A critique and review of the Fighter class

[Neonchameleon]

Wouldnt that spellcaster be better served, casting Tounges on the Fighter?

Even if they do it's not the fighter dominating the social scene - it's the fighter being helped by the wizard. And if instead of it being a wizard we've got a bard, a sorcerer, or a warlock probably with a +10 (or possibly +15 from the bard) why would they necessarily not want to demonstrate that they are a more flexible and well rounded package and better able to handle social situations than the one trick pony who's been lording it over them because he's better in a more narrow range of social situations.

The only way your fighter "dominates" the social pillar therefore is if they are either in the narrow range of situations where a straight skill check applies or they are actively helped to do so by the rest of the party (possibly because they are missing a natural face character). Like I say, mid tier as a face. Powerful but limited and requiring the support of the party in a wide range of situations where other faces could bring their own magic.

And the other problem is that even when your fighter is technically very good at the social pillar the way they are is boring. They just have a big number to throw at things. There's no e.g. using Disguise Self to become a quick change artist and be someone else for a while. There's absolutely zero "I've got in to the duke's bedroom but now he and probably not his wife are coming in to have sex and I need to stealth my way out". You're a one trick pony. Its all Persuasion-Persuasion-Persuasion-Insight-Persuasion. Which is the other reason that although you are very good at the one trick you're hardly dominating any game that has interesting social situations.

You're missing a key design choice of 5E. Spells no longer 'auto invalidate' other PCs, and are almost always better off being used to buff the guy that is already very good at something, to be better at that thing.

No I'm not. You're missing that that was the design goal - and they didn't quite succeed.

 

[Flamestrike]

Even if they do it's not the fighter dominating the social scene - it's the fighter being helped by the wizard.

Ah so the game working as intended. Co-operative play with each PC helping the others achieve tasks.

Again, I can literally create a 4th level Battlemaster Fighter, right now, that is Top Tier in the social pillar, while still being just as effective in the Combat pillar (indeed, the most dangerous by far in the Combat pillar).

Vuman BM 4, Manouvers (Precise strike, Tactical assesment, Commanding presence, Pushing attack). Feats: Skill expert (Persuasion, +1 stat), GWM. Background - pick one with good social stuff (Bounty Hunter, Folk Hero, Noble etc)

Has all your standard GWM (with precise strike and tripping attack) goodness, and can also talk someone into pretty much anything (+11.5 to Persuasion, +8.5 to Insight, plus an audience with the king at will, a connection with the locals, or a shady contact in town or whatever his background gives him).

Seriously, this Fighter is rolling Persuasion at +7 (+1d8). At 4th level.

Who else is outclassing him in the Social tier at this level?

 

[Neonchameleon]

Ah so the game working as intended. Co-operative play with each PC helping the others achieve tasks.

Indeed. But this is a world away from what you claimed your build could do by dominating the social pillar. And a bard, sorcerer, or warlock who valued Tongues could cast it on themselves.

Again, I can literally create a 4th level Battlemaster Fighter, right now, that is Top Tier in the social pillar,

Yes - but they won't remain in the top tier as you level up because once again no magic or support abilities. That's acceptable at 4th level but won't remain so.

Seriously, this Fighter is rolling Persuasion at +7 (+1d8). At 4th level.

Your bog standard warlock or sorcerer will be rolling +6 having just spent a skill and nothing else. It's only the +1d8 that makes it even vaguely impressive.

Who else is outclassing him in the Social tier at this level?

It's hard to outclass him at his one trick. So he's not definitively outclassed. But by the same token there are plenty of social builds he isn't outclassing in the social tier. For example the warlock with training in persuasion and deception and who has the Mask of Many Faces invocation (as well as Agonizing Blast) to change what they look like and a flying invisible familiar that can shapechange into an easily overlooked animal when they want to spy on people.

And I'm much more interested in what the warlock will do than in seeing how big a number the social one trick pony will throw.

