A critique and review of the Fighter class

[Minigiant]

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.

And I stated what the DMG says the drawbacks of ignoring the dice: Favoritism and Imbalance.

So what I am saying to those who say the DM can or should ignore the fighter's mechanical deficiencies in ability score force and ability modifier roll in order to reinforce: their game are very likely unbalanced.

It might be fine for them, but like for many things, it is probably not a good general idea. 5e was designed around ability scores and ability rolls. Removing them is likely only for tilted tables or experienced DMs.

 

[Mort]

And I stated what the DMG says the drawbacks of ignoring the dice: Favoritism and Imbalance.

So what I am saying to those who say the DM can or should ignore the fighter's mechanical deficiencies in ability score force and ability modifier roll in order to reinforce: their game are very likely unbalanced.

It might be fine for them, but like for many things, it is probably not a good general idea. 5e was designed around ability scores and ability rolls. Removing them is likely only for tilted tables or experienced DMs.

Further, saying the DM should tip the scales (or just fully step on them) toward letting the fighter succeed on "fighter" stuff - 100% acknowledges that there is a problem from a game mechanics perspective!

 

[tetrasodium]

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.

That's quite a bit different from what I said, that bolded bit is an incredible misrepresentation given that I've previously clarified why level 11 is an important point in the discussion. Fighters are top notch in combat well before level 1 but by then you start losing edge case "but what if" & it's just a "how was this not fixed prelaunch" level disparity the further you go.

If you want a fighter to compare with other classes in exploration and/or social there are two simple solutions that boil down to picking an archetype like samurai or cavalier that grants benefits in those areas rather than combat or using one of the fighter bonus ASI's for a feat if not half feat to gain some ability in those other pillars. If neither of those is acceptable because you want an archetype with maximum combat power and want that bonus ASI to go into more maximized combat power instead of social/exploration stuff that's simply an unreasonable expectation.

I'm not saying that fighter shouldn't be given tools for the other two pillars. What I am saying is that what fighter gets between core class & maximized combat archetypes is too good to warrant the kind of overly generous benefits being suggested, those benefits being suggested need to come at a cost of something elsewhere.

For the record, most of my campaigns run into low to mid teens & they tend to get ended because short rest classes like fighter cause the wheels to fly off the system.

 

[Mort]

That's quite a bit different from what I said, that bolded bit is an incredible misrepresentation given that I've previously clarified why level 11 is an important point in the discussion. Fighters are top notch in combat well before level 1 but by then you start losing edge case "but what if" & it's just a "how was this not fixed prelaunch" level disparity the further you go.

If you want a fighter to compare with other classes in exploration and/or social there are two simple solutions that boil down to picking an archetype like samurai or cavalier that grants benefits in those areas rather than combat or using one of the fighter bonus ASI's for a feat if not half feat to gain some ability in those other pillars. If neither of those is acceptable because you want an archetype with maximum combat power and want that bonus ASI to go into more maximized combat power instead of social/exploration stuff that's simply an unreasonable expectation.

I'm not saying that fighter shouldn't be given tools for the other two pillars. What I am saying is that what fighter gets between core class & maximized combat archetypes is too good to warrant the kind of overly generous benefits being suggested, those benefits being suggested need to come at a cost of something elsewhere.

For the record, most of my campaigns run into low to mid teens & they tend to get ended because short rest classes like fighter cause the wheels to fly off the system.

WoTC seems to agree that short rest resets are an issue as ALL recent class reset mechanics have been long rest - including reprints of formerly short rest mechanics (such as the Bladesinger).

I strongly suspect one of the biggest 2024 changes will be rejiggering all the classes to a long rest reset. The fighter shouldn't be too hard in that respect (though getting superiority dice right on a long rest reset might be tricky) - but it will be interesting what they do with the warlock.

 

[Neonchameleon]

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.

