A critique and review of the Fighter class

[Jefe Bergenstein]

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.

I really like this idea. Even moreso if it could exceed human limits.

 

[Mort]

Compared to a paladin, the fighter gets next to nothing, while the paladin boosts saves, heals better than second wind (with the option to spend it on the group, has spells, etc. The issue is the fighter chassis is too limited, and kept super basic because it's the dedicated noob class. I would mind less if there were noob classes of other varieties (ie, magical) AND there was a combatant on par with the BO9S, warlord, the Iron Heroes classes, etc.

One thing I haven't seen in this thread re: the fighter (and if it's there, apologies, it's a long thread), and I think it's absolutely worth a mention.

I always chafe a bit at calling the fighter "simple" vs the caster "complicated."

In reality, especially in the beginning generation stage, the fighter's player is faced with much more complex and difficult choices than the caster's player - and they have much broader ramifications going forward.

Let's start with stat generation:

The wizard puts his highest stat in INT (unless there's a roleplaying reason he doesn't want to, but that's outside this scope) - boom done - the rest is preference and window dressing. INT will allow the wizard to be the best wizard he can be.

The fighter has to FIRST decide: Best stat in STR or DEX - this will have ramifications for the rest of the build.

If DEX then do you dump STR? you can, but Athletics is the fighters most obvious way to interact with many exploration challenges, so that's tricky. If STR, dumping DEX has serious consequences too (you can't supplement weaknesses with spells like the wizard can). And unlike the wizard, you have to concern yourself dumping WIS and CHA too because stats are the easiest way you get bonuses in a pillar other than combat. And god forbid you don't prioritize CON, low CON for a martial is dangerous (more so than for a caster, even with concentration).

Then the fighter has to make the choice of melee or ranged. Very difficult to be fully competent at both, even with a DEX build. Again choices matter here and will have ramifications for the long haul. The wizard doesn't really have to worry about this choice.

Then skills. The fighter has to pick carefully as they can't supplement without help. Pick a "fun" skill - it's at the expense of something else. Sure the wizard has this problem, but they can supplement with magic (need to descend a cliff and are lousy at athletics - you probably have room for feather fall on your list).

And it goes on.. and that's just to 1st level!

Further if the fighter picks poorly, he's stuck unless the DM is kind and lets him redo (there are now SOME options to swap out styles and maneuvers, but it's still a wait). The mage may be stuck with some subpar spells, but they can fix at every level and I've never been in a campaign where the DM has been all that stingy with spell acquisition (I'm sure they exist, but I haven't see it!)

So I'd say, in many of the ways that matter, the "simple" fighter is actually more complex than the wizard.

 

[tetrasodium]

Feats are optional but they are an option. I have trouble taking seriously an argument that rejects feats as a valid solution.

Wotc disagrees with you. Crawford & others have long said that feats & magic items are totally optional & the game will work just fine if you use them or not, usually in an effort to dismiss the problems caused by their inclusion at the table (as is the norm) by blaming the GM for the resulting collapse of overpowered PCs & monsters that need lots of adjusting. If you are running a game without feats & that's causing a problem it's simply because you are a bad player or your gm is a bad GM because the game is running just fine.

Perhaps 5.5 will fix that bad design, but as far as 5e & everything wotc has said on the matter goes everything is fine with or without them so the problem must be you.

Most fighters don't get a third or fourth attack either! WOTC said most games end before level 10. WOTC also said most games don't use their ridiculous amount recommended of encounters either. They designed the fighter for a style few play and/or want. People don't want low risk filler encounters that only exist to nickel and dime resources until you get to the good part. That's MMO grinding, and I thought 4E was the video game edition lol.

Second wind is non-scaling garbage. Action surge is about twice a day effectively with the way people play per WOTC's admission. The extra ASI is great, but it creates Schroedinger's Fighter, where sure, they could theoretically compete in more areas, but since they don't get to repick their superpowers after a nap, they still fall short next to prepared casters who can reorient on a daily basis. The lack of flexibility should come with a massive increase in power. That isn't present.

Compared to a paladin, the fighter gets next to nothing, while the paladin boosts saves, heals better than second wind (with the option to spend it on the group, has spells, etc. The issue is the fighter chassis is too limited, and kept super basic because it's the dedicated noob class. I would mind less if there were noob classes of other varieties (ie, magical) AND there was a combatant on par with the BO9S, warlord, the Iron Heroes classes, etc.

every single fighter in my non-AL games got their third attack & had it for months. When you call for things that over empower classes without considering how that impacts the rest of the game you nakedly discard any pretense of calling for reasonable changes. Garbage or not, second wind and action surge is what fighters get at the levels you are now complaining about.

