

Fighting Style: Paladin and Rangers get this too, it is not unique and the only scale fighters will see from it is Riposting Battlemasters and their 3rd attack, weak.

Second Wind: 1d10 + Fighter level respective of HP totals and how hard a difficult CR monster can hit you is nothing compared to Lay on Hands or the monk ability. Should be a straight 3x Fighter level.

Action Surge. It's for one round per rest until 17th level, that's pretty static.

Feats. Everyone has access.

Indomitable. Paladin aura and monk save ability are MILES better. Should be like Legendary Resistance where you choose to "auto-save" if you fail.

Extra Attack: All Fighter Extra attacks come too late, they should get theirs first (4th as opposed to 5th, and 9th as opposed to 11th).

Nothing a Fighter has scales as well as Paladins, Barbarians, or Monks.

Fighting Style: Yep, this is correct.

Second Wind: Same here. It gets a little nicer at higher levels but the amounts of damage you tend to take at that level makes it no more than a band aid in most cases. Still nice to have over nothing.

Action Surge: Refreshing on a short rest is pretty nice and the fact that you get double your attacks (which do scale better) is awesome. The 20th level fighter surging for 2 x 8-attack rounds is scary.

Feats: Everyone else has more limited access. My 12th level fighter has 20 Str, Great Weapon Master and Polearm Master. He does more consistent damage than my Paladin/Sorc did at that level.

Indomitable: I agree, would be better if it was like a Legendary Resistance - especially since it only regens on a Long Rest.

Extra Attack: Since not as many games go to 11th level plus, that's something. But don't knock it until you've tried it. Having 4 Great Weapon Master attacks a turn (using Polearm Master bonus action attack) is nothing short of awesome.

Levels 7-10 sort of suck as a fighter. You get indomitable, an ASI, Indomitable and some blase subclass stuff. That's too bad because that's the meatiest part of D&D where lots of games get into but only a few get past. But from 11th-20th level, Fighters hit their comparative stride when it comes to being effective combatants. Four more ASIs, 2 more attacks, another 2 Indomitables and a second Action Surge - on top of some okay subclass abilities. So fighters have sort of a sophomore slump - they come out gang-busters with some really nice foundational abilities but then sort of slide along for the second quarter before picking up again.

 

[Ashkelon]

Fighting Style: Yep, this is correct.

Second Wind: Same here. It gets a little nicer at higher levels but the amounts of damage you tend to take at that level makes it no more than a band aid in most cases. Still nice to have over nothing.

Action Surge: Refreshing on a short rest is pretty nice and the fact that you get double your attacks (which do scale better) is awesome. The 20th level fighter surging for 2 x 8-attack rounds is scary.

Feats: Everyone else has more limited access. My 12th level fighter has 20 Str, Great Weapon Master and Polearm Master. He does more consistent damage than my Paladin/Sorc did at that level.

Indomitable: I agree, would be better if it was like a Legendary Resistance - especially since it only regens on a Long Rest.

Extra Attack: Since not as many games go to 11th level plus, that's something. But don't knock it until you've tried it. Having 4 Great Weapon Master attacks a turn (using Polearm Master bonus action attack) is nothing short of awesome.

Levels 7-10 sort of suck as a fighter. You get indomitable, an ASI, Indomitable and some blase subclass stuff. That's too bad because that's the meatiest part of D&D where lots of games get into but only a few get past. But from 11th-20th level, Fighters hit their comparative stride when it comes to being effective combatants. Four more ASIs, 2 more attacks, another 2 Indomitables and a second Action Surge - on top of some okay subclass abilities. So fighters have sort of a sophomore slump - they come out gang-busters with some really nice foundational abilities but then sort of slide along for the second quarter before picking up again.

I think you hit on something that is quite a problem for the fighter here. According to WotC surveys, most games are played from levels 3-8 and it is quite rare for a game to make it to level 12+. If a fighter only starts coming into its own at levels 11+, very few players will actually get a chance to see that.

Now when the design goals for the fighter are that it is "the best at fighting", but from levels 1-10 the Barbarian, Paladin, and Ranger can be just as (if not more) competent in the combat pillar, then clearly there is something wrong with fighter design. For the levels where the majority of players actually play, the fighter isn't the king of combat by any stretch.

 

[Quickleaf]

The battlemaster controls the battlefield and knows his enemies.
The Champion is a master of his weapons and a tough motherfu***.
And other people will find other essences for the classes. Really, there is no problem.

Its because you have read the PHB though. I think its more for new players or in 4E and 3E with some of the PrCs and class names were WTF.

Whats a seeker, warden, Dragon Disciple for the uninitiated for example? A fighter, assassin, wizard means something even if you have never played D&D before. What is a Duskblade?

Zardnaar nailed it.

5e has mostly moved away from the tendency of later 3e and most of 4e to create character concepts defined mainly mechanically. EDIT: In an ideal world, the mechanics and narrative positively reinforce one another, and that's what 5e aspires to do with most of its class design.

However, the fighter is an exception to that trend.

Now, for people who would prefer a "class-less" D&D or a flavor-less "class-lite" D&D, they love that the fighter is designed how it is. Nothing wrong with that. But it is a glaring exception to how the rest of the 5e classes are designed.

What sticks out as a sore point is for people who are more casual gamers or newer to the game being unable to readily differentiate Champion vs. Battle Master, whereas they quickly grok the difference between a Thief vs. an Assassin. And even once they have the rules down enough to understand the mechanical difference between Champion vs. Battle Master, they still have no narrative distinction between these two subclasses.

IMO, it's not that players need a straight-jacket to tell them "here's your PC's pre-packaged story," rather it's that the human mind goes toward identifiable archetypes as a starting point, that creativity is MORE inspired by having a clearly understood springboard to launch from.

Mike Mearls' quote nailed it to me: Champion is empty calories. There's no inherent meaning in the name. There's no implicit narrative creative springboard for players to work with. For a veteran/hardcore gamer, that may not be a problem (or even an advantage). For a newer/more casual/more story-focused gamer, that may be a problem.