A critique and review of the Fighter class

[GMforPowergamers]

I like some of these ideas, but the Cleric is basically the game's main "I heal/remove afflictions guy"; much of the spell list is devoted to this, and they do that better than anyone else. So while I do want Clerics to have a stronger identity when modeling a Cleric of this god or that god, I don't want to go back to 2e Specialty Priests who had less healing power than a 2e Druid. The Cleric class has a strong chassis because they are the #1 class for keeping the party going strong.

I want those 'remove affliction' and 'regain hp' things to be more spread out... so a cleric could be built without it cause another class can take those options (as it is divine soul sorcerer and bard do okay as it)

People will note that the Bard and the Druid do have a lot of these sorts of spells, but the Bard has no default access and have to carefully pick spells known. And Druids, well...they're Druids. Asking a Druid to stock a Greater Restoration usually gets you the stink eye for some reason, lol.

 

[tetrasodium]

Tetrasodium, I love that post for it's excellent breakdown of how we got to this strange place with Wizards and how they cast spells- I've often pointed out that concentration caused as many problems as it cured with regards to casting buff spells on allies.

The only reason I didn't actually love the post is that it's a sad state of affairs. I want to play a Transmutation Wizard that's constantly throwing out buffs on my allies, it's a fun thing for me to do. But there are so many more efficient spells I could be using my concentration on instead that I find it hard to do so. Like enlarging my party Fighter- so a handful of d4's get chucked over the course of a fight. Or I could instead drop a cloud of daggers in an ideal spot. Or just web a few monsters to take them out of the fight until we're ready to deal with them. And so on, and so forth.

And as I get higher level spells to work with, the priority of what I can select to concentrate on increases. You wanted haste? Why, when I can instead slow up to 6 creatures?

Yea,I hjave the same problem & notice it in players when I'm GM'ing. I played a scribes wizard through frostmaiden & one of the other players (rune fighter or whatever it is) kept begging for haste or enlarge. I kept telling him it was there & it might go out if concentration & the one minute duration fit the situation. At some point the rogue retired to come in with a sorcerer saying he picked twin spell enlarge (or haste I forget) with the same "I want wait to see them both going on someone". We finished that at 11 or 12 in a boring snooze of a "fight" plinking at a helpless tarrasque & never once cast either spell. Playing the kind of force multiplier "god wizard"* type role in 5e is supremely unrewarding

* "god wizard" was a 3.5 wizard buildstyle that focused on force multiplier buff/debuff/control spells that was fairly useless in a fight on their own because it focused on making the rest of the party amazing & defanging whatever the party was fighting. Since they were such an effective force multiplier it didn't matter if they missed 18/20 rounds they tried shooting their crossbow/sling.

But at least Wizards now face choices, they can't Haste the party AND slow (also, slow has a save it's "better" if it hits but not as reliable as haste) the baddies AND banish the big bad etc.

And frankly, as levels increase, buffing (for the wizard) becomes a VERY good option - as more and more bad guys have magic resistance, legendary resistance or outright immunity (highly campaign dependent, of course, but that's a high % of DMs goto).

At least with the fighter, DMs usually give him the tools for his schtick to work (granted, it's usually just the one schtick). This why I'm not really focusing on the combat pillar in this thread. Fighters, in the combat pillar, are quite effective, they can be boring with the lack of varied options, but effective. It's the other pillars that need a step up. IMO, of course.

They can't "haste" the party because haste is a one minute concentration spell. That kind of "wizards can do [something they literally can't do] so fighters need to be improved" is shockingly common in these discussions. Banish & slow are examples of why they generally won't haste the fighter either, fighters already do so much damage that one extra attack from one player is not going to matter much & won't last long enough to matter.

On paper there are certainly a few spells that become "a very good option" for buffing in a whiteroom, but those spells are almost universally some combination of

• Short lived
• Single target
• concentration
• not really needed to begin with so rather shrugworthy until you start getting into Eve online/WoW raidwide dps log levels of crunch that really need campaign length collections of results from a spell that might only last a fight or two.

