A critique and review of the Fighter class

[Mort]

Not sure why I didn’t reply directly to this in my other post lol
I agree with the exceeding limits. The fighter should be able to go “maximum effort” and do a thing no one else can do.

I agree, but many do not and are quite vocal about it.

And that's why designing for the fighter is SO hard. The second any mechanics are introduced that make the fighter even SEEM vaguely more than mundane they cry out vocally.

 

[Scott Christian]

The thing is this is a RPG not FFRP. At some point someone is going to have to roll in order for the situation to change course.

You can use you traits, boons, flaws, connections, and history to ease the sitation to to a favorable one.

But the situation doesn't change course without a roll of a die either by the DM or a player.

And the fighter has the 2nd worst rolls outside of combat.

"And the fighter has the 2nd worst rolls outside of combat."

I am sorry, but how is this even a statement. The second worst at what? Athletics? Acrobatics? And what about the third 14? That accounts for something, somewhere? How about this, if you want to be a fighter who rocks at skills, convince the DM to use feats and take Skilled. Better yet, if you are using point buy, take the three 13s and 3 12s. Combine it with Skilled, use Tasha's Tool option, and you have quite the skilled fighter.

 

[James Gasik]

Back in 3e, I would give Fighters free ranks in "Profession: Soldier/Mercenary" equal to their Base Attack Bonus. This governed how well they could impress potential employers, perform basic duties you'd expect out of a fighting man, and be able to answer questions about small unit tactics, warfare, and the like. It added a little depth to the class, which was critically skill point starved, and had a mechanical benefit, if a minor one.

 

[Mort]

Well, the idea of only doing it for the fighter does. I just boost fighters based on the specific PC, and then I let specifics of the character determine automatic success for all PCs. The wizard knows how wizard apprenticeship works, and who invented Magic Missile, too.

And that's fine (even good), I wish more DMs would set the dice aside for "obvious" knowledge and other skills.

But that's still an everyone solution (though a good one) not a how can fighters close the gap without sacrificing their core schtick (fighting) solution.

 

[Scott Christian]

Competence does not mean you have to be the best.

This - right here.

A debate as old as time. Players insisting they need a maxed out bonus to be any good versus the person that can play a first level fighter with a 14 strength and be just fine.

 

[Mort]

"And the fighter has the 2nd worst rolls outside of combat."

I am sorry, but how is this even a statement. The second worst at what? Athletics? Acrobatics? And what about the third 14? That accounts for something, somewhere? How about this, if you want to be a fighter who rocks at skills, convince the DM to use feats and take Skilled. Better yet, if you are using point buy, take the three 13s and 3 12s. Combine it with Skilled, use Tasha's Tool option, and you have quite the skilled fighter.

And what are you doing before 4th level?

And 4th level plus - yes you can do this and it might make you competent, which is good. BUT you have to sacrifice an ASI to do it, and that makes you lag behind in fighting.

And as for the "well you can't have everything..." response. Casters mostly can and do, they can be good at skills and take fun feats without sacrificing their core schtick. Or closer to home, so can rogues. It's much harder for fighters.

 

[Mort]

This - right here.

A debate as old as time. Players insisting they need a maxed out bonus to be any good versus the person that can play a first level fighter with a 14 strength and be just fine.

But why do fighter's have to sacrifice? A caster can max out their stat (Int Wis or Cha) and a rogue can max out their stat and they can be great at combat AND another pillar or two. Why do fighters have to sacrifice their effectiveness when other classes do not?

And lets be clear, I wouldn't have a problem at all with a 14 Str or Dex fighter (playing or running for one) but (and I have seen it many times) many players are JUDGY, they are not that kind.

It wouldn't shake game balance a millimeter if WoTC introduced a few more 2nd and 3rd pillar options for fighters.

 

[Oofta]

But why do fighter's have to sacrifice? A caster can max out their stat (Int Wis or Cha) and a rogue can max out their stat and they can be great at combat AND another pillar or two. Why do fighters have to sacrifice their effectiveness when other classes do not?

And lets be clear, I wouldn't have a problem at all with a 14 Str or Dex fighter (playing or running for one) but (and I have seen it many times) many players are JUDGY, they are not that kind.

It wouldn't shake game balance a millimeter if WoTC introduced a few more 2nd and 3rd pillar options for fighters.

Fighters can max out dex if they want to. For that matter, they can put decent numbers into any number of things. If you really want to be better than everyone else at first level, take variant human with a feat.

Or just, I don't know, accept that you don't have to have a score as high higher than any other theoretical PC that may or may not be playing in the same game in order to be able to contribute.

 

[Mort]

Fighters can max out dex if they want to. For that matter, they can put decent numbers into any number of things. If you really want to be better than everyone else at first level, take variant human with a feat.

Or just, I don't know, accept that you don't have to have a score as high higher than any other theoretical PC that may or may not be playing in the same game in order to be able to contribute.

That's only part of the point. Fighters, to be even vaguely competent outside of combat without a helpful or forgiving DM, have to sacrifice combat prowess. Other classes, generally do not. That's an imbalance.

 

[lingual]

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.

I think that's missing the point a bit here. For example, I don't call for Persuasion checks, etc. that don't make any sense. That is, the social pillar is not dominated by dice rolls. A Hero (Fighter, Cleric, whatever) who just rescued the village children is going to have more "Charisma" than some wandering Bard who happens to have expertise in Persuasion. Depends on the situation of course, but I just don't want the Social Pillar to devolve into dice rolls with no actual interaction.