A critique and review of the Fighter class

[tetrasodium]

I've stated multiple times that a small boost so they have something, anything. Barbarians got it. It was bizarre to not do the same for Fighters.

They already have "something" though. You are telling us to ignore that & demanding they have more in addition to what they have simply to avoid making use of it. People have already pointed out how Archetypes exist to give them noncombat stuff at level 3 like the samurai & cavalier rather than raw combat features at that level & unlike the other classes fighters could use the level 6 feat for a noncombat "something" or a combat "something after spending the level 4 one on a noncombat "something"

 

[lingual]

What class doesn't have attributes?

I suppose every class has attributes. What I mean is that most players get to choose which scores to assign to which attributes. I'm curious what most people here expect the bare minimums a Fighter to have? If to be combat viable in your game requires a 20 Strength/Dex, 20 Con, GWM/Shield Master/Xbow expert/etc. at earliest opportunity then your Fighter does need a boost! Especially taking into account that Skill/Charisma checks would seemingly be a dominant factor for social pillar.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Really?



You just stated that enough people are dissatisfied. I'll be the first to admit that occasionally I miss something, but you have not identified how you would justify "enough people" are dissatisfied to make a change to the fighter. I don't think we can ever say that.

My problem is not that some people, such as you, are dissatisfied. But we don't have a clue what percentage. Is it 1%, 10%, 90%? I think it's closer to the first two. All we know is that to the best of our knowledge the fighter is the single most popular class. Beyond that? No clue.

You gotta be kidding. It’s literally the last phrase of the same sentence. “…that wotc has tried to address it with subclasses and new battlemaster maneuvers.”

Ignore the middle bit for a moment, which describes what people are dissatisfied with, and read it again.

Enough people are dissatisfied with [fighter things] that wotc has tried to address it with subclasses and new battlemaster maneuvers.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The other issue is that for some people the simplicity of a fighter is part of the draw. Some people want a KISS class, keep it simple stupid.

Okay, so…don’t make them more complex in the process.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

There are so many easy ways to give the fighter more oomph out of combat.

Boosting existing abilities - allow action surge to be used to boost physical actions, and explicitly point out things like dashing and such and how they can be used outside of combat. Allow second wind to let you roll to drop a level of exhaustion during a chase or similar prolonged physical activity that can make you exhausted. Change indomitable to Heroic Determination, and have it allow you to choose to succeed instead on a failed ability check or saving throw.

Adding very simple features, like the above but not tied to those resources, or starting each day with inspiration.

You don’t have to get complicated.

 

[Minigiant]

Umm, not true according to The Role of the Dice chapter in the DMG. Whether or not dice are used and how is up to the group and DM.

Sometimes I'll call for a roll, sometimes I won't. Depends on what's gone before, what the PCs did or did not do and what the PC said. Heck, sometimes I just have a roll even if the PC made a persuasive argument but I want to see how happy the target is about agreeing.

That and, of course, nothing stops a fighter from investing in charisma if they want. On the other hand, some people like playing PCs with weaknesses.

The thing is that some are suggesting not only ignoring the dice but ignoring the ability scores and class features as well. This allows for the drawback that the DMG mentions , favortism, to creep in.

And it disrupts balance by allowing players to ignore mechanical weaknesses. Time to run a 17/15/16/8/8/8 fighter who does all the talking and makes all the lore discoveries because he is an educated noble/sage/acolyte.

I used to have a friend who used to run combat-power-gamed PCs and roleplay out all their flaws because the DM didn't roll nor look at stats.

 

[Minigiant]

You gotta be kidding. It’s literally the last phrase of the same sentence. “…that wotc has tried to address it with subclasses and new battlemaster maneuvers.”

Ignore the middle bit for a moment, which describes what people are dissatisfied with, and read it again.

Enough people are dissatisfied with [fighter things] that wotc has tried to address it with subclasses and new battlemaster maneuvers.

And feats.

Essentially, WOTC released 5e with the assumption that just proficiency was enough to replicate being skilled. A fighter getting History and Persuasion proficiency from the knight background was enough.

This was rejected by the Community.

So WOTC created the Skill Expert Feat and added subclasses in multiple classes that grant either Expertise or bonus dice to skill checks.

 

[Oofta]

The thing is that some are suggesting not only ignoring the dice but ignoring the ability scores and class features as well. This allows for the drawback that the DMG mentions , favortism, to creep in.

And it disrupts balance by allowing players to ignore mechanical weaknesses. Time to run a 17/15/16/8/8/8 fighter who does all the talking and makes all the lore discoveries because he is an educated noble/sage/acolyte.

I used to have a friend who used to run combat-power-gamed PCs and roleplay out all their flaws because the DM didn't roll nor look at stats.

I said nothing about ignoring anything. I said that there's a section in the DMG that explicitly says that one option is to never roll the dice for out of combat encounters. Whether it's a good idea to do this is up to the group.

It's your preference that there's always a dice role, the DMG clearly contradicts that there must be a dice roll.

 

[bedir than]

I suppose every class has attributes. What I mean is that most players get to choose which scores to assign to which attributes. I'm curious what most people here expect the bare minimums a Fighter to have? If to be combat viable in your game requires a 20 Strength/Dex, 20 Con, GWM/Shield Master/Xbow expert/etc. at earliest opportunity then your Fighter does need a boost! Especially taking into account that Skill/Charisma checks would seemingly be a dominant factor for social pillar.

The stats are meaningless.

They aren't a unique feature to a class that helps in social or exploration, as every other class gets.

No one insists that just because you can create a 20 strength Wizard that the whole class is great in melee. Why does anyone think that because you can have a 20 charisma Fighter they are all great in social?

 

[lingual]

The stats are meaningless.

They aren't a unique feature to a class that helps in social or exploration, as every other class gets.

No one insists that just because you can create a 20 strength Wizard that the whole class is great in melee. Why does anyone think that because you can have a 20 charisma Fighter they are all great in social?

This is the disconnect. I feel that nothing is preventing a Fighter from having a decent Persuasion. And it doesn't need some shiny button. Their unique feature is 2 ASIs.

20 CHA is good imo.

20 STR Wiz would be competent at fighting, Athletics, etc. Competence does not mean you have to be the best.