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

[Minigiant]

Is that really a problem? Someone who needs a "simple" class probably isn't going to notice a slight performance shortfall.

Depends.

The Champion is so bad, it's noticeable if the DM doesn't play favorites for them.

 

[ezo]

You can add ability scores and luck to that long list.

That was the etc. I had in my post.

But seriously, yeah, there are SO many things that influence "effectiveness" in RPGs.

My opinion, supported by extensive play experience, is that it is best not to strive for balance at all. Play what you want to play, let others play what they want to play. I think that works best in modern 5E and making it so you don't need specific classes (no one has to play a Cleric or a Rogue) has really opened up a lot of different playstyles.

Yeah. One of the rogues I had the most fun with was basically a locksmith by trade turned to a life of adventuring. He wasn't great at stealth or perception so the scout role was out, but he was fantastic with thieves' tools, traps, etc.

The Champion is so bad, it's noticeable if the DM doesn't play favorites for them.

That's never been my experience with Champion--if I play a fighter that is nearly always the subclass I go with and I have a lot of fun with it, never felt subpar. That's just my take anyway.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

You can add ability scores and luck to that long list.

My opinion, supported by extensive play experience, is that it is best not to strive for balance at all. Play what you want to play, let others play what they want to play. I think that works best in modern 5E and making it so you don't need specific classes (no one has to play a Cleric or a Rogue) has really opened up a lot of different playstyles.

The "why am I here" example above could be easily answered - "you tell me why are you here and why did you make the build choices you did."

I also notice the vast majority of imbalance examples are focused on combat and not all character builds are intended to excel at combat. I am playing a Glasya Tiefling Rogue 1/Bard 2 right now and she is awful in combat. She has a 19 Charisma and the only real game she has is the Dissonant Whispers spell, which is a decent spell but hit or miss and really limited uses. With a 13 Dex, she is not effective with weapons at all, her AC is 12 and her Constitution is 10. In a party of 6 (Monk, Monk, Paladin, Wizard, Rogue, me) she is a distant 6th in combat, with the Rogue being closer to the top than she is. That will improve as we gain levels and more spells of course but I never see her being a combat powerhouse. She is awesome in the social pillar though, rocking expertise in Deception, proficiency in Persuasion having Friends, Minor Illusion and Disguise self.

This is the second character I played with this group that was mediocre in combat. In a previous campaign I played a 1-12 Half Elf Scout Rogue skill monkey player with the Archeologist background. That character was better in combat, but still at the bottom of the party. He was completely dominant at the exploration pillar and really good at the social pillar.

I think different people want different things from the game.

We relished playing rogues and assassins in 1e. They were “cool” and represented a challenge. Meanwhile a specialized fighter beside them could wreck house. We saw it but had fun.

With 5e how you play matters. People act like my blade pact warlock is op. My highest stat is a 16! I do tend to hold smites for crits and do get lucky…big fun for me…but the champion fighter with a magic axe and 20 strength brings a lot of pain. Maybe not as much as a Paladin or battle master? But it’s “plenty.”

We play what we like and if we are optimally balanced is it be more fun? I don’t think we are picking the game apart like that—in session. We’re adventuring and having fun.

I don’t get the envy of “oh your guy did so much more.” But then again I am focused on my own parameters, rolls and character.

 

[Minigiant]

That's never been my experience with Champion--if I play a fighter that is nearly always the subclass I go with and I have a lot of fun with it, never felt subpar. That's just my take anyway.

This has always been my experience with the Champion. Granted there has always been another melee warrior in the group to compare themselves to.

The newbie champion fighter IME in my experience always figures out that they are weaker then the other warriors if they start to pay attention.

 

[ECMO3]

The newbie champion fighter IME in my experience always figures out that they are weaker then the other warriors if they start to pay attention.

Why do you have a newbie playing a champion at all? Have them play something simpler like a Rogue or even a full caster.

Fighter is not a simple class to play at low levels in 5E. With action surge, second wind, combat styles and complicated subclasses coming online at level 3, you are managing a lot of resources, more than a Wizard or Sorcerer typically is at those levels. Most other classes are simpler to play at low levels and trying to steer newbies to fighters is a big problem IME.

By the time you get to tier 2 it starts to even out with other classes, but by that time your newbie should be a sommewhat experienced player.

 

[Minigiant]

Why do you have a newbie playing a champion at all? Have them play something simpler like a Rogue or even a full caster.

I wasn't the DM.

Fighter is not a simple class to play at low levels in 5E. With action surge, second wind, combat styles and complicated subclasses coming online at level 3, you are managing a lot of resources, more than a Wizard or Sorcerer typically is at those levels. Most other classes are simpler to play at low levels and trying to steer newbies to fighters is a big problem IME.

By the time you get to tier 2 it starts to even out with other classes, but by that time your newbie should be a sommewhat experienced player.

The fighter isn't simple.

The Champion is.

The Champion fighter is also hilariously weak
but
The Champion fighter is is who WOTC and many D&D vets suggest to push on newbies.

WOTC should have designed separate simple classes for newbies.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

WOTC should have designed separate simple classes for newbies.

No they shouldn't. Just have simpler subclasses for some classes. And this doesn't need to make the class weak; champion is not weak because it is simple, it would be very easy to give it better passive bonuses that improved the power whilst keeping the simplicity.

 

[Minigiant]

No they shouldn't. Just have simpler subclasses for some classes. And this doesn't need to make the class weak; champion is not weak because it is simple, it would be very easy to give it better passive bonuses that improved the power whilst keeping the simplicity.

I didn't say the fighter is weak.

I said making a balanced Fighter with a balanced Simple Complex Subclass, a Complex Subclass, a Out of Combat Subclass,, and an Magic Subclass is virtually impossible.

Practically impossible.

It's 100000000000x easier to make 2 separate classes.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I said making a balanced Fighter with a balanced Simple Complex Subclass, a Complex Subclass, a Out of Combat Subclass,, and an Magic Subclass is virtually impossible.

It isn't though. I already told you how to do it. And out of combat fighter class? What's next, a class for wizards that don't do magic?

 

[ECMO3]

I wasn't the DM.



The fighter isn't simple.

The Champion is.

The Champion fighter is also hilariously weak
but
The Champion fighter is is who WOTC and many D&D vets suggest to push on newbies.

WOTC should have designed separate simple classes for newbies.

But you have two levels of fighter before you even get to Champion. By the time the newbie is playing a Champion she should no longer be a newbie.

And an optimized Champion is not "hilariously weak" in tier 1-2, where most of the game is played, it is above average as far as non-casters.

Assuming equal and average ability scores; most Barbarians, all Monks and most Rogues are mechanically weaker in combat at most levels from 3-10. That covers at least half of the possible non-caster builds.