Second wind is fine for something you get at first level, and action surge is great for second level. The thing about the extra ASI is that it almost always goes on the fighter's core competency - fighting. Whether into STR/Dex (incl. a Str/Dex half-feat) or into Great Weapon Fighter/Pole Arm Master/Sentinel/Sharpshooter/Crossbow Expert. There aren't such S-tier feats as some of the previous ones for casters so in my experience I'm more likely to see fluff feats out of casters before level 12 as the fighter grabs an extra combat feat - and even their half-feats are all too often crusher/cutter/slasher (or whatever they are called).

Compared to a paladin, the fighter gets next to nothing, while the paladin boosts saves,

This is an issue

heals better than second wind (with the option to spend it on the group,

It depends what you mean by "better". Second wind has the huge advantage that it is a bonus action and so the fighter can second wind and keep beating the enemy up. Meanwhile a paladin can't either cast cure wounds or lay on hands without giving up their attacks that turn, which is a pretty big loss for a primary damage dealer. Honestly if you get your two short rests per day I'd say second wind would be at least competitive with lay on hands. That said, in general you don't.

has spells,

Which in general either they are smiting away or their melee damage suffers badly and doesn't keep up with the fighter at all.

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.

Honestly I find the paladin and the barbarian are both better noob classes than the fighter.

 

[Mort]

Second wind is fine for something you get at first level, and action surge is great for second level. The thing about the extra ASI is that it almost always goes on the fighter's core competency - fighting. Whether into STR/Dex (incl. a Str/Dex half-feat) or into Great Weapon Fighter/Pole Arm Master/Sentinel/Sharpshooter/Crossbow Expert. There aren't such S-tier feats as some of the previous ones for casters so in my experience I'm more likely to see fluff feats out of casters before level 12 as the fighter grabs an extra combat feat - and even their half-feats are all too often crusher/cutter/slasher (or whatever they are called).

Yeah, I've found that despite being a feat down - casters can get more creative with feats. Especially true now that there are feats like Telekinetic which cater to ANY caster but leave the fighter out.

It depends what you mean by "better". Second wind has the huge advantage that it is a bonus action and so the fighter can second wind and keep beating the enemy up. Meanwhile a paladin can't either cast cure wounds or lay on hands without giving up their attacks that turn, which is a pretty big loss for a primary damage dealer. Honestly if you get your two short rests per day I'd say second wind would be at least competitive with lay on hands. That said, in general you don't.

I've found lay on hands to be extremely limited use in combat. A full action is A LOT of time for the paladin to waste. Second Wind as a bonus action is huge and comes up in combat, all the time.

Which in general either they are smiting away or their melee damage suffers badly and doesn't keep up with the fighter at all.

Yeah, a paladin is either using spells for versatility OR smiting - they don't have enough for both unless it's REALLY high level. I just played a 10th level paladin (my 1% time playing vs. DMing!) in an 8 hour session. 1 short rest, no long rests. I cast 2 spells (protection from evil and crusader's mantle) the rest (and I was out by the end) were ALL smites. Paladins are actually pretty resource intensive, especially if the DM is paying attention.

Honestly I find the paladin and the barbarian are both better noob classes than the fighter.

Generally, I find the same. Especially the Barbarian, because they are so hard to knock down.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

That's quite a bit different from what I said,

no it isn't... you said 11th level the 3rd attack was important (even though clerics at full caster get bonus damage around the same time AND already have the 2 attacks you have had for levels) so I went with it

"but what if" & it's just a "how was this not fixed prelaunch" level disparity the further you go.

we told you many times in this and other threads how it didn't get fixed at launch... but I will humor the idea that this is honest asking and say it again.

We had battlemaster fighter as the base fighter with subclasses adding to it (already a step down from 4e and Bo9S but it was a compromise) and a vocal few kept hammering WotC that it was too complex and fighter needed to be simple... there was 0 public playtest of the end stage fighter because of that.