In the past a high level wizard could "haste the party" & did so in forms like casting haste of these two players using two spell slots On paper it might look like the 5e haste is just as good if not better than the 3.5 haste:

Spoiler: but that very much is not the case

• The 3.5 one gave +1 to ac & advantage on dex saves plus an extra attack and some system specific benefits that no longer apply thanks to 5e's simplifications plus an extra 30 feet of move speed
• The 5e one gives +2 to ac & dex saves plus an attack or some options like disengage that are unlikely to get used

From that alone it might look like the 5e haste is even better, but the devil is in the details. The unstated system specific part that simplified away is that the 3.5 attack it granted was made using full BaB plus any mods while in 5e all attacks are made like that. For a fighter in 5e haste grantsa +1 attack on two or three attacks, useful sure but not the same. In 3.x the second/third/fourth attacks were made at -5/-10/-15 on the tohit roll so you got one that was pretty much certain plus maybe a couple others that were pure chance.

When 5e did away with the penalty on iterative attacks wotc again nerfed fighter by inflating monster hp to compensate for the fact that basically any attack is certain to hit. That nerf also hits haste because the extra attack chips a smaller relative slice of the monster's HP pool & is just an attack chipping away at a giant sack of hp rather than a very special probably certain to land attack that makes a big dent.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Yeah, an "out of combat" action surge mechanic and maybe a separate maneuver die pool for outside of combat - would go a long, long way!

Yeah, I don’t know if separate pools would fit 5e, but I also do wish 5e was generally better about that.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Warlock falls into the same short rest nova king niche as fighter and has a (1d10+stat mod)*(number of attacks) that scales like fighter extra attack. They are just as if not more overpowered as fighter. That's thanks to the ability to dump a couple of whatever the best "intentionally overtuned" spell they have access to before falling back to repelling eldritch blast till they can buddy with the fighter to call for or simply dig in & guilt the group/GM into letting them take yet another rest so they can repeat it the next fight.

and add to that you can take hexblade and still get 2 melee attacks at 1 avg hp per level diffrence and you see the problem...

I'm not sure how fighter could be broken up to fix anything short of doing so in order to rebuild the poorly done monolithic base chassis

I am skipping most of your detail work... I did read and appreciate it, but I think we could go off into the weeds with too much talk of this.

My reason to split the fighter is that I think it covers too much and does it badly
Having a battlemaster/warblade/warlord class that isn't limited by the same chasie that the arcane half caster and the simple class have would be a boon

 

[Mort]

They can't "haste" the party because haste is a one minute concentration spell.

Edit: Huh, no upcasting for larger amount of targets, could swear that was in there. But they can still cast Haste for the benefit of the party.

But the POINT was, in 5e wizards have to pick their effects, most of the big stuff can't be stacked because it's concentration.

 

[Umbran]

Hahaha. I do not believe you for one second.

Mod Note:
If you want to call people liars, do it on on some other site where that kind of nonsense is tolerated.

On this site, be more respectful, please and thank you.

 

[Willie the Duck]

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?

I don't have a serious horse in this race (or at least it is divergent from most I've seen here*). I have watched this and the other threads like it here, as well as on a half dozen or so other gaming-centric boards and social media outlets. The one constant is that both (or really all) sides of the conflict believe that they are a beleaguered underdog, constantly harangued and mistreated, that the other side is some variation on 'loud voices' that are abusive and consistently attacking them for having the audacity of having a differing opinion (and saying, in effect, 'you're the one who should go play something else or otherwise have your needs not met'). And, let's be clear, there will be individuals on the other side that will give them evidence towards that effect. Likewise, there will be individuals on their side (or themselves) who do exactly the same, and that's often overlooked (perhaps along with the people on the other side who are being cordial and cooperative and trying to find common ground). Individual threads and boards might have majority positions, but honestly I'd be hard pressed to remember a time on this subject*** where I've seen the acidic behavior lopsided 2:1 or greater. You are right that D&D is for everyone, but I really don't see one or the other side in this discussion being the one that is clearly peeing in the other's cornflakes (as usual, it seems that everyone is giving as good as hey are getting).
I do think non-casters have a serious problem (including fighters for OOC activity), but a lot of that should be addressed by 0) Preemptive point: manage/prevent the 5-minute workday, 1) making the non-spell and non-combat resolution pathways more expansive and defined (and giving fighters more access to those), not pretending that magic items are optional (or at least discuss the ramifications thereof better), and most controversially that there really ought to be two paths to take when entering tier 3: one where noncasters stay completely mundane and casters never get some of the gameplay-changing effects like adding high powered creatures to their team or swapping out creature abilities or walls and cages that cannot be defeated by damage; and another where casters can do this but non-casters then can do the epic acts of non-wizardsly heroes of myth and legend like Beowulf, Gilgamesh, Orpheus , and Fionn mac Cumhaill.
**with lots of specifics that probably deserve their own thread
***some topics like '4E, good or bad?' or 'TSR-era vs. WotC-era', or 'Gary vs. Dave', yeah, individual boards can be blisteringly one-sided there.

