A critique and review of the Fighter class

[Flamestrike]

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.

Banaret isnt a Socially focused sublcass.

It gets Persuasion (and expertise in it), but that's mainly a ribbon. It's other abilities are orientated to fighting and buffing the party in combat (its a Leader type class).

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

If that's where the Bard places their expertise. You can make a Fighter be an amazing face, and you can make a Bard be a terrible one.

It's ultimately down to player choice isnt it?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Banaret isnt a Socially focused sublcass.

Yes, it is.

It gets Persuasion (and expertise in it), but that's mainly a ribbon. It's other abilities are orientated to fighting and buffing the party in combat (its a Leader type class).

Right, so socially focused.

If that's where the Bard places their expertise. You can make a Fighter be an amazing face, and you can make a Bard be a terrible one.

The bard need only put half thier expertise in social skills to be at least as good as the fighter at social challenges.

It's ultimately down to player choice isnt it?

Not as much as it is for every other class.

 

[Flamestrike]

The above Fighter is getting literally +16.5 to Persuasion checks (and +13.5 to Insight checks), and has an 'in' with local Nobility and Royalty.

He hasnt exactly had to work hard (or give up any Fighting ability) to get it either.

 

[Flamestrike]

Yes, it is.

No, it's Not.

Literally every single ability it gets is 'buff the party in combat'. It gets a single social ability (Persuasion + expertise).

That is NOT a 'socially focused' subclass.

Right, so socially focused.

Not at all.

Question for you. Do you consider the Battlemaster Fighter to be a 'socially focused' subclass?

 

[Neonchameleon]

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).

LOL. First "superior technique" into skills gives up a lot of combat power. Second it's effectively equivalent to expertise but can only be used once per short rest. That said there's some cute synergy you're showing between Superior Technique, Martial Adept, and the Great Weapon Master feat because (as with spell slots) you can spend it both into and out of combat in different ways. But you need the feat for that.

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

I think there's some cherry picking going on here; Banneret for the free expertise, Vuman to be able to take an extra fighter feat and 13th level for the +5 proficiency here.

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.

So let's look at that build. In specific from levels 1-5 you are a standard "commoner" fighter - and even behind your average fighter because you've chosen to put what would often be racial background abilities into Great Weapon Master. (That's assuming you've started with Precision Strike from your fighting style; without it you're likely to not get that much mileage out of GWM).

Your social abilities come on line at levels 6, 7, and 8. But. (And there's always a but). Because you chose Skill Expert at 6 and Martial Adept at 8 your STR moved to a +4 bonus (alongside most fighters) at level 4 and only moved to +5 at level 12. You've an exceptionally soggy tier 2 combat growth there to the point that the only meaningful differences between your fighter in combat at level 5 and level 9 is a lot of hit points, +1 proficiency bonus, a single use per day of indomitable, and a battlemaster dice.

So playing through this build is going to feel bad. Levels 1-5 you're a commoner out of combat and levels 6-9 (6-10 in the wrong party) you gain almost nothing in combat.

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

And having burned all that you're still bottom tier in exploration and your numbers in the social tier are not nothing. But all they are is bonuses on a d20, leaving you fundamentally unable to change the situation. Yes, those are some nice numbers - but you're mid-tier at best.

Essentially all you are out of combat is effectively the player of a commoner with loaded dice. It doesn't allow you to do anything anyone else can't - just gives you a good chance of success.

Fluffy (a Noble Knight archetype) who runs rings around even the Bard in the social pillar,

Lol, nope. A baseline bard at that level should have a Persuasion of +10. Give the bard the Enhance Ability spell (a good general buff that doesn't have to be used socially) as a second level spell and it's in striking distance of your Persuasion thanks to Advantage. Add in an illusion spell (I don't care which one) and the bard is running rings round you. The only bards you're actually running rings round are those that have spent precisely no spells supporting their social abilities.

and can jump, climb and swim better than anyone else in the party.

That and two dollars will get you a coffee. Flight's been online since level 5. Water walk and water breathing have been rituals since level 5. And it's not hard to get a swim speed (or for that matter a climb speed) - which will leave your ability to swim almost floating idly.

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

And as pointed out getting there was a chore for him.

 

[lingual]

And a wizard can get a decent Charisma, Persuasion, Inspiring Leader, etc. with almost exactly the same expenditure of resources. It's all skills (of which the fighter has the joint fewest in the game), backgrounds (of which the fighter gets one - just like everyone else) or feats (of which the fighter gets an extra at level 6 and level 14 - but the wizard has nothing as defining as Polearm Master, Great Weapon Master, or Sentinel). The fighter gets basically nothing socially that the wizard does not also get.

And a high level Noble Wizard Lord of the Manor can do exactly the same thing. This is just saying "Background should matter" (true) and "Fighters should get more super special backgrounds than anyone else" (for which there is little in the way of mechanics).

Why? Which would you identify with more? The grim faced man continually wearing armour or the musician who knows and sings your favourite songs and therefore shows they can empathise with you? The high level fighter is just as far removed from ordinary people as any other high level character but with fewer icebreakers.

There aren't.

