A critique and review of the Fighter class

[Cap'n Kobold]

what a shock....

and yet these boards, tick tok and FB groups are full of people who complain that the fighter just isn't enough... but sure you say it is AOKAY

Bear in mind that it is entirely possible for fighters to genuinely be fine in some games.
If you have long adventuring days, full of combat, in dungeons or other confined areas, for example and not a lot of other-pillar interaction or downtime, then fighters will shine, particularly at low levels. As social and exploration/investigation pillars start creeping in, days have fewer fights, and the party moves out of the dungeon and starts getting downtime, fighters will start doing less well.

Most groups have a balance of all of these factors that is unique to them. Many people can say "Fighters are fine" in complete honesty because it is true. For them.

Bear in mind also that some of the people who are saying "Fighters are fine" may be specifically referring to their home games, which might have house/variant rules in place to improve the fighter's lot or limit casters for example.

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

Well played. Well played.

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

Lets keep the snark down to a dull roar can we please? I don't want Fighters to go the way of the Katana.

 

[Minigiant]

The basis of D&D is around spotlight balance. Spotlight balance between the 3 pillars and the 6 ability scores.

The issue with the fighter is in some party it is easy for the fighter to get spotlight but it other parties they are terrible.

For example the noble heavy knight fighter. He should shine in combat, STR exploration, and CHA social. The issue is that if there are any bards, enchanter wizards, CHA rogues, sorcerers, warlocks, or paladin, the heavy knight fighter is outshone in something they should be good at with no advantages whatsoever.

This is why traditional basic D&D lacks the problem but modern advanced D&D does. Traditional D&D keeps every class separate in spotlight by force.

 

[Neonchameleon]

The basis of D&D is around spotlight balance. Spotlight balance between the 3 pillars and the 6 ability scores.

The issue with the fighter is in some party it is easy for the fighter to get spotlight but it other parties they are terrible.

For example the noble heavy knight fighter. He should shine in combat, STR exploration, and CHA social. The issue is that if there are any bards, enchanter wizards, CHA rogues, sorcerers, warlocks, or paladin, the heavy knight fighter is outshone in something they should be good at with no advantages whatsoever.

This is why traditional basic D&D lacks the problem but modern advanced D&D does. Traditional D&D keeps every class separate in spotlight by force.

The other issue is that STR exploration is a thing that gets a whole lot less useful as you level up. Climbing, for example, starts off as pretty useful and effective - but e.g. flight renders it pretty irrelevant. Str swimming in many ways becomes a lot less impactful when the ritualists get water breathing and water walking. And the casters are often better at moving rubble out of the way.

 

[Oofta]

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.

Other than the specific "be an archer" from the post I was responding to, I think any class could have those backgrounds. For example even the "enforcer" thug as a wizard could work, you just have to explain it correctly. Instead of flexing muscles, the wizard uses their shocking grasp cantrip (or prestidigitation for that matter) to make their hand crackle with electricity as they reach for the bound captive with an evil grin.

But if the narrative about how a fighter became a fighter is more varied, that's a good thing. It's just that I believe it's encompassed in the backgrounds and class rarely changes anything other than descriptive fluff.

Or I'm just still missing the point.

 

[James Gasik]

The simplicity of the Fighter and the lack of a core identity can be an advantage, as Oofta has pointed out- with less being assumed about who or what a Fighter is, you can give it your own flavor fairly easily.

If you're a Wizard, some flavor is enforced- you had to learn magic, and you need to carry around a big book of spells.

If you're a Cleric, you are obviously a priest of a God/Philosophy/Ideal, you have a holy symbol, and you must pray for your magic.

What people are really asking (I think) for from the Fighter is mechanics that reinforce their chosen archetype. An agile bowman likely won't need heavy armor or shields, for example, and would rather have some "archer" benefit beyond just a Fighting Style, like improved range or something.

A showman Gladiator would like a little more synergy from Charisma, as they typically use piecemeal armor and weapons that are flashy and showy, not necessarily the most effective.

This is design space currently taken up by Subclasses, but there's only a limited amount of those, and some don't really have any flavor to them at all. What is a Champion really? A Battlemaster uses tactics- but shouldn't everyone?

The Fighter class could stand to have a little more flexibility, and a little extra 'oomph' to showcase why they are the masters of war and weapons, in a game where, depending on the level and Subclass, just about any class can be just as effective as they are in combat.

 

[Minigiant]

Or I'm just still missing the point.

The point is the gang enforcer wizard and the gang enforcer fighter both have 12 Charisma and proficiency in Persuasion and Intimidation. But the gang enforcer wizard has spells to cause fear and charm and boost Charisma. Whereas the gang enforcer fighter has nothing.

So if the wizard and fighter are both built secondarily on social encounters, the wizard is the better option for the single check or contest. Fighter is second to last in every non-combat role because the base class offers no noncombat features.

