A critique and review of the Fighter class

[bedir than]

If only Fighters got more feats as a class feature...

But only one extra by the 13th level model you use. And no extras compared to a Rogue of the same level, so you are still worse than every caster and every martial except at levels 6-10 (when you are only better than an incompetent rogue build)

 

[Flamestrike]

Good thing feats aren’t an optional rule that most people don’t use…

Over two years we saw the number jump to the point where more than half of players (playing D&D online) were using feats.

D&D: WotC Survey Aims to Shake Up Feats

Oh and also:

D&D 5E - Does your group use feats?

So you're wrong.

 

[Flamestrike]

Yes. They are very good at a relatively narrow range of situations. For example that +16.5 bonus to persuasion isn't going to help much e.g. with negotiating with the local orc tribes in the way that someone with a much lower persuasion check but who speaks orcish would. They are great if you have a DM who lets you look at your sheet and simply say "I roll persuasion" in any social situation - and who only has you places where being a noble would be respected.

Meanwhile how would a half-decent level 13 spellcaster handle that "doesn't speak orcish" problem? What's the spell called? Ah, yes. Tongues.

Wouldnt that spellcaster be better served, casting Tounges on the Fighter?

You're missing a key design choice of 5E. Spells no longer 'auto invalidate' other PCs, and are almost always better off being used to buff the guy that is already very good at something, to be better at that thing.

For example. Invisibility no longer auto invalidates Stealth (or even provides a bonus to it), so unless you have a Stealth skill (and better yet, the ability to Hide as a bonus action) it's best used on the Rogue. Charm Person is no longer 'auto win' social encounters, and it's better used on the Face.

 

[Flamestrike]

The wizard loses nothing by doing both.

Neither does the Fighter. An attack Stat of 20, and one of the 'Big three' feats (GWM, Sharpshooter or PAM) and you've got all the Combat oomph you need on a Fighter.

There is plenty of room outside of that to nab whatever abilities not tied to 'hitting things with a big stick' you want beyond that point.

It's ultimately down to the Player, and most Players who play fighters, only want to hit things with big sticks. That's why they picked 'Fighter' in the first place.

To Fight.

 

[Flamestrike]

Pre-Tasha’s, obviously not. Post-Tasha’s, probably.

Look if a 'Battlemaster Fighter' is your idea of 'probably a class that focuses on the Social pillar' then we're playing a different game.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Over two years we saw the number jump to the point where more than half of players (playing D&D online) were using feats.

D&D: WotC Survey Aims to Shake Up Feats

Oh and also:

D&D 5E - Does your group use feats?

So you're wrong.

LOL sure, nitpick the difference between 45% and 55%, rather than addressing the point. Never change!

Neither does the Fighter. An attack Stat of 20, and one of the 'Big three' feats (GWM, Sharpshooter or PAM) and you've got all the Combat oomph you need on a Fighter.

There is plenty of room outside of that to nab whatever abilities not tied to 'hitting things with a big stick' you want beyond that point.

Nonsense. The wizard can cover both without dedicating any extra resources to either, and shine in both, at essentially no opportunity cost. The fighter could be taking any number of very good combat related feats, and at best has to wait to hit another ASI level to change what he’s ready to deal with.

Hell your example was a human fighter at level 8+, but the human bonus feat and the level 4 and 8 feat are things every class has, so for most of the campaign that banneret fighter lacks most of what you listed, while the Paladin or cleric or he’ll even the post-Tasha’s Barbarian has decent support for 2-3 pillars by level 3!

And every other class doesn’t need feats nearly as much to be good at 2/3 or all 3 pillars, and has access to all the same feats.

 

[lingual]

The captain of the guard and local militia do not go out and seek fights or make their living from fighting. At least they really really shouldn't. If they were to do so rather than being prepared if one came to them they'd be seen with fear. A fighter is closer to a mob legbreaker.

So fighters are just "I came here to drink some beer and kick some...looks like I'm outta beer..."?

The "default setting" in DnD is that there are plenty of threats in the world - not enough for the authorities to easily handle. That's sort of the point of the game. Good guys (including fighters) can seek out baddies to fight and potentially loot. They don't need to hang around the farms picking fights with randos. Being a fighter does not mean you're some swole patrol sociopath just looking for brawls.

 

[lingual]

I think a lot of this depends on the type of table you play, a "hard" table that requires optimization and calls a lot of skill checks - might find that the extra feats are just better spent on combat. That is a Fighter's primary function.

A more malleable table might find that a fighter with only an 18 in Strength and 14 Con could very well be enough. That extra DPR and HP just isn't going to make or break you....and taking Inspiring Leader and Skill Prodigy can be afforded options.

The whole "party face" idea is something I try to discourage as a DM in general. It makes sense in some cases but is unrealistic in a lot of other cases. An NPC entreating with a group isn't just going to judge the whole group based on their interactions with just one person (and d20 roll).

 

[bedir than]

Look if a 'Battlemaster Fighter' is your idea of 'probably a class that focuses on the Social pillar' then we're playing a different game.

If only one subclass is valid in two pillars of the game the class has a problem.

 

[Flamestrike]

If only one subclass is valid in two pillars of the game the class has a problem.

For the love of Orcus THERE IS NO PROBLEM.

It's only a 'problem' to a small core of whiners that raise the same points over and over and over again, in this thread (and threads like it) that they spawn every week, and have done for years now.

Overwhelmingly (in survey after survey) Fighter is actually the most popular class. It dominates the combat pillar (likely why it's so popular) and I've already demonstrated (repeatedly) there is nothing stopping from creating a Fighter that is top tier in other pillars as well.

The Fighter is also the most heavily nerfed (by house rules) and most frequently complained about as being OP class in the game as well.

Examples include:

DM: I dont care about HP, my game has insta death for (falling, lava, assassinations etc).

Effect: Deprive the Fighter of the benefit of his class feature (d10 HD) and nix his Second wind while you're at it. Those HP are expressly there to give him the Plot armor to survive such things, and they're a class feature. Ruling they dont matter in some cases (when the rules clearly and unambiguously say otherwise) punishes the class with the higher HP the most.

DM We use fumbles in my game!

Effect: punishes the Fighter for no other reason other than 'advancing in level' and does so more than any other class with Monks around the same area, seeing as Fighters (and Monks) make more attack rolls than any other class in the game (especially casters, who can go 20 levels without ever making an attack roll).

DM: We use flanking!

Effect: Punishes martials, because they now get advantage on them, most of the time, by most monsters, and who is up the front getting flanked in the first place and doing his job? The Fighter.

DM: GWM/ SS are waaaay broken so i made the following changes...

Effect: Hurts the fighter the most, because they make the best use of those feats, more than any other class.

DM: Oh we dont use the 6-8 encounter/ 2-3 short rest Adventuring day. We have one 'super deadly' combat encounter per long rest, maybe 2 at most!

Effect: Hurts the fighter the most, along with any other short rest dependent class like the Warlock.

DM: In my games we impose a level of exhaustion on anyone who drops to zero HP...

Effect: Impacts people getting hit the most (Fighters and other martials), and who actually give a toss about most of what Exhaustion does (unlike casters, who don't care about half movement, or disadvantage on skills and attack rolls anywhere near as much as a Fighter would).

I could go on an on and on an on.

You people complaining about Fighters (and indeed all Martials) are a broken record. I absolutely assure you there are other factors contributing to Fighters 'performance issues' at your tables, and I bet you it isnt the fault of the Fighter class itself.