A critique and review of the Fighter class

[Neonchameleon]

Maybe that's why the three legendary weapons in White Plume Mountain were explicitly not long swords, lol, to make it less likely that anyone would want one. That the odds are stacked for magical weapons to be long swords, and worse, that some weapons simply cannot have a magical enchantment beyond +3, seems to be very strange, and the reasoning was never explained.

It was pretty explicitly to help fighters and keep the good weapons out of the hands of clerics. And was far stronger in oD&D than in 1e.

The reason for the longsword being favoured was something had to be so most people could use most items. And possibly was why blackrazor was originally a greatsword. Incidently there's a second set of favouring of fighter weapons going on; for no simulationist reason at all the longsword does 1d12 damage vs large and larger creatures, and a greatsword does 3d6. Meanwhile cleric weapons didn't do extra damage.

It's also worth mentioning that whereas clerics can wear fighter armour but have very few magic weapon choices thieves can wield fighter weapons but there's very little in the way of magic armour for them.

It was like "we have this huge table of possible weapons, but this one is the best one for almost all purposes, and oh by the way, two handed weapons and non-magical shields are a trap, you want to dual wield. Always."

Magical shields definitely weren't a trap. With actually bounded accuracy a magic shield really helped with tanking

 

[James Gasik]

It was pretty explicitly to help fighters and keep the good weapons out of the hands of clerics. And was far stronger in oD&D than in 1e.

The reason for the longsword being favoured was something had to be so most people could use most items. And possibly was why blackrazor was originally a greatsword. Incidently there's a second set of favouring of fighter weapons going on; for no simulationist reason at all the longsword does 1d12 damage vs large and larger creatures, and a greatsword does 3d6. Meanwhile cleric weapons didn't do extra damage.

It's also worth mentioning that whereas clerics can wear fighter armour but have very few magic weapon choices thieves can wield fighter weapons but there's very little in the way of magic armour for them.

Magical shields definitely weren't a trap. With actually bounded accuracy a magic shield really helped with tanking

I said "non-magical shields", lol.

 

[tetrasodium]

I said "non-magical shields", lol.

Player:"I have all this AC & almost never get attacked, this sucks, why does nothing attack me when I'm clearly a tank?"
GM: "Because you have like 27ac and most attackers hope to obtain results when attacking"

 

[James Gasik]

Bear in mind I'm talking about AD&D, where a shield was only worth +1 AC without enchantments, and options existed to get better AC than that without even carrying a shield at all starting at level 1 in 2e. Not to mention the ridiculous power of two-weapon fighting in 2e.

5e, shields have their place, even if I'd rather they do more than just be a portable wall that you slap onto your arm. For example, they're quite nice for Clerics who don't plan on using melee weapons at all (they'd be nice for battle Clerics if the rules weren't so persnickety about having to have a hand free, even if you can use your shield as a Focus- dropping my weapon to the floor or having to stow it to cast even a bonus action spell is just obnoxious for a caster class intended to use melee weapons and shields).

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Player:"I have all this AC & almost never get attacked, this sucks, why does nothing attack me when I'm clearly a tank?"
GM: "Because you have like 27ac and most attackers hope to obtain results when attacking"

this reminds me of 4e defenders marking targets and having high ACs. It turns out sometimes it's bad to have AC too high. If you WANT to be the target you have to be hitable.

 

[tetrasodium]

this reminds me of 4e defenders marking targets and having high ACs. It turns out sometimes it's bad to have AC too high. If you WANT to be the target you have to be hitable.

Yea, I keep giving my players lower ac medium armor with old style Dr only for the Ilunhittable ac folks to turn their nose up and go back to grumbling about how things attack the lower ac party members even when they charge into reach expecting mere proximity to make them targets

 

[James Gasik]

this reminds me of 4e defenders marking targets and having high ACs. It turns out sometimes it's bad to have AC too high. If you WANT to be the target you have to be hitable.

You know, I remember the time I decided to play a Knight Fighter and went with a two handed weapon for maximum punishment. Suddenly every enemy was targeting me exclusively, I never got to punish anyone, and I started running out of healing surges very quickly.

As soon as I could, I switched to a one handed and a shield, and enemies started targeting other characters again. I decided never to try that experiment again.

 

[James Gasik]

Yea, I keep giving my players lower ac medium armor with old style Dr only for the Ilunhittable ac folks to turn their nose up and go back to grumbling about how things attack the lower ac party members even when they charge into reach expecting mere proximity to make them targets

I mean, that's how things worked in the old days. Monsters attacked whoever was closest to them, who needs defender mechanics? Bah!

Man I miss those defender mechanics.

It's bizarre that the Barbarian is likely the best defender in 5e, since when Rage is up, they take less damage, but enemies can't afford to ignore them. And if they're using Savage Attacker, who can turn down that nice juicy advantage to hit?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

You know, I remember the time I decided to play a Knight Fighter and went with a two handed weapon for maximum punishment. Suddenly every enemy was targeting me exclusively, I never got to punish anyone, and I started running out of healing surges very quickly.

As soon as I could, I switched to a one handed and a shield, and enemies started targeting other characters again. I decided never to try that experiment again.

yeah it's a trade off. I had a swordmage that's AC was 9pts better then the next best PC, and 13 better then the worst... No enemy would choose to hit the swordmage after the first round. Even with the swordmage negating half the damage half damage was better then no damage...

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I mean, that's how things worked in the old days. Monsters attacked whoever was closest to them, who needs defender mechanics? Bah!

Man I miss those defender mechanics.

It's bizarre that the Barbarian is likely the best defender in 5e, since when Rage is up, they take less damage, but enemies can't afford to ignore them. And if they're using Savage Attacker, who can turn down that nice juicy advantage to hit?

yeah we reflavored Barbarian as a Jedi style monk by saying "rage" was "Battle Meditation" and they were by FAR the best defender we have had yet...