Finally your focus on "how high a persuasion can I get as that will let me dominate the social pillar" is roughly equivalent to looking at raw stealth numbers. Which again battle master maneuvers and feat investment will give you. But what they won't give you is things like Cunning Action, Pass Without Trace, Invisibility, a flying scout whose eyes you can see through, and more. It's a trick and a good one but it's not the entire pillar.

 

[Flamestrike]

Yes - but they won't remain in the top tier as you level up because once again no magic or support abilities. That's acceptable at 4th level but won't remain so.

I dont care about 'magic or support abilities' (and Battlemasters do get support abilities). They're not relevant to my ability to function in the three pillars.

Your bog standard warlock or sorcerer will be rolling +6 having just spent a skill and nothing else. It's only the +1d8 that makes it even vaguely impressive.

This is 5E. A +11.5 to a skill check at 4th level, is a little beyond 'vaguely impressive'.

It's hard to outclass him at his one trick. So he's not definitively outclassed. But by the same token there are plenty of social builds he isn't outclassing in the social tier. For example the warlock with training in persuasion and deception and who has the Mask of Many Faces invocation (as well as Agonizing Blast) to change what they look like and a flying invisible familiar that can shapechange into an easily overlooked animal when they want to spy on people.

Yes they can do that. With an investment of two invocations (so both of them) at 4th level (so needing a Feat for AB as well), with the pact of the Chain and a familiar that can shape change.

The Fighter is still far better at Persuasion (and insight) - so on the same tier - while also having more HP, a better AC, and deals a lot more damage.

Finally your focus on "how high a persuasion can I get as that will let me dominate the social pillar"

That's not just the focus. He can also intimidate (with a huge bonus) and has insight (with a huge bonus) and his background feature, and soon (a few levels) will be able to literally assess the level and HP and strength of an opponent, just by looking at them.

So he dominates the combat pillar, and is no slouch (among the top tier) in the Social pillar.

Note, I havent even used one of his Bonus Feats yet. I've made him a top tier social class by giving him a +1 Stat Half feat, and using 2 of his maneuver choices (of which he has 4).

For 3 invocations at this level, your Warlock above has also had to blow a feat, his Pact boon (but it can also be used for Scouting) and 2/3 of his available invocations.

Seriously, lets meet in the middle here. Are they really that wildly outlcassing each other? The Fighter wins in the Combat pillar, the Warlock is the better scout, the Fighter dominates the Social pillar, and the Warlock has a few tricks and utility from cantrips, maybe a spell (that isnt being used on Hex, so as not to be hopelessly outclassed by the Fighter in combat).

To me they seem to even out here, with the advantage going to the above Fighter.

 

[Minigiant]

Half the issue is that fighters don't get any noncombat features outside of subclass but feats.

And feats don't all scale. Most are Tier 1 and don't scale. WOTC is now testing feat trees.

So in the fiction where a noble or knight fighter should be the party face, a sorcerer, paladin, or warlock who isn't even focused on the role does it better. And forget about the bard or rogue. So your knight or noble is out-faced instant if 4 classes even sit in your party or if 5 other classes mildly nudge to social pillar.

So most players does even attempt it. "Charisma class in the party. Might as well not get into social. Maybe I can take a INT skill or WIS skill that the priest class doesn't take. Maybe if there are no wizards or artificers, I can be the highest in knowledge skill or 2"

This is where skill challenges variant rules shone. By making exploration and social contest multiple rolls, it was beneficial to have multiple PCs with redundant skills.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I dont care about 'magic or support abilities' (and Battlemasters do get support abilities). They're not relevant to my ability to function in the three pillars.

They absolutely are relevant to how effective you are in the three pillars. You can be functional without them - but not top tier.

Yes they can do that. With an investment of two invocations (so both of them)

One of the invocations I mentioned was Agonizing Blast - which has no out of combat use at all and I mentioned to point out that I'm not needing to spend everything on the pillar.

at 4th level (so needing a Feat for AB as well),

Nope. I only have one other invocation

with the pact of the Chain and a familiar that can shape change.

