Level Up (A5E) What is the vision of the high level fighter?

[Kozos]

Something @Kozos said got me thinking:

The problem with the fighter is it is too generic. Think of all the roles we (sort of) want it to fill... and how other classes can do the same thing, if not better and/or sooner. We want a tactical fighter, a warlord fighter, a weapon master fighter, and so on. That is a lot of ground for one class to cover. Can it be done? Sure. But...

Fighters should be the best at ONE thing: COMBAT. You can cry out "What about exploration!? What about social!?" but that simply isn't what the class is designed for. Give them some goodies of course, but the main issue still remains: fighters really aren't the best at fighting.

A counter point to that is that perhaps a fighter could assist in exploration and interpersonal skills based on his martial skill. Maybe placing a hand on their favoured weapon could provide a bonus to intimidation or a similar bonus could be granted towards those who might have seen you fight.
Generally speaking though I would like something more specific. What if the fighter had a "unique" social skill that they could train others in the art of combat perhaps granting those who have trained with him temporary hp, a superiority die or two and perhaps proficiencies.
Such a skill would be a noticeable social capital in any organised society.

 

[Asisreo]

Something @Kozos said got me thinking:

The problem with the fighter is it is too generic. Think of all the roles we (sort of) want it to fill... and how other classes can do the same thing, if not better and/or sooner. We want a tactical fighter, a warlord fighter, a weapon master fighter, and so on. That is a lot of ground for one class to cover. Can it be done? Sure. But...

Fighters should be the best at ONE thing: COMBAT. You can cry out "What about exploration!? What about social!?" but that simply isn't what the class is designed for. Give them some goodies of course, but the main issue still remains: fighters really aren't the best at fighting.

Other high-level warrior types (i.e. non-casters) should have to struggle and pull out all the stops to even have a chance to defeat an equal level fighter.
A barbarian should need to rage.
A paladin should need to smite.
A ranger should need to... well, whatever they can do!
Etc.

A while ago we had a thread about the best 20th level class build, a la battle royal, and who would win... If we remove the casters and focused just on the warrior-types, the Fighter SHOULD reign supreme IMO.

The sad fact is, I simply think they won't. I mean, if you put a 20th level Fighter up against 20th level build of the other warrior classes, how often do you think the fighter would win?

The problem is that there's still this perception that a level 20 fighter must be capable of beating a player in PvP when that just isn't important. Why should it matter that they can beat an optimized spellcaster if they're usually just fighting regular monsters anyways. Most of the enemies don't actually have these "martial shutdown" spells unless the DM gave them the ability to as they aren't often on their spells known until swapped with something else.

I think the fighter is the best at fighting, just not PC's. They're the best at fighting monsters in any situation, be it during a surprise round, while the monster is flying, etc.

 

[tetrasodium]

The problem is that there's still this perception that a level 20 fighter must be capable of beating a player in PvP when that just isn't important. Why should it matter that they can beat an optimized spellcaster if they're usually just fighting regular monsters anyways. Most of the enemies don't actually have these "martial shutdown" spells unless the DM gave them the ability to as they aren't often on their spells known until swapped with something else.

I think the fighter is the best at fighting, just not PC's. They're the best at fighting monsters in any situation, be it during a surprise round, while the monster is flying, etc.

Indeed. When a PC gets hit with old charm/mindrape/crown of madness/etc my experience is that the group pulls out all the stops they have to stop them without killing them, "who would win" only comes up when the PC in question is played by "thatguy" & everyone else is thrilled to finally have an excuse to stop "I'm only playing my character as they would act." It makes me wonder wtf game all the "who would win in pvp" folks are playing

 

[NotAYakk]

I think the fighter is the best at fighting, just not PC's. They're the best at fighting monsters in any situation, be it during a surprise round, while the monster is flying, etc.

Sure, I get that you are wrong, and believe wrong things. But that is ok, and really doesn't matter; I think everyone agrees that the fighter's beatdown is reasonable, and that it mainly needs social/exploration pillar supports, with maybe some in-combat utility (ie, not beatdown: maybe durability, but maybe not even that) increases in the back 10.

 

[Asisreo]

Sure, I get that you are wrong, and believe wrong things. But that is ok, and really doesn't matter; I think everyone agrees that the fighter's beatdown is reasonable, and that it mainly needs social/exploration pillar supports, with maybe some in-combat utility (ie, not beatdown: maybe durability, but maybe not even that) increases in the back 10.

Okay. If I believe wrong things, prove it. If I just have unpopular opinions, then that's different. But you're saying I'm wrong. Prove it.

 

[NotAYakk]

Okay. If I believe wrong things, prove it. If I just have unpopular opinions, then that's different. But you're saying I'm wrong. Prove it.

