A critique and review of the Fighter class

[James Gasik]

If said product also does strange things to all the other classes? Maybe?

 

[Neonchameleon]

So....you are deeply unhappy with the fighter, but when WotC releases a product that maybe helps solve that problem you dismiss it?

No. I am very much on the side which says that Tasha's has massively improved 5e and one of the ways it has done so is by giving the fighter options that make it other than a commoner outside combat. I believe I am in a majority here - but it does not mean that the change has been uncontroversial or has been back-ported to any of the fighter subclasses other than the battlemaster that existed before Tasha's.

 

[Oofta]

The paladin gets more out of Charisma and isn't as penalized by taking Charisma as a secondary or primary score. And in order to match the paladin in Charisma social interaction, the fighter must sacrifice even more combat ability to do so.

Or in laymen's terms, Before subclass the fighter nerfs their combat effectiveness by taking Charisma as secondary or tertiary. A paladin does not.

Huh? A paladin doesn't need strength or con? What game are you playing that a fighter is "nerfed" or "penalized" by putting points into charisma? Depending on how you run your paladin, charisma is a tertiary score if you focus on smites and spells that don't require saves. A paladin that makes charisma secondary and con tertiary is not going to be as effective in combat, but a fighter can make the same decision.

The paladin gets a few combat bonuses from a higher charisma, that's it.

Now during the playtest many displayed the wish nor fighters to have base combat bonuses from INT, WIS, and CHA. But some vocal fans cried. So those ideas were weakened and turned into feats or not created at all.

Maybe you wanted it. Apparently the feedback from others said otherwise. Like the song says, you can't always get what you want, but if you try sometime you'll find you get what you need.

 

[Minigiant]

Huh? A paladin doesn't need strength or con? What game are you playing that a fighter is "nerfed" or "penalized" by putting points into charisma? Depending on how you run your paladin, charisma is a tertiary score if you focus on smites and spells that don't require saves. A paladin that makes charisma secondary and con tertiary is not going to be as effective in combat, but a fighter can make the same decision.

The paladin gets a few combat bonuses from a higher charisma, that's it.

The Paladin gets a lot more from going STR/CHA/CON than a fighter. And they get those bonuses automatically without any sacrifice of combat ability. In fact, the paladin gets more combat and social strngth from high Charisma as it increases spells known. This allows the paladin to have more space to prepare situational social spells to compliment their high charisma without substituting a combat spell.

Whereas a fighter has no increased base application to Charisma from a class feature. At best, a Post-Tasha's fighter can trade out a combat fighting style for a social maneuver. But this is a sacrifice of combat power for social power. Same with a level 4 social feat choice. Not until level 6 is it really extra.

Overall a paladin gains more and sacrifices less by taking CHA secondary than a fighter does.

Maybe you wanted it. Apparently the feedback from others said otherwise. Like the song says, you can't always get what you want, but if you try sometime you'll find you get what you need.

Then they got feedback that made them change their minds. And fighter was adjusted in Tasha's.

So WOTC more or less agrees with many in the thread. However there "No rewriting the PHB" policy keeps them from making changes (until 2024.)

I'd be shocked in the 2024 fighter doesn't have exploration and social options in the 5.5e PHB.

 

[Neonchameleon]

The Paladin gets a lot more from going STR/CHA/CON than a fighter. And they get those bonuses automatically without any sacrifice of combat ability. In fact, the paladin gets more combat and social strngth from high Charisma as it increases spells known.

To put this into perspective for neutrals every Paladin by level 6 has based on Charisma:

• A number of uses of Divine Sense (mostly a ribbon ability)
• Spell save DCs - which they might or might not take but all can
• A bonus to all saving throws for everyone within 10ft
• At least Channel Divinity effect for all subclasses except (oddly enough) Oath of Glory

Meanwhile the total class based ability bonuses fighters gain from Charisma including all subclasses is as far as I can remember:

 

[Oofta]

The Paladin gets a lot more from going STR/CHA/CON than a fighter. And they get those bonuses automatically without any sacrifice of combat ability. In fact, the paladin gets more combat and social strngth from high Charisma as it increases spells known. This allows the paladin to have more space to prepare situational social spells to compliment their high charisma without substituting a combat spell.

Whereas a fighter has no increased base application to Charisma from a class feature. At best, a Post-Tasha's fighter can trade out a combat fighting style for a social maneuver. But this is a sacrifice of combat power for social power. Same with a level 4 social feat choice. Not until level 6 is it really extra.

Overall a paladin gains more and sacrifices less by taking CHA secondary than a fighter does.


Then they got feedback that made them change their minds. And fighter was adjusted in Tasha's.

So WOTC more or less agrees with many in the thread. However there "No rewriting the PHB" policy keeps them from making changes (until 2024.)