Yup. It's a good pact, especially in the exploration pillar.

Note, I havent even used one of his Bonus Feats yet.

No. You've spent one of his core feats on Skill Expert. Ok, so that's only half a feat because it. You haven't spent any bonus feats because he doesn't have any bonus feats because it has a +1 ASI attached. But you have literally spent half the feats he gets from being a fighter on skills. And in doing so you have made his getting STR 18 at level 4 with either point buy or the standard array impossible. So at the point you've snapshotted you've more or less given up the entire combat potential of the only class based feat you have.

Of course what allows you to do this is the sleight of hand of picking Vuman and then having your race take the fighter feat...

I've made him a top tier social class by giving him a +1 Stat Half feat, and using 2 of his maneuver choices (of which he has 4).

The fighter had a  massive subclass in Tasha's which you have taken full advantage of. The three subclasses that have come out either in or after Tasha's (Psi Warrior, Rune Knight, Echo Knight) have decent non-combat options and you are leaning exclusively on non- combat Tasha's battlemaster abilities. For both builds.

And as I've said in the past one of the most significant ways Tasha's improves the game is that it makes its fighter subclasses something other than commoners out of combat. Including the Battlemaster.

Seriously, lets meet in the middle here. Are they really that wildly outlcassing each other?

No. That's the point I was making. You've just invested a whole lot more here. I've invested one invocation, a pact boon, and making charisma my best stat. I haven't even looked at spells (invisibility will be one and is a multi-pillar spell) or the subclass.

The thing is the longer this goes on the further behind the fighter will fall. I don't think anyone thinks that fighters have serious problems bin Tier 1

The Fighter wins in the Combat pillar, the Warlock is the better scout, the Fighter dominates the Social pillar, and the Warlock has a few tricks and utility from cantrips, maybe a spell (that isnt being used on Hex, so as not to be hopelessly outclassed by the Fighter in combat).

To me they seem to even out here, with the advantage going to the above Fighter.

 

[bedir than]

So at 4th level the Fighter took Feats, something any other class can do. That doesn't prove anything about a Fighter - that's just how cool Feats are.

 

[Oofta]

The problem is that not only does the fighter need to be decent at skills and is comparable to 80% of the other classes, they have to be as good or better. Heck, fighters aren't good because they can't compare to a bard who's main reason for existence is being the party's face?

It's not like every party has a bard. If there is a bard, then odds are, the fighter can focus on something else. Maybe they focus on stealth and picking locks because the party has no rogue. Maybe they focus on survival skills or use one of their extra feats to take the healer feat and help keep the party alive.

For the love of Orcus THERE IS NO PROBLEM.

It's only a 'problem' to a small core of whiners that raise the same points over and over and over again, in this thread (and threads like it) that they spawn every week, and have done for years now.

Overwhelmingly (in survey after survey) Fighter is actually the most popular class. It dominates the combat pillar (likely why it's so popular) and I've already demonstrated (repeatedly) there is nothing stopping from creating a Fighter that is top tier in other pillars as well.

The Fighter is also the most heavily nerfed (by house rules) and most frequently complained about as being OP class in the game as well.

Examples include:

DM: I dont care about HP, my game has insta death for (falling, lava, assassinations etc).

Effect: Deprive the Fighter of the benefit of his class feature (d10 HD) and nix his Second wind while you're at it. Those HP are expressly there to give him the Plot armor to survive such things, and they're a class feature. Ruling they dont matter in some cases (when the rules clearly and unambiguously say otherwise) punishes the class with the higher HP the most.

DM We use fumbles in my game!

Effect: punishes the Fighter for no other reason other than 'advancing in level' and does so more than any other class with Monks around the same area, seeing as Fighters (and Monks) make more attack rolls than any other class in the game (especially casters, who can go 20 levels without ever making an attack roll).

