A critique and review of the Fighter class

[GMforPowergamers]

Yeah. no. They aren't. They still suffer from the worst hit dice in the game meaning they go down like Jaques Cousteau.

lol worst hit die in game is on average 2 hps per level less then fighter (3 then barbarian) so over 20 levels that is 40ish hp... over the first 4 levels bearly noticable.

And they haven't even gained their second attack at this point (they will next level admittedly).

I mean no one gets extra attack at 1-4... wait I think monks do...maybe not sure

They are definitely better out of combat - but a bladesinger who thinks they are a fighter and tries tanking on a regular basis is soon going to be a corpse.

Since I have seen full casters tank for 7 years now I just plane don't this to be in any way shape or form true.

And that's before we get into feats, whether great weapon master or polearm master.

lets give you both... it will put your DPR (the thing you are best at) up even more... and do nothing about any other options.

A bladesinger is a wizard who sometimes hits enemies who get too close rather than someone who gets into the thick of it.

sorry I have seen both artificers and wizards be party tanks. neither are as optimal as a druid, cleric, bard, or hexblade but still very viable.

This isn't to say that the bladesinger is bad. It's very effective and far less of a glass cannon than your average wizard. But a fighter it isn't. (I'd have a lot more sympathy if you compared it to a monk).

I don't want your sympathy I would like you to understand.

if you take a wotc dungeon (or homebrew one with no idea what anyone will play) that is meant for 3rd level characters and then run it three times,
1st run it with a fighter a rogue a cleric and a wizard (control group... defualt)
2nd run it with 2 fighters and 2 rogue
3rd run it with 4 full (or fullish if you do hexblade) casters but 2 built for melee

you will NOT see the casters having more problems... you will find 7-9 out of 10 times the 2 fighters and 2 rogue have a harder time

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Vicious Mockery only does 1d4 damage and Mind Sliver 1d6. They're basically all about the secondary effect.

yup but the secondary effect is SOOO good...

Pretty much - but that's because it has Agonizing Blast backing it. A level 5 Eldritch Blast + Agonizing blast is very close in damage output to Scorching Ray.

yes and is on par with most 5th level fighters with a d10 weapon


again... not even close I bet EB has been used more in my home campaigns then any 2 cantrips combined

 

[Shardstone]

Yeah. no. They aren't. They still suffer from the worst hit dice in the game meaning they go down like Jaques Cousteau. And they haven't even gained their second attack at this point (they will next level admittedly). They are definitely better out of combat - but a bladesinger who thinks they are a fighter and tries tanking on a regular basis is soon going to be a corpse. And that's before we get into feats, whether great weapon master or polearm master. A bladesinger is a wizard who sometimes hits enemies who get too close rather than someone who gets into the thick of it.

This isn't to say that the bladesinger is bad. It's very effective and far less of a glass cannon than your average wizard. But a fighter it isn't. (I'd have a lot more sympathy if you compared it to a monk).

Not sure if this jives with reality. I don't really try to tank with bloodsingers, but I sure as well do a good job of it with my high ass AC and spells. Being able to do an attack and a cantrip too is nuts.

 

[Minigiant]

This doesn't follow at all and the Hoplite is an excellent illustration of why. The Dory carried by hoplites would be long enough to be considered a pike - at 2.5-3m it was certainly a reach weapon. And trying to wield pike and shield as a combination is utterly useless in single combat to the point 5e doesn't allow it.

The reason the pike swept the battlefield both for the Hoplites and later in the Pike & Shot era is that you used them in dense blocks. Because they were longer than anything else they'd attack first - and the second rank would get free attacks for anyone that stepped past the first rank. But the pike (and with it the hoplite) worked because it was a formation weapon; with pikes the reach allowed the rear ranks of the pike block to fight.

Or to put things another way if three hoplites were confronted by three people with sword and shield their best plan would be to drop their pikes and draw their swords - otherwise they would probably lose hard. On the other hand if a hundred formed up hoplites with spear and shield, and their flanks protected, were confronted by three hundred people with sword and shield the best thing the swordsmen could do would be to retreat, preferably onto broken ground where the hoplites couldn't keep formation (which is a summary of how the Legions won at both Cynoscephalae and Pydna).

The hoplite is a good member of a formation - but not a good individual fighter. And if they are trying to fight as individuals it should be with either thrown javelins or their sword.

And by making the spear a simple weapon 5e made the spear the weapon of militia and conscripts. By giving it a feat they also made it a weapon of the elite. Meanwhile skirmishers with money carry and use swords - which is all pretty accurate. (Swords were in reality mostly sidearms and are great weapons for carrying easily).

It's not about historic accuracy. It's about fantastic fun.

If the elite hoplite or the romantic knight or the smart tactician are warrior archetypes and D&D 5th edition states that these archetypes are supported, then 5th has to support them as advantageous choices from Tier 1 to Tier 4.


If they are supported by the fighter then fans have a rightful gripe against the Fighter or the lack of new classes, subclasses, feats, or whatever to support them.

Now I'm not claiming the 5th edition design team were incompetent like some claim people are stating. I am stating that the design, test, and development teams' were leaned too heavily to classic and traditional views of the class and therefore they put little emphasis on anything but heavy swordsman, dual wielder, archer, and dextrous duelist. So they were caught of guard when people wanted a fighter who could throw a punch, talk eloquently, throw 3 axes, or come up with tactics.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

It's not about historic accuracy. It's about fantastic fun.

yup... 100% this. the game is about fun.