I was always assumed that the common masses identified more with Fighters. As they are a "mundane" class. Mages would naturally look to mages as leaders, etc. The local bard at the tavern may very well be respected but is not typically viewed as a leader. That's how I've run things. Maybe some codified mechanics in this case make sense then. For example - some bonus social skills or Feat at high level like expertise in Persuasion/Intimidation. I do NOT think that the Fighter has to "outshine" other classes at these things though. Just to be "good" at these things that would befit their social station, etc.

There seems to be 2 different things here. Giving a 20th level mundane Warrior some mechanics to befit their "heroic" status is one thing. Ensuring that they are not "outshined" by other classes is something else. Unfortunately - leading, commanding, entertaining, intimidating, singing, etc. are all sort of tied together to one stat. Rather than a more complex system, I would just prefer the DM to use common sense as befits their table.

Do most people here just want the former? Or are they complaining about the other?

 

[Flamestrike]

LOL. First "superior technique" into skills gives up a lot of combat power.

Huh? He took Precise strike with that. He took the other two with Martial Adept.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I was always assumed that the common masses identified more with Fighters. As they are a "mundane" class.

Meanwhile I assumed that the common masses were more scared of fighters than they were of any other class with the sole exception of the near-mundane barbarians. As it's a lot easier to imagine yourself being killed by a normal person with an axe than it is by a miracle. And it's a lot easier to imagine yourself jumping down the throat of a dragon if you're protected by magic. And in person it's relatively easy to forget that the person with the staff could turn you into a frog, but the muscles-on-muscles, heavy armour, and giant weapons not so much. Fighters would therefore by default be more seen as violent psychopaths than someone to identify with.

And ultimately the characters that the common people identify with are the ones who put in the effort - and that's normally bards. Or mages as they are the ones who spread stories via books. Meanwhile the fighter has precisely one advantage as a leader - that they can lead from the front and demonstrate they aren't asking anyone to take risks where they aren't taking greater ones. This is a specific situation but the only one where being a fighter gives an inherent advantage.

That's how I've run things.

In short you're house-ruling based on something that isn't in the books and doesn't match my understanding of psychology.

Maybe some codified mechanics in this case make sense then. For example - some bonus social skills or Feat at high level like expertise in Persuasion/Intimidation. I do NOT think that the Fighter has to "outshine" other classes at these things though. Just to be "good" at these things that would befit their social station, etc.

I houserule intimidation to work off the higher of Cha or Str. And that is the only mechanic that makes sense to me as inherent. I'm not saying that fighters shouldn't get more than this in the social arena. I'm saying they should because there is absolutely no inherent reason they should get anything else.

There seems to be 2 different things here. Giving a 20th level mundane Warrior some mechanics to befit their "heroic" status is one thing. Ensuring that they are not "outshined" by other classes is something else. Unfortunately - leading, commanding, entertaining, intimidating, singing, etc. are all sort of tied together to one stat. Rather than a more complex system, I would just prefer the DM to use common sense as befits their table.

I do use common sense. Which is why fighters don't get any sort of houseruled benefits this way other than to intimidation. The thing about common sense is that it relies on people understanding the world the same way - and we don't.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Huh? He took Precise strike with that. He took the other two with Martial Adept.

So you're saying he didn't take Superior Technique into skills because he would give up a lot of combat power; all this does is preps a non-combat feat. You agree with my analysis then?

And the paragraph I was replying to was a general one before I dismantled the actual build specifics of your fighter who's bottom tier in exploration and only mid-tier socially while having been a slog out of combat in tier 1 and gained almost nothing in combat in the whole of tier 2 (other than at level 10).

 

[lingual]

Meanwhile I assumed that the common masses were more scared of fighters than they were of any other class with the sole exception of the near-mundane barbarians. As it's a lot easier to imagine yourself being killed by a normal person with an axe than it is by a miracle. And it's a lot easier to imagine yourself jumping down the throat of a dragon if you're protected by magic. And in person it's relatively easy to forget that the person with the staff could turn you into a frog, but the muscles-on-muscles, heavy armour, and giant weapons not so much. Fighters would therefore by default be more seen as violent psychopaths than someone to identify with.

And ultimately the characters that the common people identify with are the ones who put in the effort - and that's normally bards. Or mages as they are the ones who spread stories via books. Meanwhile the fighter has precisely one advantage as a leader - that they can lead from the front and demonstrate they aren't asking anyone to take risks where they aren't taking greater ones. This is a specific situation but the only one where being a fighter gives an inherent advantage.

In short you're house-ruling based on something that isn't in the books and doesn't match my understanding of psychology.

I houserule intimidation to work off the higher of Cha or Str. And that is the only mechanic that makes sense to me as inherent. I'm not saying that fighters shouldn't get more than this in the social arena. I'm saying they should because there is absolutely no inherent reason they should get anything else.

I do use common sense. Which is why fighters don't get any sort of houseruled benefits this way other than to intimidation. The thing about common sense is that it relies on people understanding the world the same way - and we don't.

I don't consider that a "house rule". A DM should be able to gauge NPCs reactions to things without constantly rolling dice or calling for skill checks. I don't just say all fighters are revered, etc. It depends on the situation and circumstance and the type of character in question. I suppose I let the player play out the social pillar more than just calling for mechanics.

I guess I don't think the common villagers view fighters as psychopaths. The captain of the guard, local militia chief, etc. are fighters too. I would think they would be more leery of the supernatural than the mundane.