DM: We use flanking!

Effect: Punishes martials, because they now get advantage on them, most of the time, by most monsters, and who is up the front getting flanked in the first place and doing his job? The Fighter.

DM: GWM/ SS are waaaay broken so i made the following changes...

Effect: Hurts the fighter the most, because they make the best use of those feats, more than any other class.

DM: Oh we dont use the 6-8 encounter/ 2-3 short rest Adventuring day. We have one 'super deadly' combat encounter per long rest, maybe 2 at most!

Effect: Hurts the fighter the most, along with any other short rest dependent class like the Warlock.

DM: In my games we impose a level of exhaustion on anyone who drops to zero HP...

Effect: Impacts people getting hit the most (Fighters and other martials), and who actually give a toss about most of what Exhaustion does (unlike casters, who don't care about half movement, or disadvantage on skills and attack rolls anywhere near as much as a Fighter would).

I could go on an on and on an on.

You people complaining about Fighters (and indeed all Martials) are a broken record. I absolutely assure you there are other factors contributing to Fighters 'performance issues' at your tables, and I bet you it isnt the fault of the Fighter class itself.

Just a reminder: you can't have any discussion that includes feats, disguise kits or hats of disguise (only casters can disguise self), a fighter that happens to speak orcish for one reason or another. Oh, and charm person is some kind of ultimate mind control that does more than just make you a friendly acquaintance and gives you advantage on social skill checks. Forget the fact that after the spell is done the target knows you charmed them, apparently NPCs cease to exist after an hour goes by or they develop amnesia.

It's a silly argument. The fighter can be good at a wide variety of things, not just combat, not just social encounters. But in order to "compete" they have to be better than the bard, better than the caster* who happens to have exactly the right spell and spell slots for any scenario in a game with no feats or magic items. The wizard always has tongues (comprehend languages just lets you understand, not speak a language) prepared. A fighter getting aid from another PC to accomplish any goal is pointless, although the same logic doesn't apply to other classes. The fact that, as far as we know, fighter is one of the most popular classes has no relevance. Throw in that the party obviously has a rogue, bard, wizard or whatever class could be better at any specific skill for any specific scenario.

I don't think fighters need to be, nor should they be, better at non-combat than those classes that are explicitly designed to excel at out of combat scenarios. They just have to be decent and have a fair amount of flexibility to focus on some non-combat skills if it's something the player desires. They're never going to be a jack-of-all-trades like a bard. They're never going to compete with a high level rogue's expertise and reliable talent. I for one wouldn't want them to.

*including warlocks and sorcerers with their limited options for what spells they can cast and, in the case of the warlock, significant limits on how many spells can be cast.

 

[Umbran]

It's only a 'problem' to a small core of whiners

Mod note:
But insulting people is a problem to everyone.

I'm going to have to ask you to make your points without degrading or demeaning people. If you can't do that, you are probably better off finding a different discussion, before this one incites you to say something that gets you in more significant trouble than a bit of red text.

 

[SteveC]

This issue sort of brings up that song from Beauty and the Beast about a "tale as old as time."

Fighters definitely are the sort of character you give to the new person to play for the "I hit it" action every round in combat. There is definitely a place for that in the game. I think the problem with that line of thinking is that a fighter should do what they're designed for the very best, and unless you're using a particular play style with a lot of encounters in the day, they just don't.

I'll just echo the point that the fighter is supposed to be combat pillar focused and not social or exploration focused, but their poor skill selection and lack of other abilities really handicaps them in those situations. That doesn't mean that the fighter can't roleplay in those areas, they just don't have any mechanical backup for them. They have exactly as many roleplay resources as any other class, but most of the other classes have something mechanical.

I said during the design for 5E that the different pillars should be designed around giving each class something to do with them and that didn't happen. There is this excellent product called Level Up that all of you may have heard about (HAH!) that expands on those pillars really well but it is definitely a design deficiency in the core rules that just hasn't been addressed.