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".

In think that threads all too often end up being referendums on 'who is right' rather than solving an actual problem. It would be interesting (I guess X months from now, after anyone would remember I said this) if someone made a thread where they stated, "Advice thread: I am not interested in the broader consensus on whether fighters overall need help. In my games, they do. I want to fix this. I'd love advice, including using house rules others might have in mind as fixes to the fighters, if they believe they need it (again, this is not the place to relitigate if that is needed for anywhere but my game)." and see what happens. I suspect people would eventually not help themselves, but before then, I suspect there could be a lot of analysis on potential solutions.
Counterexample: I distinctly remember a thread where Oofta did nothing but state that he did not think there was a problem, that he understood that others had different experiences, and that he was fine with people disagreeing with him; and people could not leave that alone.

I want those 'remove affliction' and 'regain hp' things to be more spread out... so a cleric could be built without it cause another class can take those options (as it is divine soul sorcerer and bard do okay as it)

Personally, I think clerics (more than all the classes, which could have used this too) could have used a good hard developer think about what they really wanted them to be. I get that no one was happy with being the HP batteries for the rest of the team and people didn't like needing a cleric (that oftentimes no one wanted to play) in every party. I also understand why they were trying to make 5e appeal to the TSR era crowd and make things all look superficially as much like their iconic versions as they could. However, serving both those masters creates contradiction that perhaps could have used more finessing.

Maybe make the 'remove affliction' spells (and maybe the dead raising ones as well, barring revivify for obvious reasons) could all have been part of the cleric ritual spells, so they could all be grabbed with a feat. Or they could all be upcasts of a single 1st level spell, so that you could get them with one of the spell-grabbing feats or abilities (Magic Initiate modified to let you use your own slots to cast, like the newer, similar, feats.

I could also see them being automatically known and prepared by all clerics, so that then you didn't have them eating into your preparations (so being the healbot, when needed, wouldn't feel like a groin-kick). Also, if all clerics knew them as a matter of course, you could then more easily implement your sphere idea and have individual spell lists by cleric-type, while still having all clerics have these in common. Making sure other classes can handle the 'remove affliction' and 'regain hp' stuff is great, but having a type of cleric that couldn't? That would be... well, I remember playing with Spheres and Priests of Specific Mythos in 2e -- no one played anything without the healing sphere*. Having these as a commonality would help with buy-in (kinda like the All sphere and Lesser Divination school back in 2e).
*and they also often cajoled the DM for Necromancy sphere as well for free, since 'no one would pick a sphere with two spells, but man do we need to be able to raise someone...'

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I have watched this and the other threads like it here, as well as on a half dozen or so other gaming-centric boards and social media outlets. The one constant is that both (or really all) sides of the conflict believe that they are a beleaguered underdog, constantly harangued and mistreated, that the other side is some variation on 'loud voices' that are abusive and consistently attacking them for having the audacity of having a differing opinion (and saying, in effect, 'you're the one who should go play something else or otherwise have your needs not met').

where I see why you would say so, I feel (and feel means different then can prove with scientific data) that enworld has become less and less friendly to discussions as a whole. The fact that we get in 7 out of 10 threads to the point were we are either shouting past each other or broken down to debating the meaning of an English word is a problem.

