A critique and review of the Fighter class

[Minigiant]

But the 5e wizard WAS heavily nerfed. They can't be invisible AND fly AND reign death from above like in the good old days.

They can't summon creatures that fight nearly as well as the fighter and have them do their thing while still doing their (the wizard's) full schtick (including the invisible fly and fry bit).

They can't duplicate a rogue's schtick with scrolls and the occasional wand to the point the rogue is feeling useless.

But even with all that, they still outshine the fighter in 2 of the 3 pillars because fighters WERE buffed in combat but given next to nothing anywhere else.

Casters were buffed like crazy.

• They have flexible casting.
• Their spells don't fizzle
• They can cast in melee
• They can upcast with benefits.
• Their spell attacks use their primary score
• Spell resistance is rare
• No spell penetration
• Lots of slots without need specialization nor high stats
• Spell DCs scales
• Saving throws scale worse

All Warriors got were

• Finesse melee weapons
• Strength based thrown weapons
• More HP from high Con
• Multiple attacks are earlier levels
• Dual weilding is universal

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

Right but would having a bonus to AC and to hit with ranged weapons really make you more versatile, or just linearly better?

Not saying it’s a bad idea, just that it doesn’t necessarily do the specific job needed.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Your problem with martial versatility seems to be going back to the often repeated naked powergrab to make fighter the best at anything & be able to mirror anything any other class can do while maintaining everything fighter already has an edge on.

Wow.
That is an extremely bold claim you're making, that does not appear to be borne out by the contents of this thread, or any other that I am aware of for that matter.
Are you able to back it up, or was it just empty hyperbole?

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.

Artificers are a bit like this.

This is completely absurd, and would lead to a terrible game. The wizard already gets the least class features exactly because they get the biggest versatility of spells. However, trying to balance characters by making versatile characters suck when they actually try to do anything just means that those classes aren't actually versatile, they just suck. It's only versatility if the tools work.

I believe that this may demonstrate a misapprehension that many of the posts in this thread show:
Spells are class features. Every new spell known is a new class feature that lets you do something extra. Every spell slot is an additional use of a choice of your class features. Every new spell published is an official class feature available to specific classes added to their choices

 

[see]

okay I can work with this... so you admit the problem is that there is no martial class that fits the taste of a portion of the player base?

There are at least three problems with your formulation there.

The first is the assumption that all tastes in the player base should be catered to. There are physical and economic factors that limit how many can be jammed into a game, particularly its core book.

The second is the question-begging use of the word "martial", smuggling in the unsupported assertion that 4e "power sources" schema should even be considered as a part of D&D class design. There is a decided difference between "This popular playstyle is not supported in D&D" and "This popular playstyle is plenty supported in D&D, but I want a version where it isn't fluffed as magic."

The third, implicit by it being in this thread, is the idea that the correct way to address the desires of that portion of the player base is to change the most popular class in the game, rather than one of the substantially less-popular classes.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Artificers are a bit like this.

If you say so, I haven’t looked at what the artificers abilities are, but my intended point i was making wasn’t to ‘pose the concept of a magic utility and support class’ but to ‘reduce the overwhelming competence of wizards ability to act in all three pillars of play’

 

[James Gasik]

Well instead of "martial" we could say "non-magical". By default, Fighters don't use any kind of magic, nor do they have much in the way of superhuman abilities- they are just well-trained.

This gets a little fuzzy with Barbarians and Rogues, as they can do things that seem superhuman more routinely. And then every other class is explicitly supernatural or able to wield spells. Which allows them to have special abilities that non-magical classes can't even approach.

That most people seem ok with this always struck me as odd. I don't need Fighters to cast spells, it's fine, that's not their hat. But they could easily have more superhuman abilities, especially at higher levels. Instead, this is entirely put into Subclass, because there is a group of people who play D&D who like the fantasy of the "regular guy who somehow fights giant monsters".

