A critique and review of the Fighter class

[Minigiant]

Warrior types are broken up into fighter, rogue, paladin, rogue, barbarians. Still don't see much of a difference.

Nope.

Ralsdinsnd ranger have developed into things that aren't thematic tweaks on fighter.

Rogue isn't a warrior anymore and was only one for 1 edition.

And 5e moved barbarians to magical rage warriors.


So the trained warrior, warrior prodigy, primitive warrior, noble warrior, warrior caste, peasant warrior, warrior priest, mercenary, urban scrapper, drilled soldier, decorated lancer, bar brawler, gladiator, gang enforcer, arcane warrior, magic archer, rune magic warrior, psionic warrior, etc...

Is all fighter now. It's too much.

 

[Oofta]

Nope.

Ralsdinsnd ranger have developed into things that aren't thematic tweaks on fighter.

Rogue isn't a warrior anymore and was only one for 1 edition.

And 5e moved barbarians to magical rage warriors.


So the trained warrior, warrior prodigy, primitive warrior, noble warrior, warrior caste, peasant warrior, warrior priest, mercenary, urban scrapper, drilled soldier, decorated lancer, bar brawler, gladiator, gang enforcer, arcane warrior, magic archer, rune magic warrior, psionic warrior, etc...

Is all fighter now. It's too much.

I disagree. Have a good one.

 

[Bill Zebub]

and yet these boards, tick tok and FB groups are full of people who complain that the fighter just isn't enough...

Well if you are going to go all scientific on me I guess I have to concede defeat.

Well played. Well played.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Nope.

Ralsdinsnd ranger have developed into things that aren't thematic tweaks on fighter.

Rogue isn't a warrior anymore and was only one for 1 edition.

And 5e moved barbarians to magical rage warriors.


So the trained warrior, warrior prodigy, primitive warrior, noble warrior, warrior caste, peasant warrior, warrior priest, mercenary, urban scrapper, drilled soldier, decorated lancer, bar brawler, gladiator, gang enforcer, arcane warrior, magic archer, rune magic warrior, psionic warrior, etc...

Is all fighter now. It's too much.

could not agree more

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Well if you are going to go all scientific on me I guess I have to concede defeat.

Well played. Well played.

I disagree. I think that's working as intended. But it's an aesthetic preference: some people really want

yea like you were SOOOO scientific ... we are all talking our experiences and POVs I don'tknow why you think calling ME out as 'non scinence' changed anything at all

 

[EzekielRaiden]

To be fair Tasha's and onwards does fix that via subclasses. The Psi Warrior can do ridiculous telekinetic things, the Rune Knight has their own custom flavour of magic with all the runes granting out of combat abilities, and the Echo Knight has echoes. And the battlemaster gained some new maneuvers that let them spend superiority dice on a couple of skills. Just one of the many ways I find the modern direction of D&D to be a vast improvement on pre-Tasha's.

Sure. Those are also all augmenting "being a fighter" with magic. That's...kind of the problem, isn't it?

 

[niklinna]

Sure. Those are also all augmenting "being a fighter" with magic. That's...kind of the problem, isn't it?

At least the magic is harshly limited to a few fixed effects, and not a smorgasbord of spells and spell slots!

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Speaking as someone who is writing an Archer class, and thinks a Knight class would be a great idea, I am also fine with the idea of just maybe giving a backgroundish bene to fighters at low level, and maybe making fighting styles get beefier at higher levels, and letting that modify what the fighter is instead.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

At least the magic is harshly limited to a few fixed effects, and not a smorgasbord of spells and spell slots!

but when you have players that loved the 4e fighter and martial classes and the 3e Bo9S and wants a martial nonmagic weapon guy/gal that plays as complex and powerful as a spell caster they have to do some serious refluff.

I can make a Bard (sword or valor) X hexblade Y rouge mastermind 3 with the feat giving battle master maneuvers (see the new UA for examples) and pretend the bard spells and hexblade spells are just martial maneuvers... but that isn't really what we are looking for.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

I guess I'm just not seeing the issue or how it applies to fighters any more than any other class. Your list is encompassed by backgrounds. Whether backgrounds do enough to distinguish characters is another topic entirely.

I think that at least part of the point is, is that non-mechanical identity applies no more nor less to a fighter than to a member of any other class.
But expressing that identity can be tricky mechanically for a class that gets very little out of combat mechanics.
Take a second look at those examples given: They all would require investment in tertiary ability scores to be able to actually express their identity effectively once you actually get to the mechanics.

Now Fighters aren't the only class that can do this:
A Wizard becomes a court vizier and has to learn to persuade, deceive and gauge the motives of other couriers.
A Bard is an investigator for the city watch and excels at investigation, history of past cases, and chasing down suspects.
A Sorceror in inspired to train their body for feats of strength worthy of a real dragon, while learning all they can about dragons, and how they have interacted with their family for generations.
And so on . . . all absolutely viable identities.
But they would also be regarded as playing against type and sacrificing capabilities in order to express that identity. - Even though their mechanical class features allow them to express that identity much more than the fighter's do.