A critique and review of the Fighter class

[bedir than]

Compared to what classes? Rogues and bards are supposed to be skill monkeys, but other than that what classes are "better"?

Every single class gets something at 1st level that is at least one of social or exploration. The fighter gets nothing but their two skills. The worst of any other class gets at least two skills plus features that matter (spells, etc).
And the only response is that the fighter gets a background, but that's something everyone else gets.

Basic math shows that the Fighter has no unique out-of-combat feature as part of their base class, while every other class does.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Every single class gets something at 1st level that is at least one of social or exploration. The fighter gets nothing but their two skills. The worst of any other class gets at least two skills plus features that matter (spells, etc).

Being pedantic the barbarian gets just about no more than the fighter (you can arguably use rage for advantage on strength checks).

 

[Oofta]

Every single class gets something at 1st level that is at least one of social or exploration. The fighter gets nothing but their two skills. The worst of any other class gets at least two skills plus features that matter (spells, etc).
And the only response is that the fighter gets a background, but that's something everyone else gets.

Basic math shows that the Fighter has no unique out-of-combat feature as part of their base class, while every other class does.

Huh? Other than bards and rogues, classes get 2 skills they are proficient in. They have more options to choose from than some classes. If you want proficiency in something not in your list, pick the correct background.

 

[Vaalingrade]

"911. What's your emergency?"
"I'm having a heart attack!"
"My heart's fine and I've never had a problem. You're just imagining it."
"But my chest is tight. I'm having trouble breathing..."
"Stop complaining. I'm fine."

 

[Bill Zebub]

Although this begs the question of why the Rogue needs advantage in the first place. If they wanted Sneak Attack to work every turn, it should just work, and not have a conditional requirement.

Yeah that’s a problem with rogue design. Since WotC can’t possibly anticipate how frequently any particular rogue will get Sneak Attack, it seems to be a design choice between some rogues sucking vs some rogues being OP, and they went with the former.

 

[Bill Zebub]

"911. What's your emergency?"
"I'm having a heart attack!"
"My heart's fine and I've never had a problem. You're just imagining it."
"But my chest is tight. I'm having trouble breathing..."
"Stop complaining. I'm fine."

The irony of course is that in real life this never happens, but 911 does get lots of false alarms.

“It’s not a heart attack?”
“No, sir, heartburn.”

 

[Warpiglet-7]

A class has never been a PC's identity to me and honestly I'm not sure what kind of identity you would want. Sometimes a blank slate is the best option. On the other hand, there are plenty of fighter subclasses, many of which (to me) have far more flavor than, say, the wizard subclasses. A cavalier feels different from an arcane archer from a rune knight in ways that the school of illusion vs enchantment never will. Strength based fighter wielding a maul or dex based throwing daggers, dual wielding or using a shield to help protect your fellow PCs? Archer or melee? The list of variation goes on.

Wizards in the other hand? School of evocation? Cool, you get some nice benefits but you can still cast that charm person just like every other wizard. That's boring to me, at least at the class level (bladesinging is the exception, but I've never seen it). The choices they make will vary, but they'll always be intelligence based and have access to the same list of spells. If they take a feat, the vast majority of times it will be warcaster.

Which doesn't mean I have a problem with either the fighter or wizard. They're not perfect because nothing is, I just disagree that there's not a narrative difference. A fighter in plate trying to chop you in half with a greataxe feels a lot different than that guy wearing studded leather trying to make you into a pincushion with their arrows.

In truth, there is tons of contradiction in both sorcerer and warlock lore. People might debate it but I think it’s a feature and not a bug.

I like holes in the lore so I can make stuff up!

I have a blade pact warlock…a dwarf. His patron is fiend, but in practice his axe tells him what to do. He is a less sophisticated Elric, distantly related however.

Too much specificity would really be a downer for me.

Same for the origin of warlock powers. Do they explore and unearth lore? Or is it all geanted? There is enough open space that you get to decide!

