D&D 5E Martials should just get free feats

[Micah Sweet]

People don't play fighters for at least four reasons:

1. They don't fulfil the intended promise made by D&D Next in the design document which is, in so many words to be the best at fighting. (Something which should be contrasted with the wizard being the best at spellcasting and demonstrate that being the best at something is not intended to make the best class).
2. Outside combat they are the lowest common denominator commoner class, with the fewest skills in the game, armour getting in the way, and no abilities that help them do anything that a commoner with no additional class features can't.
3. In combat they are boring, playing patty-cake with the enemy until someone's hit points run out rather than actually doing interesting things round understanding and meaningfully changing the combat. (This is as much a problem with the 5e hit point escalation as anything)
4. A fighter isn't what they want to play (which is fair enough)

I know several people, myself included who consider the average 5e fighter to be an NPC snoozefest of a class but love fighters who actually get options, whether it's 4e style tactical fighters, echo knights, or other larger than life types. You are literally the only person I have ever seen anything from who likes 5e's weak and generally boring fighters. So could you explain what you like so much about the spamtastic 4e fighter that has no more out of combat agency than a commoner please? Because I have literally never met anyone who had this attitude.

Also your class is far more important than your race. Why should your race let you shatter the laws of physics and your class not unless you use spells?

Well for that last point, it works better for verisimilitude for some folks, myself included.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Honestly, what surprises is me is that Paladin isn't the most popular class. There's not a lot that Fighters do that Paladins can't do just as well if not better. You can even play "no thinkum" by just smiting all the things!

I think it likely comes down to people who think the class is more complex than it is, due to it's spellcasting, people who believe the class is more restrictive than it actually is (either due to the legacy of the class or DM's who prefer old school Paladins), people who believe you have to play a Paladin like a stereotype, or people who believe in order to play a Paladin requires interfacing with a made up religion.

If any or all of those are true, Paladin is a class that needs better Public Relations.

I think some of it is that for all the mechanics of the fighter are utterly lacking the idea of the fighter is a compelling one. The paladin in 5e has vastly better mechanics, especially at high level - but there are RP restrictions to it, notably the oaths. Rather than being e.g. from the School of Hard Knocks.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Well for that last point, it works better for verisimilitude for some folks, myself included.

Whereas for other folks, myself included, the concept of a tier 4 fighter who is still (a) a muggle and (b) doesn't have Batman-style "Charles Atlas Superpowers" or some such abilities destroys versimilitude.

I wouldn't have this problem if (a) a fighter was a class with a level 10 or level 11 cap, (b) they got something like "Cold iron hard counters direct magic" so they could cut through spells and do things the casters couldn't, or (c) they were Batman at high level when the spellcasters are literally able to turn themselves into dragons or (d) went into the mythic realms. But at tier 4 just about everyone is or should be mythic. The only new thing the fighter gets is an extra attack?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

People don't play fighters for at least four reasons:

1. They don't fulfil the intended promise made by D&D Next in the design document which is, in so many words to be the best at fighting. (Something which should be contrasted with the wizard being the best at spellcasting and demonstrate that being the best at something is not intended to make the best class).
2. Outside combat they are the lowest common denominator commoner class, with the fewest skills in the game, armour getting in the way, and no abilities that help them do anything that a commoner with no additional class features can't.
3. In combat they are boring, playing patty-cake with the enemy until someone's hit points run out rather than actually doing interesting things round understanding and meaningfully changing the combat. (This is as much a problem with the 5e hit point escalation as anything)
4. A fighter isn't what they want to play (which is fair enough

very well said

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Whereas for other folks, myself included, the concept of a tier 4 fighter who is still (a) a muggle and (b) doesn't have Batman-style "Charles Atlas Superpowers" or some such abilities destroys versimilitude.

I wouldn't have this problem if (a) a fighter was a class with a level 10 or level 11 cap, (b) they got something like "Cold iron hard counters direct magic" so they could cut through spells and do things the casters couldn't, or (c) they were Batman at high level when the spellcasters are literally able to turn themselves into dragons or (d) went into the mythic realms. But at tier 4 just about everyone is or should be mythic. The only new thing the fighter gets is an extra attack?

that's the thing... normally in fiction the everyman that is able to move within the circles of the gods or god like people can be the best of the best and do things no real world person can do...

 

[Micah Sweet]

Whereas for other folks, myself included, the concept of a tier 4 fighter who is still (a) a muggle and (b) doesn't have Batman-style "Charles Atlas Superpowers" or some such abilities destroys versimilitude.

I wouldn't have this problem if (a) a fighter was a class with a level 10 or level 11 cap, (b) they got something like "Cold iron hard counters direct magic" so they could cut through spells and do things the casters couldn't, or (c) they were Batman at high level when the spellcasters are literally able to turn themselves into dragons or (d) went into the mythic realms. But at tier 4 just about everyone is or should be mythic. The only new thing the fighter gets is an extra attack?