I just come here to talk about gaming... and the 2 or 3 most glaring issues I have take up a good part of my thoughts and discussions...but the number 1 issue (I have heard it termed Caster Supremacy) is the one that gets the most amount of flak... I can no talk in ANY thread about possible fixes, or what I find is the problem without the same people coming in to tell me I am wrong about my own personal experiences

And, let's be clear, there will be individuals on the other side that will give them evidence towards that effect. Likewise, there will be individuals on their side (or themselves) who do exactly the same, and that's often overlooked (perhaps along with the people on the other side who are being cordial and cooperative and trying to find common ground).

there are people that are cordal and people who WANT to find the middle grounds... but they are scared away by 50+ pages of "this" "no that" going nowhere...

n think that threads all too often end up being referendums on 'who is right' rather than solving an actual problem. It would be interesting (I guess X months from now, after anyone would remember I said this) if someone made a thread where they stated, "Advice thread: I am not interested in the broader consensus on whether fighters overall need help. In my games, they do. I want to fix this. I'd love advice, including using house rules others might have in mind as fixes to the fighters, if they believe they need it (again, this is not the place to relitigate if that is needed for anywhere but my game)." and see what happens. I suspect people would eventually not help themselves, but before then, I suspect there could be a lot of analysis on potential solutions.

I actually tried to start that thread last year and I was asked by a mod to stop posting in it because it became a fight. I would love for someone to start one where we can share our experiences without being told we are wrong or dumb or lying though... maybe someday.

Even recently I started a thread about my own experiences and my own style of gaming and how I play D&D... and got into arguments about how I play in a thread started about how I play... I did get some good advice there too though (not all doom and gloom)

Personally, I think clerics (more than all the classes, which could have used this too) could have used a good hard developer think about what they really wanted them to be.

I agree with most of what you said here... it's why the going away from roles bugged me so much.

each class should have 6 roles... 1 primary for combat 1 primary for social and 1 primary for exploration then a secondary for each... if you are a good game builder and make your character the way you want you can make a X class fit it's secondary roll... with subclasses I think you can have some that lean to one or the other...

 

[Oofta]

Just a couple of thoughts here...

I don't have a serious horse in this race (or at least it is divergent from most I've seen here*). I have watched this and the other threads like it here, as well as on a half dozen or so other gaming-centric boards and social media outlets. The one constant is that both (or really all) sides of the conflict believe that they are a beleaguered underdog, constantly harangued and mistreated, that the other side is some variation on 'loud voices' that are abusive and consistently attacking them for having the audacity of having a differing opinion (and saying, in effect, 'you're the one who should go play something else or otherwise have your needs not met').

I don't particularly feel like an underdog, but the thread topic is in theory about a video someone posted. I don't have a problem with the fighter as they stand, nobody I play with seems to have a problem. Given the number of classes available, I see fighters played (and have played fighters) as often as would be expected. At the same time, if someone has a problem, they have a problem. [Issue? Complaint? I don't want to make it sound like people I disagree with are the problem.]

But ... whenever this comes up, there does seem to be a fair amount of gatekeeping. That if you post the umpteenth zillionth thread that this comes up on you get people jumping down your throat demanding that you explain why the fact that you don't have a problem you're shouting down people who do. I can't simply explain why I don't see the issue. I think in some ways fighters can be more flexible than many of the other classes because they only have 1 main attribute (strength or dex) and after that it's kind of a toss-up between con and something else that will help you fill a role in the party. If that's not good enough for others, that's fine. It's simply my opinion, no more or less valid than anyone else's.

And, let's be clear, there will be individuals on the other side that will give them evidence towards that effect. Likewise, there will be individuals on their side (or themselves) who do exactly the same, and that's often overlooked (perhaps along with the people on the other side who are being cordial and cooperative and trying to find common ground). Individual threads and boards might have majority positions, but honestly I'd be hard pressed to remember a time on this subject*** where I've seen the acidic behavior lopsided 2:1 or greater. You are right that D&D is for everyone, but I really don't see one or the other side in this discussion being the one that is clearly peeing in the other's cornflakes (as usual, it seems that everyone is giving as good as hey are getting).
I do think non-casters have a serious problem (including fighters for OOC activity), but a lot of that should be addressed by 0) Preemptive point: manage/prevent the 5-minute workday, 1) making the non-spell and non-combat resolution pathways more expansive and defined (and giving fighters more access to those), not pretending that magic items are optional (or at least discuss the ramifications thereof better), and most controversially that there really ought to be two paths to take when entering tier 3: one where noncasters stay completely mundane and casters never get some of the gameplay-changing effects like adding high powered creatures to their team or swapping out creature abilities or walls and cages that cannot be defeated by damage; and another where casters can do this but non-casters then can do the epic acts of non-wizardsly heroes of myth and legend like Beowulf, Gilgamesh, Orpheus , and Fionn mac Cumhaill.
**with lots of specifics that probably deserve their own thread
***some topics like '4E, good or bad?' or 'TSR-era vs. WotC-era', or 'Gary vs. Dave', yeah, individual boards can be blisteringly one-sided there.