A fighter might be a zealot, a mercenary, a knight, a samurai, a mystic warrior, a weapon master, a regular footman, a peasant rising to fight monsters…

Man I love DND! So much creative space…

 

[Flamestrike]

The point is that the fighter is tied for the least mechanical strength for social and exploration.

No it's not. With 2 extra feats/ ASI and several Maneuvers (now available to all Fighters via Superior Technique) buffing skill use, there is literally nothing stopping a Fighter being top tier in Social and Exploration aside from the player making different choices (which is also fine).

Lets look at one of the Weakest Fighter subs, a Banneret at 13th level. Noble Background. Vuman (Str/ Cha).

In addition to GWM (Human), he also Buffs Strength by +2 (4th), takes Skill expert (Insight, +1 Strength) at 6th, and Martial Adept (8th) and +1 Str/ Cha at 12th.

Str 20, Cha/ Con 16. GWM.

In addition to this:

Position of Privilege​

Thanks to your noble birth, people are inclined to think the best of you. You are welcome in high society, and people assume you have the right to be wherever you are. The common folk make every effort to accommodate you and avoid your displeasure, and other people of high birth treat you as a member of the same social sphere. You can secure an audience with a local noble if you need to.

He also has:

Skills
History +5 (+1d6)
Persuasion +13 (+1d6)
Perception +5
Insight + 10 (+1d6)
Athletics + 10
Intimidate +5 +(1d6)

Maneuvers are - Commanding presence (+1d6 to a Persuasion or Intimidate check), Tactical Assessment (+1d6 to a History or Insight check) and Precise attack (+1d6 to hit). 2 dice per Short Rest.

Fluffy (a Noble Knight archetype) who runs rings around even the Bard in the social pillar, and can jump, climb and swim better than anyone else in the party.

He's also a GWM Fighter, with Strength 20 and Precise strike to land them.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

No it's not. With 2 extra feats/ ASI and several Maneuvers (now available to all Fighters via Superior Technique) buffing skill use, there is literally nothing stopping a Fighter being top tier in Social and Exploration aside from the player making different choices (which is also fine).

Lets look at one of the Weakest Fighter subs, a Banneret at 13th level. Noble Background. Vuman (Str/ Cha).

In addition to GWM (Human), he also Buffs Strength by +2 (4th), takes Skill expert (Insight, +1 Strength) at 6th, and Martial Adept (8th) and +1 Str/ Cha at 12th.

Str 20, Cha/ Con 16. GWM.

In addition to this:



He also has:

Skills
History +5 (+1d6)
Persuasion +13 (+1d6)
Perception +5
Insight + 10 (+1d6)
Athletics + 10
Intimidate +5 +(1d6)

Maneuvers are - Commanding presence (+1d6 to a Persuasion or Intimidate check), Tactical Assessment (+1d6 to a History or Insight check) and Precise attack (+1d6 to hit). 2 dice per Short Rest.

Fluffy (a Noble Knight archetype) who runs rings around even the Bard in the social pillar, and can jump, climb and swim better than anyone else in the party.

He's also a GWM Fighter, with Strength 20 and Precise strike to land them.

How does this guy run circles around any bard with expertise in, say, Insight and Persuasion?

And if we look at a social-oriented subclass, the bard completely outshines everyone, which is as it should be, but even a Blade Bard is going to be at worst in the same league.

And by 8th level the bard has expertise in Athletics and outshines the fighter there as well.

2 extra feats by level 10 is going to compare well to the Barbarian, sure, especially without Tasha’s, but it’s hard to argue with 1-2 more skills, and/or more expertise skills, and the social and exploration features that various classes have.

 

[bedir than]

Huh? Other than bards and rogues, classes get 2 skills they are proficient in. They have more options to choose from than some classes. If you want proficiency in something not in your list, pick the correct background.

Spells exist for social and exploration play. The Rogue gets thieves tools. A Barbarian can Rage.

There's more to social and exploration than skills, clearly.