D&D 5E The Fighter/Martial Problem (In Depth Ponderings)

[MuhVerisimilitude]

I am truly a miracle to behold. I can simultaenously be incomplete, meaning I leave a lot of stuff out, and yet have data that I can heavily massage it. Behold my works and tremble at my might!No. Dude. Gloomstalkers are seen as overpowered by many due to their alpha strike extra attack at 3rd level that stacks with multiattack. Optimization guides have shown that you can build very powerful versions of other rangers at the mid levels. They have many abilities that do not excite or seem powerful (except conditionally), but they are just fine overall - although some designs, in particular the Beast Master, need work.

You claim that people are suffering through the playing of fighters. I see people revel in it. Look at Critical Role. Their most seasoned player elected to play a fighter in their third campaign. Is he having fun? Absolutely! I've seen dozens of people choose to play fighters. I've played fighters. None of them (and certainly not I) suffered any coercion, or felt like it was a bad choice.

Survery results, from multiple sources, disagree with you. My personal experiences - which are substantial in nature and cover a wide spectrum of play groups and styles - disagree with you. When confronted with countering evidence, your response is to ambiguously claim the data is simultaneously skimpy and heavily massaged without any support for either of the conflicting arguments.

I think my argument was concise and directly on point - the numbers show people play it more than any other class despite having wide options available to them.

The way 5e is currently designed fighter is essentially the only way you can play a martial character that isn't weighted down by excessively specific flavour. Assume for a second that you don't know too much of the specifics of the system and you only hear the names of the classes and you want to play a fighter-type character. The inspiration? Could be anything, really. Characters focused on using melee weapons are quite common in fiction.

Let's be crazy and take Tanjirou from Demon Slayer. We want to make a character waving around a cool katana and killing demons.

1: Monk is obviously kung-fu stuff and is out.

2: Barbarian is out because the implied flavour is obviously primitive and uneducated. People might make associations with tribal life.

3: Ranger is out because weird nature stuff.

4: Paladin is out because it's heavily religiously flavoured and that does not match many fictional swordsmen.

5: Rogue is out because we're not making a thief.

Yeah you can circumvent some of the above objections by allowing reflavouring, but that's not necessarily going to avoid the issue I'm getting at. People have some particular idea for a character in their mind, and obvious mental images will jump at them as they consider the list of classes.

Fighter is the obvious choice for the character because it has the least amount of specific baggage.

Think of it as a default case. There's pretty much nothing to "object" to.

My point is that people pick it not because it is the epitome of martial design, but because unlike less popular classes like paladin it doesn't reject players through uninteresting flavour.

 

[jgsugden]

...Let's be crazy and take Tanjirou from Demon Slayer. We want to make a character waving around a cool katana and killing demons.

1: Monk is obviously kung-fu stuff and is out.

No u at the end, right? Not an expert here, but why not the Kensei? Because he also kicks and punches?

2: Barbarian is out because the implied flavour is obviously primitive and uneducated. People might make associations with tribal life.

From the wiki: Under Tanjiro's rather kind and friendly shell, is a person with a growing fire of rage and vengeance inside of them.

3: Ranger is out because weird nature stuff.

More from the wiki: Through his heightened sense of smell, Tanjiro can perceive things outside the normal range of perception like the intentions, feelings, and thoughts of other creatures, even of animals such as insects and birds.

4: Paladin is out because it's heavily religiously flavoured and that does not match many fictional swordsmen.

Whatever their origin and their mission, paladins are united by their oaths to stand against the forces of evil. Whether sworn before a god’s altar and the witness of a priest, in a sacred glade before nature spirits and fey beings, or in a moment of desperation and grief with the dead as the only witness, a paladin’s oath is a powerful bond. It is a source of power that turns a devout warrior into a blessed champion....Although many paladins are devoted to gods of good, a paladin’s power comes as much from a commitment to justice itself as it does from a god.

5: Rogue is out because we're not making a thief.

Which is one of the subclasses, but not all of them. Scout and Swashbuckler both seem good here.