I hear you, and a mythic fighter would be a cool class. I would be able to bend for that if a good, non-mechanical explanation is provided.

But either way, you're going to have to look at 3pp for it, because WotC will, IMO,  never make the fighter you want. They have no reason they care about you do so.

 

[James Gasik]

I mean you can see the origins of the Fighter with a lot of classic pulp heroes, Conan (despite being called a Barbarian, is obviously a Fighter), John Carter, Lord Greystoke/Tarzan...really just about any Edgar Rice Burroughs protagonist, and even characters based on those archetypes, like Corwin of Amber.

These characters only occasionally use weapons other than swords (the occasional gun or raygun) or avail themselves of magic (or super science). They tend to be just as dangerous without weapons as with, and can readily use just about any oddball weapon they come across in a pinch...all of things which basically scream "Fighter".

But there are two key differences to note. One, these characters tend to have amazing ability scores, beyond standard arrays, point buy, or even the laws of probability.

And two, they generally have deep and varied skill sets acquired over many years- it's not uncommon for these archetypical characters to be long-lived compared to normal humans to justify this, but that's not a given.

This runs counter to the "zero to hero" fantasy at the core of D&D, where you're not playing Conan, not even Conan at level 1, but a slightly above average guy who will never quite reach the epic heights of such a character, as they gain attributes and skills at a much more conservative pace.

So in almost every version of the game it feels like you're not actually able to become the heroic figure the game tells you you're meant to be.

Look at some of the examples D&D occasionally gives you for who your character could be like, then look at that character, and look back at your PC, and realize that's not really true.

2e told us that our Fighters could be (among others) Hercules, Beowulf, Cuchulain, Hannibal, Alexander, Charlemagne, or Richard the Lionheart.

5e stops short of comparing you to iconic D&D characters (other than Bruenor Battlehammer in chapter 1), which is good; if someone came into the game expecting their Ranger to be Drizzt Do'Urden, I'd have to try and let them down easily.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Whereas for other folks, myself included, the concept of a tier 4 fighter who is still (a) a muggle and (b) doesn't have Batman-style "Charles Atlas Superpowers" or some such abilities destroys versimilitude.

I'll actually put some specifics on this.

The fighter at up to level 8 is fine assuming they have picked a good subclass to carry their level 3 and 7 increases. The only tweak I think needs making is that all classes that gain a feat and only a feat at set levels should also get a new trained skill while the spellcasters are advancing spellcasting. Three feat/ASIs is of course where most PCs can hit 20 in their primary stat and have their primary feat; with rare exceptions (Crossbow Expert/Sharpshooter being the main one) there isn't much feat synergy after that and your new feat becomes something that wasn't good enough for you last time. They're slightly OP at level 1 and slightly weak at level 8. But generally it's fine.

The level 9 fighter ability Indomitable is weaksauce. One reroll once/long rest is better than nothing. Just. But it is very weak on a class that was already behind the curve at that point. As a proposal I'd suggest giving the fighter advantage on all saving throws against spells rather than once per day on a saving throw. But this is haggling about numbers. And the fighter level 11 ability is great and does exactly what I'd want off a fighter level 11 ability.

So the total fighter power fixes I'm asking for from levels 1-11 amount to three extra trained skills, one each time they pick up a feat, and upgrading a single level. I don't think that there's anything there that would break the versimilitude of @Micah Sweet (I want a more tactical class than even the battlemaster but this is about what I genuinely think doesn't work)

It's from level 12-19 that the fighter is a complete disaster of a class. They gain literally nothing (other than from a subclass) that they don't already have access to at earlier levels - and feats become definite "Not good enough for the previous pick" choices after either your third or fourth. And this is as you get into the tiers that the "ordinary warrior" just shouldn't thematically be able to cut it. What I want to do is give them a second subclass, allowing for Mythological Warrior, Batman, Anti-Mage and possibly more.

 

[James Gasik]

Fighters, Barbarians, and Rogues are really the classes that most could use an Epic Destiny at levels beyond 10, imbuing them with powers beyond those of mortal men. Like finding out you're the son of a God, or being given a divine boon, or just finding out there's a Prophecy with your name on it.

Of course, having said that, I'm sure someone will say "but that doesn't match my fiction of what a Fighter should be", as if there's nothing particularly special about the ginormous and often fantastic foes they face at higher levels that would require one to transcend mortal limits.

 

[ECMO3]

I think the reason germane to this discussion is that half of the phrase RPG is game, meaning the rules and mechanisms you can interact with by playing it.

Fighters (even the battlemaster) have fewer buttons to press in the ruleset, which to some can make them boring to play.

For some maybe, but not for others. I've never felt bored playing a fighter partially because there is so much you can do with your action aside from those buttons.

I guess for some it could be limited, but maybe then that is not the best class for them?