In think that threads all too often end up being referendums on 'who is right' rather than solving an actual problem. It would be interesting (I guess X months from now, after anyone would remember I said this) if someone made a thread where they stated, "Advice thread: I am not interested in the broader consensus on whether fighters overall need help. In my games, they do. I want to fix this. I'd love advice, including using house rules others might have in mind as fixes to the fighters, if they believe they need it (again, this is not the place to relitigate if that is needed for anywhere but my game)." and see what happens. I suspect people would eventually not help themselves, but before then, I suspect there could be a lot of analysis on potential solutions.

If we had a "+" thread on this topic, I would completely ignore it which would be cool for me. Let the people talk about how to fix it in their home games instead of having yet another "fighters suck" thread.

Counterexample: I distinctly remember a thread where Oofta did nothing but state that he did not think there was a problem, that he understood that others had different experiences, and that he was fine with people disagreeing with him; and people could not leave that alone.


Personally, I think clerics (more than all the classes, which could have used this too) could have used a good hard developer think about what they really wanted them to be. I get that no one was happy with being the HP batteries for the rest of the team and people didn't like needing a cleric (that oftentimes no one wanted to play) in every party. I also understand why they were trying to make 5e appeal to the TSR era crowd and make things all look superficially as much like their iconic versions as they could. However, serving both those masters creates contradiction that perhaps could have used more finessing.

Maybe make the 'remove affliction' spells (and maybe the dead raising ones as well, barring revivify for obvious reasons) could all have been part of the cleric ritual spells, so they could all be grabbed with a feat. Or they could all be upcasts of a single 1st level spell, so that you could get them with one of the spell-grabbing feats or abilities (Magic Initiate modified to let you use your own slots to cast, like the newer, similar, feats.

I could also see them being automatically known and prepared by all clerics, so that then you didn't have them eating into your preparations (so being the healbot, when needed, wouldn't feel like a groin-kick). Also, if all clerics knew them as a matter of course, you could then more easily implement your sphere idea and have individual spell lists by cleric-type, while still having all clerics have these in common. Making sure other classes can handle the 'remove affliction' and 'regain hp' stuff is great, but having a type of cleric that couldn't? That would be... well, I remember playing with Spheres and Priests of Specific Mythos in 2e -- no one played anything without the healing sphere*. Having these as a commonality would help with buy-in (kinda like the All sphere and Lesser Divination school back in 2e).
*and they also often cajoled the DM for Necromancy sphere as well for free, since 'no one would pick a sphere with two spells, but man do we need to be able to raise someone...'

There's no such thing as perfect balance and you can't please everyone. If you think fighters are lacking, I'll disagree and point out that a lot of people seem to be perfectly satisfied with them but you're entitled to your opinion. On the other hand, we're getting 500+ posts with only a few constructive ideas tossed in here and there. If someone wanted ideas on how to "fix" the fighter for their game, it's a lot of stuff to plow through.

In any case, carry on. Next time can y'all just create a "+" thread?

 

[HammerMan]

there are people that are cordal and people who WANT to find the middle grounds... but they are scared away by 50+ pages of "this" "no that" going nowhere...

I actually tried to start that thread last year and I was asked by a mod to stop posting in it because it became a fight. I would love for someone to start one where we can share our experiences without being told we are wrong or dumb or lying though... maybe someday.

If we had a "+" thread on this topic, I would completely ignore it which would be cool for me. Let the people talk about how to fix it in their home games instead of having yet another "fighters suck" thread.

“From my point of view the jedi are evil”
“It’s true from a certain point of view”

You two just proved it. Both of you are guilty of what you accuse others of. Me too. I get mad and want people to stop saying I’m wrong.

But at the end of the day you should not have to use a + on a thread title when we already have rules about being nice or at least putting up with each other.

I feel the fighter needs work.
I also feel there is little most on enworld can do about it. Except.

WoTC proved 8 years ago they listen to internet clap back. Just the last year or two we have had confirmed that the player base has grown. So here, at stores at cons anywhere. I will continue to beat the drum that we went the wrong way with 5e fighter. I don’t even know if what we say per day matters. But as long as we are talking about it we are shining a light for them to see