Action surge is not "about" anything, it's literally once per short rest in a game where the rules are structured bending over backwards to ensure that a short rest can be taken & successfully completed pretty much anywhere any time. That right there is a bigger deal that it might look at first glance because fighter is not the only short rest nova class& all of them are incentivized to guilt trip the group into taking short rests as often as possible. Coincidentally that short rest super availability & virtual guarantee is what makes fighters so much better at combat even compared to classes like the much complained about paladin as soon as they start taking 3 or more rests/adventuring day.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

every single fighter in my non-AL games got their third attack & had it for months.

11th level... WotC says (although not my personal experence) most games play from 1-10... but lets say you (and others that have said it) are right and with 3 attacks the fighter is 'coming into it's own' that is at BEST half way through play.

giving the 11th level fighter everything a 20th level fighter would get except HP and Prof and you STILL wont have the versatiltuy or power of full casters with 6th level spell slots... heck give them a 2nd background it still wont even it up.

 

[Mort]

11th level... WotC says (although not my personal experence) most games play from 1-10... but lets say you (and others that have said it) are right and with 3 attacks the fighter is 'coming into it's own' that is at BEST half way through play.

giving the 11th level fighter everything a 20th level fighter would get except HP and Prof and you STILL wont have the versatiltuy or power of full casters with 6th level spell slots... heck give them a 2nd background it still wont even it up.

This thread has split a bit (as this type of thread usually seems to) as to what "make the fighter better..." means.

Quite a few people are arguing (and a few against) - better in combat:

My position here - Mechanically, properly designed, fighters are fine in combat - as a matter of fact they can exceed the much vaunted paladin DPR. But there are 2 caveats. First, properly designed is important. As my prior post mentioned, that's NOT easy and there are quite a few ways to mess it up. Second, while they are mechanically fine (in combat), they are not as diverse as other classes (for ex. rogue's cunning action opens up huge amounts of options and variations and casters get, well, spells). They generally hit things until the things go down. Certainly wouldn't hurt to open it up a bit (I'm a big fan of the Book of 9 swords, for example, your mileage may vary).

The second prong, though, is the other 2 pillars:

Fighters are nowhere NEAR fine in either exploration or social interaction. They get fewer tools than any other class except for, possibly, the barbarian. The battle master fighter finally got a few out of combat uses for his superiority dice and they're not bad BUT taking those maneuvers is at the expense of combat prowess - something other classes don't have to deal with. I do suspect that WoTC will address this a bit. It looks like, going forward, background feats will be more of a thing - that could possibly give the fighter some extra out of combat utility. And granted, all classes will get these, but it's something and something the fighter class could use.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Coincidentally that short rest super availability & virtual guarantee is what makes fighters so much better at combat even compared to classes like the much complained about paladin as soon as they start taking 3 or more rests/adventuring day.

Many people don't play like that though. The game designers admitted it. They pooched it, partly because (IMO) 5E combat is kind of dull and risk free, unless the DM specifically just kills characters while they're downed (in which case lets just say "rocks fall" and cut out the middleman). Being good at slogs isn't a selling point for me.

I gave out proficiency uses of their encounter abilities, gain one use on short rest, and it does work a bit better.

 

[Mort]

People don't play like that though. The game designers admitted it. They pooched it, partly because (IMO) 5E combat is kind of dull and risk free, unless the DM specifically just kills characters while they're downed (in which case lets just say "rocks fall" and cut out the middleman). Being good at slogs isn't a selling point for me.

I gave out proficiency uses of their encounter abilities, gain one use on short rest, and it does work a bit better.

Tangent but:

The trick here is to make the goal of most combats something other than reduce all the baddies to 0. Once you introduce concrete goals outside of that - combats become more dynamic and fun.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Considering that every class gets a Feat in Tier 1, no, they aren't an answer to "What unique feature do Fighters get in Tier 1?"

Oh, yeah, and the Tier 1 constraint feels like an attempt to define the problem in a way that proves the point. Not gonna play.

We have data that most games don't go above level 10, right? By then Fighters have two bonus feats.

 

[Mort]

Oh, yeah, and the Tier 1 constraint feels like an attempt to define the problem in a way that proves the point. Not gonna play.

We have data that most games don't go above level 10, right? By then Fighters have two bonus feats.

How are you getting 2? They get feats at 4th, 6th and 8th. Everyone else gets 4th and 8th.

Isn't that only 1 above everyone else?

 

[bedir than]

How are you getting 2. They get feats at 4th, 6th and 8th. Everyone else gets 4th and 8th.

Isn't that only 1 above everyone else?

And Rogues also get an extra Tier 2 Feat.

The Fighter's unique thing isn't unique