Yeah you can circumvent some of the above objections by allowing reflavouring, but that's not necessarily going to avoid the issue I'm getting at.

Circumvent does mean to avoid.

I feel like I could build your concept using any of the above options. Any of them would have the right feel if you played the personality described in the wiki.

People have some particular idea for a character in their mind, and obvious mental images will jump at them as they consider the list of classes.

Fighter is the obvious choice for the character because it has the least amount of specific baggage.

As a class, it has just as much baggage as every other class. When you apply subclasses, they all have intentionally written baggae about what they are and do.

Think of it as a default case. There's pretty much nothing to "object" to.

My point is that people pick it not because it is the epitome of martial design, but because unlike less popular classes like paladin it doesn't reject players through uninteresting flavour.

Ah. This must be why all the quiet, shy and nondescript peopleare the ones being pursued in the dating world. Because people prefer a lack of flavor to the existence of flavor ...

Or, perhaps, people prefer the fighter because it works for them, the several paragraphs of flavor written in the PHB exist, and they actually do enjoy their characters like they've said over and over and over and over ...

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

No u at the end, right? Not an expert here, but why not the Kensei? Because he also kicks and punches? From the wiki: Under Tanjiro's rather kind and friendly shell, is a person with a growing fire of rage and vengeance inside of them. More from the wiki: Through his heightened sense of smell, Tanjiro can perceive things outside the normal range of perception like the intentions, feelings, and thoughts of other creatures, even of animals such as insects and birds.Whatever their origin and their mission, paladins are united by their oaths to stand against the forces of evil. Whether sworn before a god’s altar and the witness of a priest, in a sacred glade before nature spirits and fey beings, or in a moment of desperation and grief with the dead as the only witness, a paladin’s oath is a powerful bond. It is a source of power that turns a devout warrior into a blessed champion....Although many paladins are devoted to gods of good, a paladin’s power comes as much from a commitment to justice itself as it does from a god.Which is one of the subclasses, but not all of them. Scout and Swashbuckler both seem good here.Circumvent does mean to avoid.

I feel like I could build your concept using any of the above options. Any of them would have the right feel if you played the personality described in the wiki.As a class, it has just as much baggage as every other class. When you apply subclasses, they all have intentionally written baggae about what they are and do.Ah. This must be why all the quiet, shy and nondescript peopleare the ones being pursued in the dating world. Because people prefer a lack of flavor to the existence of flavor ...

Or, perhaps, people prefer the fighter because it works for them, the several paragraphs of flavor written in the PHB exist, and they actually do enjoy their characters like they've said over and over and over and over ...

You're kinda missing my point.

I'm not saying you can't fit any particular character idea to any particular class. I've done it myself. I play a barbarian right now that in flavour isn't actually a barbarian (fighter + barb) but in flavour more like an eladrin-trained warrior / gladiator.

I'm saying that certain things are going to jump out at people when they design a character from looking at the class list and it takes some experience with the system to see beyond this. I argue from an assumption that for all I know might be wrong, but it sounds very likely to me: People who start roleplaying and who are not extremely invested it in to the level that we forum-posters are, probably don't do reflavouring.

Your Paladin example is actually great because it's a fine class to reflavour, but the problem is that if you don't actually do reflavouring and if you think of the class itself in terms of the class stereotype, which I am willing to believe most people who are not veterans do, then the paladain is a highly religious holy warrior and Tanjirou is most definitely not a highly religious holy warrior.

I argue that the fighter works because it contains no element in its design that is immediately repulsive to people who do not reflavour classes. Paladin = highly religious fundamentalist, Ranger = weird nature warrior or archer, Monk = 70s kung-fu movie character.

The rogue argument, I think, shows why it doesn't work. Rogue is heavily flavoured as shady and criminal. Yes you can play a non-shady rogue, but is that the immediate character concept that you think of when you make a rogue? The class names and basic concepts evoke certain flavours which you can certainly play around.

 

[jgsugden]

You're kinda missing my point...

I see your point. It does not hold up for the reasons I've already said.