If you want a fighter to compare with other classes in exploration and/or social there are two simple solutions that boil down to picking an archetype like samurai or cavalier that grants benefits in those areas rather than combat or using one of the fighter bonus ASI's for a feat if not half feat to gain some ability in those other pillars. If neither of those is acceptable because you want an archetype with maximum combat power

nobody is asking for 'max' or 'more' combat power... we will reluctuntly excapt if that is the only way to get intresting knobs and levers but it is FAR from our first choice... or second, or fifteenth choice.

and want that bonus ASI to go into more maximized combat power instead of social/exploration stuff that's simply an unreasonable expectation.

I want options NOT available to full casters.
Bards clerics warlock* even wizard have melee capable full caster that can take skills, ASI feats they can be creative and role play AND they get to pick special abilities every level.

*if warlock counts as full is up to debate but still more then a fighter since they can get 6th-9th level spells

I'm not saying that fighter shouldn't be given tools for the other two pillars.

great cause that is exactly where we start... everyone have things for every pillar. BONUS awesome if we can make things to make each class play different but still have choices in each one

What I am saying is that what fighter gets between core class & maximized combat archetypes is too good to warrant the kind of overly generous benefits being suggested, those benefits being suggested need to come at a cost of something elsewhere.

and this is why I have suggested breaking the fighter (and the wizard for that matter) into mult classes...

I agree we don't need the action surge and the 4 attacks... as shown by sword/valor bards and war/fewother cleric bladesinger wizard and hexblade warlock you can have 2 attacks a good AC and be able t do the job of the fighter.

For the record, most of my campaigns run into low to mid teens & they tend to get ended because short rest classes like fighter cause the wheels to fly off the system.

we don't have fighters in our games... but I agree the short rest warlock by mid teens is running the board most times and few campagins make it to 16th level

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Second wind is fine for something you get at first level, and action surge is great for second level.

I will take it one step farther... on it's own Action surge is the Best/most useful/powerful 2nd level feature. It is even better then teh wizard learning 2 new 1st level spells and getting a 3rd slot. it just doesn't scale and it is ALL they get.

if you take every classes 2nd level feature and ONLY that 1 feature I can't imagine there is anything close to action surge.

The thing about the extra ASI is that it almost always goes on the fighter's core competency - fighting. Whether into STR/Dex (incl. a Str/Dex half-feat) or into Great Weapon Fighter/Pole Arm Master/Sentinel/Sharpshooter/Crossbow Expert. There aren't such S-tier feats as some of the previous ones for casters so in my experience I'm more likely to see fluff feats out of casters before level 12 as the fighter grabs an extra combat feat - and even their half-feats are all too often crusher/cutter/slasher (or whatever they are called

the problem is that everyone over 10 levels gets 2 ASI/Feats the fighter 3... so everyone has the best 2 choices and the fighter (and rogue) get the 3rd best choice.

 

[Minigiant]

One thing I believe is 5e made many mechanical design decisions for the preference of those who aren't mechanics heavy. The fighter's design is the biggest example of it.

The fighter lacks core class exploration and social mechanics because those who don't like the mechanics that ascribe flavor to the base classes and would rather roleplay it out. However by doing so, the fighter ended up lacking mechanics that the people who rejected them would have ignored. So those who don't roll Charisma or Intelligence likely responded to omit Charisma and Intelligence features in the core fighter

Quite frankly having the fighter being the "noob" class, the "ALL combat" class and the "wide net of warriors" class was likely too much of a strain. It was likely just like the Psion/psychic where the class makes up too many archetypes. It is no wonder the fighter went through the most changes in playtest.

If the fighter weren't iconic and required for D&D, it likely would have been binned like the mystic for being too hard to design.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Quite frankly having the fighter being the "noob" class, the "ALL combat" class and the "wide net of warriors" class was likely too much of a strain.

tbh I think that we have a legacy issue where the 4 core classes were originally meant to cover everything but as we added more specialized classes the generalized ones either got more powerful (the casters getting every spell you can imagine as an option) or less (the martials getting no new options because they don't have a spell like subsystem)