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

[Oofta]

This last bit is what I keep tripping over.

In tons of posts above, I keep hearing that fighters are disliked and I am not trying to be obtuse (maybe it comes naturally!) but every source I know suggests they’re popular.

I did see a few posts saying certain subclasses don’t resonate but there are so many I am not sure they all have to land for the class to be popular.

I am still trying to find a reason to believe there is more to this than a subset—a minority—of people don’t like fighters.

When you ask how do you know nobody likes them? More arguments about why the individual poster does not like them.

And again I am legitimately asking where this comes from because I like them fine…my tables like them fine…they seem to be the most common class chosen online…

That does not mean they are “good” but one thing at a time. The assertion is they are not popular and no one likes them.

The second is that they are weak (or rather some subclasses are weak under certain conditions) which is not synonymous with the fighter being a bad class overall.

To support this, I am hearing arguments about them not having many choices. But from an overall game perspective, why shouldn’t there be some classes that are simpler than others?

As I said previously barring some pretty good evidence this seems to boils down to a “I prefer x over y” and that is great! But it is not a truth about the game. What am I missing?

Lastly, in the games I play in or DM, the party takes on challenges and the fighters are always in the thick of it. What are all of us doing that is so aberrant?

Honestly? I don't know why "fighters suck" comes up so often. They aren't as flashy, they don't pull rabbits or teleports out of their hat. Their role in the game is different, sometimes perhaps a bit thankless.

People like what they like of course, but sometimes it feels like people complain about fighters because they're popular. But my observation? It's about a half dozen people, some who don't even play 5E, that complain the loudest and most frequently.

It seems like most people that are okay with or like fighters just kind of shrug and more on because it's the same arguments every time.

I've played fighters up to 20th level, run a couple of games to 20th with fighters. I was not disappointed with the fighter, neither were the people who played fighters. None of the reasons I've seen thrown around show up in actual play. Fighters are generally the DPR kings. They can't compete with a rogue or bard on skills that those characters are specialized in, but neither can any of the other classes.

All of which is why I'm going to join the majority of people that ignore this thread and argument.

 

[Minigiant]

u sure they didn’t want as many players from any fandom as possible? Given the size of the player base it seems like they were successful in that

Yes.

But like I said over and over. They let the needs of the grognards

How many folks use 3pp? I did not think all tables even used feats much less multiclassing.

Many tables use feats and multiclassing if they hold up to past 7th level.

3PP not so much.

Why is it unfortunate that campaigns end before the game breaks down? If the game works in the way most people use it, I would assume that is probably ok? Does any version of D&D shine at high levels?

4e did.

Some people actually want to play high level.

Isn’t the most parsimonious explanation of things that there is a subset of players—of indeterminant size—that prefer a different game?

Which if so is ok but is not really a crisis or indictment of poor quality. And which is better than the alternative—-that many people are dissatisfied and only a subset are into it?

It's a case that D&D is too big.

A restaurant that wants even 75% of its desired demographics would still need a lot of dishes.

The same comes with D&D. There are a lot of people with a lot of different desires. And at some point you're going to have to cater to multiple people and not let the desires of one group cancel out the desires of another group. Especially if one group is smaller than another.

That's what happened The grognards that played 5e is a small subset. The majority of people who play 5E are under 40.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yes.

But like I said over and over. They let the needs of the grognards

Many tables use feats and multiclassing if they hold up to past 7th level.

3PP not so much.

4e did.

Some people actually want to play high level.

It's a case that D&D is too big.

A restaurant that wants even 75% of its desired demographics would still need a lot of dishes.

The same comes with D&D. There are a lot of people with a lot of different desires. And at some point you're going to have to cater to multiple people and not let the desires of one group cancel out the desires of another group. Especially if one group is smaller than another.

That's what happened The grognards that played 5e is a small subset. The majority of people who play 5E are under 40.

That wasn't necessarily true when the game was released, even if it's true now. You're judging 2014 by the environment of 2023. The past should never be judged by the standards of the present.

 

[FrogReaver]

This last bit is what I keep tripping over.

In tons of posts above, I keep hearing that fighters are disliked and I am not trying to be obtuse (maybe it comes naturally!) but every source I know suggests they’re popular.

I did see a few posts saying certain subclasses don’t resonate but there are so many I am not sure they all have to land for the class to be popular.

I am still trying to find a reason to believe there is more to this than a subset—a minority—of people don’t like fighters.

When you ask how do you know nobody likes them? More arguments about why the individual poster does not like them.

And again I am legitimately asking where this comes from because I like them fine…my tables like them fine…they seem to be the most common class chosen online…

That does not mean they are “good” but one thing at a time. The assertion is they are not popular and no one likes them.

The second is that they are weak (or rather some subclasses are weak under certain conditions) which is not synonymous with the fighter being a bad class overall.

To support this, I am hearing arguments about them not having many choices. But from an overall game perspective, why shouldn’t there be some classes that are simpler than others?

As I said previously barring some pretty good evidence this seems to boils down to a “I prefer x over y” and that is great! But it is not a truth about the game. What am I missing?

Lastly, in the games I play in or DM, the party takes on challenges and the fighters are always in the thick of it. What are all of us doing that is so aberrant?

So I like fighters. I tend to have more fun playing martials than casters. I also recognize the mechanical power differences. Where does that put me in your analysis?

 

[Warpiglet-7]

That wasn't necessarily true when the game was released, even if it's true now. You're judging 2014 by the environment of 2023. The past should never be judged by the standards of the present.

I think more than that…what if the grogs are right?

If the kids want 4e, WOTC can f around and find out…

Now it’s kind of making sense…this is an edition conversation at its heart.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

So I like fighters. I tend to have more fun playing martials than casters. I also recognize the mechanical power differences. Where does that put me in your analysis?

It depends if you have data.

1. Do people not like fighters? Bring the goods.

2. Are they ineffectual? Bring the goods and show how it is per level/tier.

If people say they are not as “powerful” at high levels I will just shrug. I say OK…I will have more to say on that after I play more high level games. We get to double digits often and want something new to try.

But this is more nuanced than nobody likes fighters. And that is separate from the power curve over tiers.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think more than that…what if the grogs are right?

If the kids want 4e, WOTC can f around and find out…

Now it’s kind of making sense…this is an edition conversation at its heart.

Of yes. I wonder how those posters who fall on @Minigiant 's side of the discussion feel about 4e? I suspect most of them are pro-.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

That's what happened The grognards that played 5e is a small subset. The majority of people who play 5E are under 40.

Yes. Why do you think they agree with you what the game should be like?

 

[Warpiglet-7]

So I like fighters. I tend to have more fun playing martials than casters. I also recognize the mechanical power differences. Where does that put me in your analysis?

I did not answer you well.

You have some things in common with me.

I am the dude that used to play 1e thieves and assassins…with a 19 need to hit 0 until fifth level! Ouch!

Why? It was a fun challenge! It had cool character…we enjoyed it.

I play strength based warriors and blade pact warlocks and so fine….I realize MAD/SAD etc. but I am not worried…

 

[Vaalingrade]

Do the problems with the Ranger and the desire for a non-magical ranger similarly not exist due to some people still playing Rangers?