No, like I said, it does not matter to this discussion. Talking about it is a waste of time, attention, and progress.

Very few people hold that a fighter's raw beatdown is a problem. I think we can posit that the fighter's biggest problem, if it exists, is not raw beatdown of monsters.

So why argue about it or talk about it? Waste of life.

 

[Garthanos]

Indeed. When a PC gets hit with old charm/mindrape/crown of madness/etc my experience is that the group pulls out all the stops they have to stop them without killing them, "who would win" only comes up when the PC in question is played by "thatguy" & everyone else is thrilled to finally have an excuse to stop "I'm only playing my character as they would act." It makes me wonder wtf game all the "who would win in pvp" folks are playing

Agreed, I also do not have problems with all classes having contribution that are ball park in combat or any arena. So my idea of having role flexible fighters while it does make the fighter better it does so in ways that arent obvious number crunching usually.

 

[Micah Sweet]

4e let you decide why things were limited to once per encounter it was fully abstract ALSO try and explain CS dice it ought to be hilarious.

I am sorry I am too tired to disarm but I can hit you 4 times in quick succession LOL.

Was it you who brought up worrying about why something was limited?

I mean shall we debate the bard using inspiration to heal and the fighter healing himself because he wants to?

See, by "let you decide", what I actually read was "we don't care what you make up, those are the rules". I had a problem with this, and it eventually led to abandonment of 4e. We went back to 1st ed until the Next playtest.

 

[Tinker-TDC]

This makes me think: what if instead of trying to avoid said overlap, we embraced it? We have 1/3 wizard fighter already, we could have 1/3 rogue fighter, 1/3 bard, 1/3 barbarian etc

Make the fighter the ultimate ''built-in multiclass'' (they do is in Dungeon World, its really not bad).

Have a fighter subclass with minor sneak attack or dirty fighting feature and little more skill proficiency, call it the Knave subclass.
Have a fighter subclass with bardic inspiration on long rest, a few lore skill and maybe a few charm spell, call it a Skald
Have a fighter subclass with rage like ability (actually, a refluffed samurai is spot on for that), call it Berserker
Have a fighter with 1/3 cleric spell and group buff, call it Warpriest
Have a fighter exploration feature, maybe a pet, call it Scout (the UA scout with maneuvers was quite nice)

etc, etc

You know, how now bard are both jacks-of-all-trade while still mastering 9th level spells? Well the fighter can dabble in other roles while mastering weaponry.

No joke my favorite take on the ranger in 5e yet was a homebrew that was just eldritch knight but ranger spells and druid cantrips (minor changes otherwise, but that was the brunt of it).

 

[battlebaby]

Those are the things that come to mind when I think about a fighter or high level fighter. I prefer mundane fighter to magical. There is too many spellcasting classes.
• fighter should not be a prerequisite class to multiclass, prc, etc. It should be able to work in par with other classes.
• a fighter weapon skills are superior to any other class: weapon training* (add proficiency bonus to damage with a group of weapons or all weapons?)
• combat styles as archetypes* (add synergy or stack with feats): blind swordsman, polearm master, iaijutsu master, gunslinger, etc.
• combat styles with multiple tiers giving even more lethal features or maneuvers.
• maneuvers as baseline for everyone*, but fighter gains an improved benefit when using maneuvers.
• features through archetypes/combat styles, or improved maneuvers: increased damage, increased critical, extra attacks, decrease damage taken when wearing armor, automatic critical, a powerful throw, set to receive a charge, whirlwind attack, shield slam, knock back, knock out, taunt opponent, apply conditions or wounds (bleeding, crippled, stun, etc), dash forward hitting everybody in a row, crush opponent's armor, etc.
• core features*: resistance to fear, ignore pain, remove exhaustion, be able to forced march without suffer exhaustion.
• specialization with groups of weapons or maneuvers.
• magical, supernatural, or mythical fighter progession through archetypes
• shield specialized fighters* should be able to mitigate more damage, and use a shield as a weapon.
• Ninja Scroll*: Kibagami Jubei is an example of a high level fighter in action.
• armor specialized fighters* should be able to mitigate a ton of damage and use armor as a weapon (body slam, overrun?!)
• roll a critical is fun*, fighter should have even higher chance to roll a critical.
• they should be able to wield weapons in ways other classes could not.
• group wide effects: being able to extend their second wind to your group (shout or give an order?)
• unarmored fighter path* should have great speed and defense (archetype?!).
• wild card: emulate low tier stunt/maneuver/combat style or specialized maneuver.
• have more reactions? (resource?)
• gear bonus: to weapons, armors or other mundane things a fighter might use.
• penetrating power: vs magical, vs armor?!

* my favored approaches