A critique and review of the Fighter class

[Minigiant]

Maybe. I'm not sure that would really do much to help, but it definitely seems possible.

The issue is D&D fighters don't do what the fans want nor the lore says.

It says fighters are both versatile and specialized. But you can only specialize once within class for the first 10 levels and 2 tiers.

 

[CreamCloud0]

The non-caster frankly SHOULD be the best! They don't get plot coupons. They don't get to break the laws of physics. Anything they do, should be better than characters that can ignore reality. Honestly, the wizard should be the worst at magic because the get to repick their superpowers after a nap. The swiss army knife should be worse at any function than a single use tool.

Honestly I’d really like to see an edition where the Wizard looses 90% of their current non-cantrip based offensive casting and is reflavoured as a magical utility class, the skillmonkey of spellcasting, with sorcerer and warlock taking the position of being the offensive arcane classes, So yes, your wizard can reshape the fabric of the universe but they can’t fight for toffee, a cost-benefit analysis of utility vs needing someone to fight for them

EDIT: oh I know this would never actually happen but theoretically it’s an interesting idea to consider.

 

[Mort]

Honestly I’d really like to see an edition where the Wizard looses 90% of their current non-cantrip based offensive casting and is reflavoured as a magical utility class, the skillmonkey of spellcasting, with sorcerer and warlock taking the position of being the offensive arcane classes, So yes, your wizard can reshape the fabric of the universe but they can’t fight for toffee, a cost-benefit analysis of utility vs needing someone to fight for them

The problem is, WoTC has realized or has decided (doesn't really matter which) that combat is the central pillar of focus. ALL classes must be effective in combat, they can be effective in different ways, but I just can't see a standard PC class being released that's not combat effective.

Even if they would, that just shifts the problem to another pillar and another class. Now you have a class that's effective (or even dominant) in a pillar or 2 but come combat - they just twiddle their thumbs and let the others step forward. So the player is feeling useless during a major part of the game. hat's not great for player engagement!

 

[Minigiant]

Honestly I’d really like to see an edition where the Wizard looses 90% of their current non-cantrip based offensive casting and is reflavoured as a magical utility class, the skillmonkey of spellcasting, with sorcerer and warlock taking the position of being the offensive arcane classes, So yes, your wizard can reshape the fabric of the universe but they can’t fight for toffee.

Won't happen. The wizard and blasty option are synonymous at this point.

----

The goal from now is to figure out what the role of the fighter in exploration and social within a party of primary users of all 6 ability scores.

The problem is that WOTC can't figure out what it is, is afraid of backlash from the loser generations, and can't kick the gap it of using magic as a crutch (Arcane Archer, Each Knight, Eldritch Knight, Psi Warrior, Rune Knight)

I mean, they planned on it...

Note that the 7th-level features for the Champion and the Battle Master lean heavily on the exploration and interaction pillars of the game; the Eldritch Knight gains spells, which contribute to the fighter’s competence in the exploration and interaction pillars, and so its 7th-level feature is geared to blending spells and attack

... they just didn't follow through or they underestimated their own design.

 

[CreamCloud0]

The problem is, WoTC has realized or has decided (doesn't really matter which) that combat is the central pillar of focus. ALL classes must be effective in combat, they can be effective in different ways, but I just can't see a standard PC class being released that's not combat effective.

Even if they would, that just shifts the problem to another pillar and another class. Now you have a class that's effective (or even dominant) in a pillar or 2 but come combat - they just twiddle their thumbs and let the others step forward. So the player is feeling useless during a major part of the game. hat's not great for player engagement!

True true, but it would still be somewhat better than them being effective in all three pillars, and I don’t think cantrips are quite as useless in combat as they currently seem they’re just outclassed by the standards set by levelled spells for wizard damage, or the wizard turns to being more of a support caster in battle with buffs and status conditions and field control.

