D&D 5E [Poll] How Satisfied Are You With the Fighter Class?

[Croesus]

For me, there are two problems with the fighter class: 1) seems a bit underpowered compared to barbarian and paladin, and 2) seems a bit "samey" and bland.

Concerning (1), that may just be perception, not reality. But I have found at my table that almost no one plays a fighter, instead choosing barbarian, paladin, even ranger. A couple level dip occurs, but no one is playing a pure fighter.

Concerning (2), I think the fighter depends too much on feats for variety. I don't allow feats, so all the fighter gets is a lot of ASI's. Yeah, those are useful, but also boring and do nothing to change the flavor of the class in play.

One option I think would be interesting would be to have a variety of fighter-specific options that could be taken in place of the extra ASI's. Basically themed feats, e.g., Outdoorsman: Gain a +1 bonus to Con, plus proficiency with Survival and Hunting Traps, plus the ranger's ability to track at full speed. (That's off the top of my head and probably should be tweaked, but you get the idea.) Such options should be less about giving extra combat abilities and more focused on fleshing out various character concepts.

 

[Redthistle]

[MENTION=15700]Sacrosanct[/MENTION]

I'm lovin' these polls, and a lot of your threads in general.

Keep 'em comin'!

 

[Sacrosanct]

For me, there are two problems with the fighter class: 1) seems a bit underpowered compared to barbarian and paladin, and 2) seems a bit "samey" and bland.

Concerning (1), that may just be perception, not reality. But I have found at my table that almost no one plays a fighter, instead choosing barbarian, paladin, even ranger. A couple level dip occurs, but no one is playing a pure fighter.

Concerning (2), I think the fighter depends too much on feats for variety. I don't allow feats, so all the fighter gets is a lot of ASI's. Yeah, those are useful, but also boring and do nothing to change the flavor of the class in play.

One option I think would be interesting would be to have a variety of fighter-specific options that could be taken in place of the extra ASI's. Basically themed feats, e.g., Outdoorsman: Gain a +1 bonus to Con, plus proficiency with Survival and Hunting Traps, plus the ranger's ability to track at full speed. (That's off the top of my head and probably should be tweaked, but you get the idea.) Such options should be less about giving extra combat abilities and more focused on fleshing out various character options/backgrounds/themes.

Thanks for a great post. You listed your concerns that are completely valid in a way that relates to your gaming table preferences, and offered a good solution. So much better than the "fighters suck and can't do anything" posts we often see For a table that doesn't use feats, I could totally get behind a list of "fighter traits" you could select in place of an ASI.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Very satisfied with the Fighter, overall.

And I have to say that I absolutely LOVE the Champion Fighter and I wish people would leave it alone. There's something to be said for its simplicity and straightforwardness. Any proposed changes to the subclass should instead be made a separate subclass. I don't want any conplexity added to the Champion.

The problem with the champion isn't lack of complexity, it's that at levels below 10 it plays virtually identically to a fighter with no subclass at all. It's extremely back-loaded.

If the champion's expanded critical range were much larger, it wouldn't add complexity but it might make improved critical worthwhile.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using EN World mobile app

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

For me, there are two problems with the fighter class: 1) seems a bit underpowered compared to barbarian and paladin, and 2) seems a bit "samey" and bland.

Concerning (1), that may just be perception, not reality. But I have found at my table that almost no one plays a fighter, instead choosing barbarian, paladin, even ranger. A couple level dip occurs, but no one is playing a pure fighter.

Testing a conjecture: do your players create PCs with point buy? Fighters are very SAD and good for when you roll only one good stat. I predict that point buy tables will therefore see fewer fighters.

Edit: no, wait, should have finished reading your post before posting.

Concerning (2), I think the fighter depends too much on feats for variety. I don't allow feats, so all the fighter gets is a lot of ASI's. Yeah, those are useful, but also boring and do nothing to change the flavor of the class in play.

No wonder you don't see any fighters at your table. I wouldn't play a fighter at a featless table either. You're already SAD so you don't need extra ASIs, except as feats. At a featless table extra ASIs become lackluster instead of awesome.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using EN World mobile app

 

[Croesus]

Testing a conjecture: do your players create PCs with point buy? Fighters are very SAD and good for when you roll only one good start. I predict that point buy tables will therefore see fewer fighters.

Yep, I use point buy, though I give them 29 points. I like PCs to be better than average, but I don't like the significant differences that rolling can cause.

 

[Imaro]

One option I think would be interesting would be to have a variety of fighter-specific options that could be taken in place of the extra ASI's. Basically themed feats, e.g., Outdoorsman: Gain a +1 bonus to Con, plus proficiency with Survival and Hunting Traps, plus the ranger's ability to track at full speed. (That's off the top of my head and probably should be tweaked, but you get the idea.) Such options should be less about giving extra combat abilities and more focused on fleshing out various character concepts.

One possibility would be to open feats (or a selected subset of feats) to fighter players. Since no one else could take them it gives the fighter some unique possibilities and shouldn't be overpowering.

 

[Croesus]

One possibility would be to open feats (or a selected subset of feats) to fighter players. Since no one else could take them it gives the fighter some unique possibilities and shouldn't be overpowering.

The problem I have with feats is that too often players choose feats that make them even better at what they do (usually combat), rather than adding extra abilities (especially non-combat). We have two GM's. I don't allow feats, but the other GM does. The type of feat selection I mentioned above has been the pattern in his games. Even checking the boards here, I've lost count of the number of posts where it's assumed a character took Great Weapon Master, Polearm Master, Sharpshooter, and Crossbow Expert. Except for fighters, most characters don't get a lot of feats, so it's natural for players to choose feats with the most "oomph", but that (to me) just makes things more "samey".

What I'd like to see (and may come up with for my own table) are feats that are less combat-focused and more concept-focused. If I do it right, they should still be useful, but more in the way of expanding a character's options as opposed to just reinforcing what the character already does. I'd especially like to see feats that allow one to partially take on another class's role without requiring multiclassing, such as my Outdoorsman feat above.

 

[hawkeyefan]

The problem with the champion isn't lack of complexity, it's that at levels below 10 it plays virtually identically to a fighter with no subclass at all. It's extremely back-loaded.

If the champion's expanded critical range were much larger, it wouldn't add complexity but it might make improved critical worthwhile.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using EN World mobile app

My players like the subclass. There have bee4 4 fighter characters in our campaign, 2 Champions, 1 Eldritch Knight, and a multi-classed Fighter/Rogue...with the Champion subclass.

I honestly find the Champion one of the most refreshing classes to play. It feels the most like the classic Fighter and all its abilities revolve around improving the basic functions that a Fighter is meant to provide. That's what I want. I'm not really that concerned about the balance over all 20 levels or balance against the other subclass options because I can say with certainty that in our game the Champion is just as effective as the Eldritch Knight.

I care more about the feel of the subclass rather than the mechanics...but I really don't have a problem with the mecchanics, either.

 

[ccs]

No wonder you don't see any fighters at your table. I wouldn't play a fighter at a featless table either. You're already SAD so you don't need extra ASIs, except as feats. At a featless table extra ASIs become lackluster instead of awesome.

You show me the player who thinks thier fighter only needs 1 ability score. I'll teach them why they should be excited to get more bonuses than anyone else gets.

Sure, it looks really cool to have a 20/+5 in your strength (or dex).
But that's not where you need another +....