I'd be shocked in the 2024 fighter doesn't have exploration and social options in the 5.5e PHB.

Both get a a +2 to persuasion from a 14 charisma. Being a paladin doesn't change anything. A paladin may get more combat benefits from that 14 charisma, the OOC benefits are the same, which is what I thought this discussion was about.

Unless you're just changing the goalposts of course.

 

[tetrasodium]

I don't consider them "that" much better, especially since the full sentence was "They can fight well, but not that much better than the other classes to warrant much adoration", that last part that you leaving out was my point, that they aren't superior enough there to stand out in-universe to the NPCs and make up for the non-combat stuff.

If you just wanna argue about who can deal more damage, you don't need to respond since I don't really care and that's not the point of my comment.

That bolded bit is dependent on the qualifying statement before it that you still aren't expanding upon. Even combined it's a fairly meaningless statement or one worded in a way that was intended to convey some meaning other than the words suggest. It does not seem that anyone is calling for fighter to be nerfed in this thread. People are calling to ignore where fighter excels & make them excel in the niche of other classes however so we need to consider it in that light until you expand upon anything at all.

Your comment about fighters not being "that" much better in combat & the bolded adoration footnote should either be reworded to convey the intended meaning or you should provide details about how they are not "that" much better in combat. Without the qualifying statement about fighters not being "that" much better the bolded bit doesn't say much of anything.

As someone who has played a series of one-shot adventures across the years, from levels 8 until about 14 at this point with the same characters, I can say you actually need to explain it. We have a fighter, wizard, warlock, cleric, and either a rogue or a druid depending on who is there for the session. The fighter is very good in combat, they became better with a third attack at level 11, but they are not that much better in terms of hitting and damage. The squishy characters love the fact that the fighter has a ton of HP, that's definitely true.
I have seen examples of the characters playing out for many sessions, but obviously not a campaign, since the GM runs a long session and the next one is characters at the next level.
Our least experienced, but most energetic player goes with the fighter. They like the class and that they can pretty much just do their thing in combat. The fact that this hasn't changed over years of play means the fighter is definitely designed with this sort of player in mind.
Different characters shine in different scenarios, that's what I've found. The notion that the fighter somehow is just outclassing, say, the warlock who is built around Eldritch Blast is just wrong though.
None of this is white room play, and it's with (after a fashion) experienced players and a very experienced GM.
And we all have fun. I have played a few of the different characters as the group has changed over time, and I can say that everyone enjoys combat and no one feels overwhelmingly strong.

If your anecdote works as you say rather than just mere lack of focused observing it no doubt means that the fighter & warlock you noted are not pushing for a short rest every fight or two or someone is using fiat if not acting as fun police to shut down their attempts. We could compare detail free anecdotes all day but your anecdote does not actually provide any detail to support it beyond a group class array & level range while asking for details. This sort of total lack of support beyond mere undetailed anecdote accompanied by demands for proof makes these threads tiresome rather than interesting discussions on table variances & rules as written. For once it does not seem like damage is in dispute but here is a simple breakdown just in case. Really it comes down to a few factors

• In a well designed system where hit chance and rate of attack vary the option of making more attacks carries the advantage of being hurt less by a miss & generally dealing less damage in aggregate to balance out the larger pain of a miss that goes with options that are all in on fewer bigger strikes unless the fewer bigger strikes carry meaningful nondamage riders like debuffs
• Fighting style benefits multiply across each attack making them more powerful for a character who makes more attacks, that's their relevance.
• Fighter deals more damage than cantrip users due to the multiplicative impact of adding modifiers to each attack vrs generally adding none to one attack or adding fewer of them to fewer attacks. Yes there are cantrip users like dragon sorc that can add cha to the one blast they make from some cantrips like fighter can to every attack but a +1 weapon adds +1 to hit and damage while wands only add to tohit.
• @James Gasik noted paladins also having fighting styles & the prior point about the multiplicative impact of extra attacks weighs in here but Flamestrike's excellent recent breakdown of how fighter pulls ahead & continues doing so as short rests are added. That knife edge's shift is critically important when you pile on how 5e's rules themselves are structured in a way to encourage & support save scumming level of 5MWD encounter>short rest>repeat that swings things dramatically in favor of the fighter here unless the party self restrains or the GM just straight up invokes fiat to say "you can't rest". The shift occurs because paladin smites are long rest rather than short rest like action surge & fighter extra attack 3+ is at will with multiplicative effect on mods.
• With fighter vrs casters comparisons this all is exacerbated by the overuse of concentration legendary resists magic & elemental & resist/immune along with good saves being fairly common as opposed to the low AC that results from 5e's bounded accuracy

Watch what happens when the fighter warlock & sometimes (moon?)druid push for a short rest every fight or two rather than stretching out their short rest resources & you will start seeing the results of those points above.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

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.