If the elite hoplite or the romantic knight or the smart tactician are warrior archetypes and D&D 5th edition states that these archetypes are supported, then 5th has to support them as advantageous choices from Tier 1 to Tier 4.

the fact that somehow someone somewhere dreamed up the idea that "if it's good enough in X tier" then it is okay drives me up a wall...
I also laugh because people can't even agree what tier the fighter is good in.

If they are supported by the fighter then fans have a rightful gripe against the Fighter or the lack of new classes, subclasses, feats, or whatever to support them.

every edition (except 4th) had this issue to one extent or another... they just keep building spell casters but forget about non spell casters.

 

[Neonchameleon]

lol worst hit die in game is on average 2 hps per level less then fighter (3 then barbarian) so over 20 levels that is 40ish hp... over the first 4 levels bearly noticable.

At Con 10 there's a 50% difference in hp. If you say Con 14 and then throw in Second Wind there's a 50% difference in accessible hp.

If you think that a 50% difference in hp is "bearly noticable" then that's got more to do with your powers of observation than it does facts.

I mean no one gets extra attack at 1-4... wait I think monks do...maybe not sure

You specifically mentioned "by level 5". Which is when the fighters do get extra attacks.

Since I have seen full casters tank for 7 years now I just plane don't this to be in any way shape or form true.

Clerics, druids, and artificers can all tank. We're talking about Bladesingers.

I don't want your sympathy I would like you to understand.

I do understand - hence me offering my sympathy.

if you take a wotc dungeon (or homebrew one with no idea what anyone will play) that is meant for 3rd level characters and then run it three times,
1st run it with a fighter a rogue a cleric and a wizard (control group... defualt)
2nd run it with 2 fighters and 2 rogue
3rd run it with 4 full (or fullish if you do hexblade) casters but 2 built for melee

you will NOT see the casters having more problems... you will find 7-9 out of 10 times the 2 fighters and 2 rogue have a harder time

And what does this have to do with anything? The equivalent to 2 fighters and 2 rogue would be 2 wizards and 2 sorcerers.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

At Con 10 there's a 50% difference in hp. If you say Con 14 and then throw in Second Wind there's a 50% difference in accessible hp.

I have never known a melee character to have a con 10 but okay... fighter and wizard each get 10 con, and the fighter gets 6hp per level and the wizard gets 4hp per level... aka 2 per level
lets go (with what I think is more reasonable) 14 con and the fighter gets 8 per level and the wizard gets 6 per level... 2pt per level difference.

no starting with max at first does give it a bit of a boost to fighter

1st 10 06 12 08
2nd 16 10 20 14
3rd 22 14 28 20

so over the first 3 levels the biggest difference is at 3rd level with a 10 con (something I still think unreasonable) and at that point you get your 50%.

If you think that a 50% difference in hp is "bearly noticable" then that's got more to do with your powers of observation than it does facts.

50% more only happens if both dump con to 10 and even then you need to be 3rd level.

You specifically mentioned "by level 5". Which is when the fighters do get extra attacks.

and full casters get fireball, haste, counterspell...

Clerics, druids, and artificers can all tank. We're talking about Bladesingers.

we are talking about casters. Or atleast I am. I used hexblade as my go to example since it is the most common tank I see but bard and cleric are tied for 2nd. I said 'even bladesinger isn't bad but not at level 1 and 2' and that forked off into this... the bladesinger is not as good as the other melee casters but it is still good.

And what does this have to do with anything? The equivalent to 2 fighters and 2 rogue would be 2 wizards and 2 sorcerers.

again I am doing caster non caster... but okay make your 3rd level casters a warmage and a blade singer a aberrant mind and a divine soul... there you go.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Not sure if this jives with reality. I don't really try to tank with bloodsingers, but I sure as well do a good job of it with my high ass AC and spells. Being able to do an attack and a cantrip too is nuts.

OK. You're talking about "being able to do an attack and a cantrip". This means that you must be at least level 6. You're replying to a comment referring to at or below level 5.

Bladesingers are skirmishers - but a big question is how much you value first level spells and even second to prevent hits by casting Shield. For a 7th level with fourth level spells first level slots are almost trivial and second level are minor. By contrast at tier 1 a first level slot is significant and tanking is much much more costly. This is part of the scaling issue.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I have never known a melee character to have a con 10 but okay... fighter and wizard each get 10 con, and the fighter gets 6hp per level and the wizard gets 4hp per level... aka 2 per level
lets go (with what I think is more reasonable) 14 con and the fighter gets 8 per level and the wizard gets 6 per level... 2pt per level difference.

To repeat myself in the very sentence you quoted "If you say Con 14 and then throw in Second Wind there's a 50% difference in accessible hp."

Fighters have second wind while wizards don't get self-healing. Which means that as a bonus action they can use in the middle of a fight they have access to a reserve store of hit points they can draw on unless they get one-shot-killed. This is an extra 1hp per level that fighters have access to. So there's a 3hp per level difference - and 3 is 50% of 6.

It's actually more than 50% given that I didn't take the d10 into account.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

To repeat myself in the very sentence you quoted "If you say Con 14 and then throw in Second Wind there's a 50% difference in accessible hp."

yeah i am not adding your 1 and only class feature at level 1 well ignoring the wizard gets spells

Fighters have second wind while wizards don't get self-healing.

no they get ac buffing options and abilities glore that can be swapped out