But the...issue (not going to use the word "problem") I have with this is that there are lots of things that the game assumes require magic to deal with beyond "fighting giant monsters". Traditionally, it's been completely the hat of the magic classes to deal with these, and the non-magic classes just...wait until they can do their thing again.

It's a team game, sure. No one character can have all the answers. But the fact that some classes have a higher percentage of answers than others strikes me as a little off kilter. With feats, magic items, and multiclassing being rules elements that might as well say "use at your own risk" by WotC, the mechanics that could attempt to balance the scales can't be counted on, save at the table of individual DM's.

After many many threads where variations of this debate come up, there are always loud voices that say "nothing is wrong, everything is working as Arneson and Gygax intended" (whether or not that is true is an entirely different debate).

And what bothers me about this is, even if that is true for many tables, why is tinkering with classes like the Fighter such a problem that rather than say "Fighters are fine" and moving on, certain voices keep coming back to say "you're still wrong, you don't know what you're talking about, I wish you'd stop saying otherwise".

As if the idea that a small group of people can have a different opinion, and would like to see change is somehow offensive or even possibly harmful. Sometimes, I even see comments like "go play some other game if you're not happy".

I thought D&D was for everyone, first of all. And second, are you afraid that someone with the power to make changes to the game will come here, see a handful of people talking about their concerns, and suddenly the entire game will be transformed as a result?

 

[Scott Christian]

I don't see a problem with NPC's being individuals, and players gaining circumstantial advantages for being the kind of person an NPC would like. But this is universal- there's going to be just as many NPC's who value a keen, academic mind as someone who heals the infirm, or can triple the yield of a harvest with magic. I can't see one character gaining this sort of advantage more than anyone else.

But being gregarious and socially dynamic is a trait that is universal, by it's very definition. People are going to be drawn to characters with high Charisma, even if they have made pacts with devils or their great-great grand dad had a fling with a dragoness. That may work against them, but it won't ever nullify their charm, confidence, and poise. They have that je nais se pais, that quality that lets them be popular for...uh...being popular, like certain celebrities I could name.

The fact that the game allows you to be intelligent, wise, or persuasive and lets you convert that trait into combat or exploration effectiveness is a little bit of a problem. Maybe you shouldn't be able to use Dexterity to hit and damage with weapons. Maybe shillelagh shouldn't be a thing.

And definitely, maybe Hexblades should have to give up some casting ability in order to wade into melee combat! After all, if it's not important to have a high stat in Strength to be a Fighter, then it follows that a magical swordsman might not need as much Intelligence or Charisma either!

It's double dipping, and the Fighter should be allowed to do it too! If traits exist that let me swap one ability bonus to another, or even add one to another, then I think my Fighter should be able to use the ability scores he values to other things as well! And if, for some reason, adding more abilities to the Fighter somehow makes them too strong, you can take Indomitable away, I won't mind!

Or even better, delay Action Surge to a higher level- it's too easy for multiclassed characters to get it anyways, if you ask me!

I would certainly welcome a fighter sub-class that uses intelligence or wisdom or charisma as their primary trait. I think it will stretch a player's or DM's descriptive dialogue for combat, but it would be fun.

 

[Minigiant]

Right but would having a bonus to AC and to hit with ranged weapons really make you more versatile, or just linearly better?

Not saying it’s a bad idea, just that it doesn’t necessarily do the specific job needed.

Defense is a terrible fighting style. IT's boring. And of the original PHB styles, It's the only one that numerally could be used with another style.

Now some other ones stack because of WOTC's "No Errata for non-broken things" policy. My guess is that fighting styles will be more mutually exclusive in the 2024 version.

 

[tetrasodium]

I would certainly welcome a fighter sub-class that uses intelligence or wisdom or charisma as their primary trait. I think it will stretch a player's or DM's descriptive dialogue for combat, but it would be fun.

Spoiler: makes me think of this

 

[Vaalingrade]

Feats don't carry that level of power anymore.

I find this weird as 5e's singular feats are widely considered more powerful that any single 3x and certainly and 4e feat. Do you really feal Leadership was so much more powerful that normal 3x feats?