D&D 5E Consensus about two-weapon fighting?

[FrogReaver]

You continually give Action Surge and other fighter features far more worth than they merit when those features are not constant. Sure, features such as Divine Smite are limited as well, but with all the slots a high level Paladin has at his disposal, it is more than what the Fighter can do.

The other poster was talking about a fighter vs paladin in 2nd and 3rd tier play. The paladin gets a lot of goodies. That we all agree with. However, the fighter with feats is still better at fighting.

Precision is usable at most 6 times per short/long rest, and with Action Surge at 11th level or higher you could blow through all of it in a single round. Being able to dish out the most damage for a single round does not make Fighters (in general, since you have a very specific build in mind) the best at fighting.

You act like having the option to blow through all your short rest resources in a single round at the start of a fight is a bad thing? That's part of what makes the fighter with feats the hands down best class at fighting.

 

[DND_Reborn]

You act like having the option to blow through all your short rest resources in a single round at the start of a fight is a bad thing? That's part of what makes the fighter with feats the hands down best class at fighting.

Going nova is great for one round, but then the fighter falls behind. Unless the nova ends the battle, a fighter often isn't the best at fighting. With sneak attack occurring with an ally in the fight, the rogue in our group often outstrips the fighter in damage.

We've added several house rules to make fighters better at fighting, and now they are showing promise, but it's sad we had to do that.

 

[Zardnaar]

More an indication the Paladin is OP. Most of the charisma based classes are.

Fighters are the best at higher levels- at damage.
Even with feats the paladin's aura at 6 is better than any feat.

5E has a heap of overkill, you don't really need the -5/+10 feats. Sentinel us fairly good especially in a rogue.

 

[Ancalagon]

I disagree: the extra feat at level 6 (never mind level 14) isn't enough to offset all the goodies the other fighting classes get.

What if bonus feats was the only way to get feats?

TAN-tan-TAAAAAAAAnnnnnnn!

 

[Ancalagon]

What did Warhammer do?

More an indication the Paladin is OP. Most of the charisma based classes are.

Fighters are the best at higher levels- at damage.
Even with feats the paladin's aura at 6 is better than any feat.

5E has a heap of overkill, you don't really need the -5/+10 feats. Sentinel us fairly good especially in a rogue.

I think that the paladin is probably the most powerful class in the game...

 

[Gladius Legis]

with all the slots a high level Paladin has at his disposal, it is more than what the Fighter can do.

You do realize the Paladin is capable of enacting his strongest nova only once per day, right? Any other "nova" the Paladin does after using his highest spell slots won't be as strong.

Meanwhile, the Fighter's Action Surge/Precision Attack nova is as strong as it always is whenever he does it.

 

[Gladius Legis]

I think that the paladin is probably the most powerful class in the game...

I think the Paladin is the most overrated class in the game.

There. I said it.

 

[DND_Reborn]

You do realize the Paladin is capable of enacting his strongest nova only once per day, right? Any other "nova" the Paladin does after using his highest spell slots won't be as strong.

Meanwhile, the Fighter's Action Surge/Precision Attack nova is as strong as it always is whenever he does it.

I am not claiming the best nova = the best fighting, others have done that but that is not my standard for what makes for the best fighting ability. A high level paladin can apply many more divine strikes over the course of a day than a fighter can action surge or use precision.

Or consider the fighter compared to the rogue like in our party. Both are attacking the same target, allowing the rogue to apply his sneak attack damage EVERY round, not as a nova ability. At maximum, that is an average of 35 extra damage per round, every round, as long as he has an ally in battle. Oh, and that is without the GWM/SS -5/+10, which a rogue could employ with ranged weapons just as easily as the fighter can with a heavy weapon.

 

[Gladius Legis]

A high level paladin can apply many more divine strikes over the course of a day than a fighter can action surge or use precision.

Which still doesn't put the Paladin's daily damage output ahead of the Fighter.

Or consider the fighter compared to the rogue like in our party. Both are attacking the same target, allowing the rogue to apply his sneak attack damage EVERY round, not as a nova ability. At maximum, that is an average of 35 extra damage per round, every round, as long as he has an ally in battle. Oh, and that is without the GWM/SS -5/+10, which a rogue could employ with ranged weapons just as easily as the fighter can with a heavy weapon.

1) You clearly haven't done or seen the math of Fighter vs. Rogue DPR comparisons. Fighters tend to come out ahead in those.
2) Sneak Attack is not to be compared to Action Surge and Superiority Dice. If it's to be compared to anything the Fighter has, it's Extra Attack and possibly Fighting Style.
3) It's been figured out a LONG time ago that the Rogue taking the SS -5/+10 is actually harmful to his damage output.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Which still doesn't put the Paladin's daily damage output ahead of the Fighter.

1) You clearly haven't done or seen the math of Fighter vs. Rogue DPR comparisons. Fighters tend to come out ahead in those.
2) Sneak Attack is not to be compared to Action Surge and Superiority Dice. If it's to be compared to anything the Fighter has, it's Extra Attack and possibly Fighting Style.
3) It's been figured out a LONG time ago that the Rogue taking the SS -5/+10 is actually harmful to his damage output.

No, but I see it in actual game play, not white room analysis. In actual game play, not every fighter is a carbon copy of the uber-damage build or something that gets min/maxers juices flowing. For fighters to be better, they have to better in general, which they certainly are not. I am not saying every fighter has to be better than every other battler, either, but should have an edge when it comes to combat and the only edge they have is limited in uses.

Fighter suck at fighting compared to what the other battlers can do. Ok, the don't suck, but they aren't any better either IME, although they should be--otherwise, what do they have to offer really?