Or in layman's terms. The fighter is only good at fighting. It can only excell the non-fighting parts that no one else in the party is doing.

 

[Oofta]

The point is the gang enforcer wizard and the gang enforcer fighter both have 12 Charisma and proficiency in Persuasion and Intimidation. But the gang enforcer wizard has spells to cause fear and charm and boost Charisma. Whereas the gang enforcer fighter has nothing.

Other than, oh, I don't know, weapons that have been slaughtering people for millenia.

So if the wizard and fighter are both built secondarily on social encounters, the wizard is the better option for the single check or contest. Fighter is second to last in every non-combat role because the base class offers no noncombat features.

In a whiteroom scenario where the wizard always has the correct spell prepared and spell slots to spare, sure.

Or in layman's terms. The fighter is only good at fighting. It can only excell the non-fighting parts that no one else in the party is doing.

Maybe in your games. If the player cares they can always use one of their extra feats to take something like expertise and compete with other PCs. But then again, why would they? Isn't the whole point of having a mixed party that you cover different bases? It's not a competition, if the team wins, everyone wins.

 

[Oofta]

The simplicity of the Fighter and the lack of a core identity can be an advantage, as Oofta has pointed out- with less being assumed about who or what a Fighter is, you can give it your own flavor fairly easily.

If you're a Wizard, some flavor is enforced- you had to learn magic, and you need to carry around a big book of spells.

If you're a Cleric, you are obviously a priest of a God/Philosophy/Ideal, you have a holy symbol, and you must pray for your magic.

What people are really asking (I think) for from the Fighter is mechanics that reinforce their chosen archetype. An agile bowman likely won't need heavy armor or shields, for example, and would rather have some "archer" benefit beyond just a Fighting Style, like improved range or something.

A showman Gladiator would like a little more synergy from Charisma, as they typically use piecemeal armor and weapons that are flashy and showy, not necessarily the most effective.

This is design space currently taken up by Subclasses, but there's only a limited amount of those, and some don't really have any flavor to them at all. What is a Champion really? A Battlemaster uses tactics- but shouldn't everyone?

The Fighter class could stand to have a little more flexibility, and a little extra 'oomph' to showcase why they are the masters of war and weapons, in a game where, depending on the level and Subclass, just about any class can be just as effective as they are in combat.

But the problem is that if you have a class (I'll take rogue as an example) that doesn't keep up with the fighter in combat people complain about that as well. Then next thing you know, there's steady aim and suddenly rogues can easily get advantage almost every round. In games I've played they almost always get sneak attack anyway but now that ranged rogue is getting a big bonus to hit on top of their sneak attack.

 

[Minigiant]

Other than, oh, I don't know, weapons that have been slaughtering people for millenia

This is a conversation about noncombat. You cant talk with a sword or swim using an axe

In a whiteroom scenario where the wizard always has the correct spell prepared and spell slots to spare, sure

You don't need white room.

The fighter has 0 and the wizard has a potential 1-2.

And that potential is highly likely due to wizard fans constant lobbying for stronger spells, more versatile spell, more spell slots, and fewer restrictions.

And that's just the wizard because the fighter can't take social spot light from the Charisma based Bard, Charisma based Paladin, Charisma based Sorcerer, and the Charms based Warlock. And the bard and rogue get expertise. And all those charisma classes have spells.

 

[lingual]

The basis of D&D is around spotlight balance. Spotlight balance between the 3 pillars and the 6 ability scores.

The issue with the fighter is in some party it is easy for the fighter to get spotlight but it other parties they are terrible.

For example the noble heavy knight fighter. He should shine in combat, STR exploration, and CHA social. The issue is that if there are any bards, enchanter wizards, CHA rogues, sorcerers, warlocks, or paladin, the heavy knight fighter is outshone in something they should be good at with no advantages whatsoever.

This is why traditional basic D&D lacks the problem but modern advanced D&D does. Traditional D&D keeps every class separate in spotlight by force.

A fighter can get a decent Charisma, Persuasion, Inspiring Leader, etc. No they won't mechanically "outshine" the 20 Charisma Bard with Expertise in Persuasion. If they did, the Eloquence Bard would start whining about being "outshined".

This is where the DM is supposed to use reason and not let skill checks and mechanics rule the table. A high level Noble Fighter Lord of the Manor doesn't need to have a Persuasion skill competition with some random Bard who shows up in town. In most towns, the common folk would identify the most with Fighters too - not clergy, wizards, bandits, or musicians. The DM could just let's things play out with some of the common assumptions and NOT rely on dice rolls and modifiers, etc. The social pillar can be the most subjective pillar though - so maybe some guidelines or something would be helpful. I'm not sure if there are mechanics around Fame or Popularity.