Further, your argument seems to think that this 50% excess of fighters over wizards that we see in the various surveys and metrics is being caused by an overwhelming number of new players playing fighters because they do not know better ... and I'm just not seeing that take place. Most first time players do not even have D&DBeyond, for example. They're getting a character sheet on paper at the game.

 

[ECMO3]

The way 5e is currently designed fighter is essentially the only way you can play a martial character that isn't weighted down by excessively specific flavour.

5: Rogue is out because we're not making a thief.

This is a good point in general, but I would disagree with Rogue. You can do a lot of different Rogue characters. Assassin, Thief and Swashbuckler in particular have very little thematic baggage driven by mechanics that come with the class.

About the only thing Rogue ties you to specifically is Ranged or Finnesse Weapons and you can even forego that if you are looking for a grappler build.

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

This is a good point in general, but I would disagree with this one. You can a lot of different Rogue characters. Assassin, Thief and Swashbuckler in particular have very little thematic baggage due to mechanics that comes with the class.

About the only thing Rogue ties you to specifically is Ranged or Finnesse Weapons and you can even forego that if you are looking for a grappler build.

Point taken. Flavour is such an individual thing. To me it seems like something that would vary a lot from person to person what their impression is of a particular class.

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

I see your point. It does not hold up for the reasons I've already said.

Further, your argument seems to think that this 50% excess of fighters over wizards that we see in the various surveys and metrics is being caused by an overwhelming number of new players playing fighters because they do not know better ... and I'm just not seeing that take place. Most first time players do not even have D&DBeyond, for example. They're getting a character sheet on paper at the game.

I'm not saying they chose fighters because they don't know better. I'm saying that those players believe fighters fit their idea of their character better.

The fighter is the class with the most flexible flavour, because it isn't strongly tied to some particular concept except fighting.

 

[jgsugden]

I'm not saying they chose fighters because they don't know better. I'm saying that those players believe fighters fit their idea of their character better.

You're not saying they don't know better - you're saying they think fighter better fits their character idea even though more experienced players know there may be better options. Check.

The fighter is the class with the most flexible flavour, because it isn't strongly tied to some particular concept except fighting.

You could say a cleric is defined by prayer, a rogue by stealth, or a wizard by spells. There is a lot more depth to all of these classes, including the fighter.

And in the end - it is irrelevant. The question asked in this thread is how to fix the problem of the wizard being so preferable to the fighter that it is broken - and all of the evidence say that people in general pick the fighter more often than the wizard by a good margin.

If you find the fighter boring - don't play one. If you can't enjoy it - there are a lot of other builds. However, a lot of people elect to play it and have a great time doing so. Calling them too inept to realize they shouldn't be doing so is not the best move.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The question asked in this thread is how to fix the problem of the wizard being so preferable to the fighter that it is broken

No, it's wasn't, this thread doesn't even posit a question. Some other threads are asking or exploring how to fix the martial/caster gap, the objective shortfall between the mechanical implementation of the many classes and sub-classes that cast spells, and the handful of sub-classes that do not. You may be thinking of one of those. Though, none of them define the problem in such subjective terms as you choose to. The constant appeals to popularity and subjectivity that are inserted into such discussions are of absolutely no value.

 

[Pedantic]

And in the end - it is irrelevant. The question asked in this thread is how to fix the problem of the wizard being so preferable to the fighter that it is broken - and all of the evidence say that people in general pick the fighter more often than the wizard by a good margin.

That's not the problem statement. You've moved the goalpost from "how do we fix the clear disparity between these classes?" to "how do we shift attitudes about these classes?" We're currently arguing about whether we actually know attitudes, and/or what is meant by the data we have about those attitudes.

The question of balance (expressed in terms of game impact, combat contribution, variety of action declaration, etc.) is not related to mass player preference. I think there's a reasonable case to be made that for the game's commercial success that balance isn't an important question. Less clearly you could make the case that balance is a concern only for a small subset of players or that their play experience would be unimproved or only marginally improved with work to that end. The argument I personally find repugnant but also is frequently implied and occasionally made outright is that balance would be so detrimental to the play experience of some players as to be a net negative, which is a pretty audacious claim.