 

[James Gasik]

Honestly I’d really like to see an edition where the Wizard looses 90% of their current non-cantrip based offensive casting and is reflavoured as a magical utility class, the skillmonkey of spellcasting, with sorcerer and warlock taking the position of being the offensive arcane classes, So yes, your wizard can reshape the fabric of the universe but they can’t fight for toffee, a cost-benefit analysis of utility vs needing someone to fight for them

EDIT: oh I know this would never actually happen but theoretically it’s an interesting idea to consider.

I'm on board, and I'd totally play an Arcane supporter (I mean, I played a Bard in 4e and loved every second of it!).

 

[Mort]

I'm on board, and I'd totally play an Arcane supporter (I mean, I played a Bard in 4e and loved every second of it!).

Bards actually fill this role REALLY well in 5e.

Wizards do too - generally it's better for them to be a controller/buffer than a blaster = much more bang out of their spells that way.

 

[James Gasik]

Really that's the problem. Wizards have too much access to spells. They needed to be more limited, like old school specialization, which locked off two schools of magic. All magic all the time, with no particular need to worry about, say, having spells laying around to heal party members or remove afflictions like the Cleric, on top of their ability to have a bunch of spells prepared at once and being able to choose which one of them they need when they go to use a spell slot (stealing a chunk of the Sorcerer's thunder), has just made them too versatile. Add Ritual magic to the mix, and you almost can be Schrodinger's Wizard, able to blast, buff, debuff, dominate in exploration, set up indestructible bunkers to sleep in, and anything else you might care to do.

And concentration isn't the limit it's intended to be, since now, instead of knowing I can expect some buff spells to be cast on the martials, the Wizard is like "well I could Haste you, but then I can't cast (defensive or crowd control spell of choice). Sorry man, no can do."

Heck you can't even cast Fly on more than one guy to help your party get past obstacles! But hey, everything is fine guys...

 

[Scott Christian]

Surely this is an example of the DM compensating for the Fighter's mechanical deficiency?

I am sorry, but I do not see it that way. I see it as the DM doing what they are supposed to do - bringing NPCs to life. The mayor might have been a bard, and likes the bard best. It depends on how the DM built them. But, people are different. They have different likes/dislikes. They have different chemistry. The same should be true of NPCs.

Many argue but the +1 to damage for fighters is huge do the sheer number of attacks a fighters makes yo add to it.

They can argue that all they want. But there is no possible way to really know. All these ridiculous damage equations and none of them have a grasp on all the variables: AC, damage reduction, invisibility, disadvantage, advantage, the wild and varied HP array, being dropped, range, terrain, number of opponents, lair effects, saving throws, and on and on the list goes.
It's like trying to explain the stock market by showing the same three stocks and what they do over four weeks. It has a touch of truth, but is far too simple a picture to be accurate.

 

[Minigiant]

Really that's the problem. Wizards have too much access to spells. They needed to be more limited, like old school specialization, which locked off two schools of magic. All magic all the time, with no particular need to worry about, say, having spells laying around to heal party members or remove afflictions like the Cleric, on top of their ability to have a bunch of spells prepared at once and being able to choose which one of them they need when they go to use a spell slot (stealing a chunk of the Sorcerer's thunder), has just made them too versatile. Add Ritual magic to the mix, and you almost can be Schrodinger's Wizard, able to blast, buff, debuff, dominate in exploration, set up indestructible bunkers to sleep in, and anything else you might care to do.

And concentration isn't the limit it's intended to be, since now, instead of knowing I can expect some buff spells to be cast on the martials, the Wizard is like "well I could Haste you, but then I can't cast (defensive or crowd control spell of choice). Sorry man, no can do."

Heck you can't even cast Fly on more than one guy to help your party get past obstacles! But hey, everything is fine guys...

The problem isn't wizards.

The "problem" is 5th edition was designed heavily to support the ideas of one group of D&D and that group ended up being massively outnumbered by new players and old players who had the same thoughts/preferences as new players.

Basically the Video's critique was correct but with the wrong words.

"The 5e fighter was designed to support Class Favoritism for Noncombat scenarios but 95%+ of tables don't do Class Favoritism."