As a class, Rogues keep up pretty well with fighters in damage. Sneak attack damage stays broadly comparable with equivalent extra attack damage, and their superior manoeuvrability and uncanny dodge help significantly in staying alive.

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?

In your game, when two identically-dressed warriors step into the tavern, do the patrons automatically know which is the fighter and which is the bard?

No it really is "that" much better. There's the problem with these threads. All attacks are made with the same attack bonus, all attacks add ability mod+weapon/feat/FS mods, & bounded accuracy ensures that monster AC fails to keep up so by level 11 or so almost any attack is guaranteed to hit.

Level 11 you're looking at what? +10 to hit? Unless you're still just exclusively fighting zombies at that level, almost any attack in definitely not guaranteed to hit.

Such as? I took a gander at wizard spells up to 4th. They have friends and charm person, but the target knows they were affected after the spell wears off. Charm person only makes someone a friendly acquaintance and gives the caster advantage on social checks, it's fairly limited. Better hope you never have to interact with them again and that it's not going to get the caster in trouble with the local authorities. There's detect thoughts, but if you read anything other than surface thoughts the target knows it's under the effect of a spell. Tongues lets you talk to others if you don't know their language, but in all my years of playing I don't recall seeing it used.

Comprehend languages does come up now and then as do things like clairvoyance and arcane eye. Handy in the right situation but hardly useful on a regular basis. Another category I don't remember the last time I saw it used other than comprehend languages because it can be cast as a ritual. Almost forgot locate creature. It's helpful but another niche spell I rarely see it used unless you can memorize spells specifically to achieve some goal.

Maybe thinking of it like dice might be easier for you to visualise it:
In any random situation, there will be a random level of capability that your character may be able to apply to it.
At baseline (1) you're making non-proficient ability checks on non-primary abilities. Then you might have proficient ability checks on non-primary abilities or non-proficient ability checks on primary abilities (2). Proficient primary ability checks get you 3, but if you're really lucky you may be able to apply a proficient primary ability check with some sort of special bonus or advantage to get a score of 4.
Spells allow more spectacular results than you can get with ability checks: a high-end spell directly applicable for the situation might score a 6, but lower-level, or spells not specifically designed for the situation would be lower, all the way down to not having any applicable spells for this random situation. Or being out of spell slots. - There is no guarantee that in any specific situation a caster will have the right spell.

The issue is not so much that wizards get to roll a d6 while fighters only get a d4. It is that wizards roll both a d4 and a d6, and pick the best. Even if you posit a situation where there are no spells applicable, the wizard class has the same options as the fighter class. If not better, because like all casters, wizards can be generally better overall than fighters at ability checks.

Add in that a wizard needs intelligence, but may also want to put better scores into dexterity and constitution if they want to live.

. . . and the fighter needs Strength, but may also want to put better scores into dexterity and constitution if they want to live.

Familiars obviously can come in handy depending on DM and campaign, but in my experience they're either limited because it's boring to have familiars do all the scouting or they get killed off on a regular basis.

Having a powerful ability but choosing not to use it all of the time is better than not having that ability at all.

So what, exactly do wizards get that fighters don't that makes wizards far and above better than fighters in social/exploration?

You made a very specific claim that all other classes are better at social and exploration.

Which, under certain circumstances, magic can overcome some obstacles. That magic can often be mimicked using items or is of only limited utility.

When it comes to social interaction, where does the wizard far exceed the fighter? Charm person isn't that helpful and has significant drawbacks, not to mention being a limited resource.

OK. You specifically added the bolded words: they are not part of the original statements that you are reacting to.
Why did you feel the need to do this?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

and I've already demonstrated (repeatedly) there is nothing stopping from creating a Fighter that is top tier in other pillars as well.

You’ve done no such thing.

You’ve demonstrated the obvious, that a player can, if allowed feats, use them to make the fighter not suck in the other pillars. A monk is still a better explorer, a Paladin a better socialite, and most classes are just as good in combat.

Again, the fighter does not dominate in combat.

The most popular character is a human (non-variant) champion fighter. Pretty sure the reason isn’t how good in combat it is. It’s vastly more likely that most players like simplicity.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Both get a a +2 to persuasion from a 14 charisma. Being a paladin doesn't change anything. A paladin may get more combat benefits from that 14 charisma, the OOC benefits are the same, which is what I thought this discussion was about.

Unless you're just changing the goalposts of course.

So, the Paladin gets the same out of combat benefit and more in combat benefit. So they simply get more.

Also spells prepared. The Paladin gets an extra spell prepared from an extra 2 Cha, expanding their versatility.