A critique and review of the Fighter class

[Oofta]

So, the Paladin gets the same out of combat benefit and more in combat benefit. So they simply get more.

Then you're comparing combat capability. That's a separate discussion, one that includes paladins not getting second wind, action surge, a couple of fighting styles, etc.

Also spells prepared. The Paladin gets an extra spell prepared from an extra 2 Cha, expanding their versatility.

What edition are you playing?

 

[Bill Zebub]

But imagine if you could!

Well, I probably can. I’m sure the next time we start a campaign (and I’m not DMing) whoever is DMing would be cool with that.

That’s one of the great things about RPGs, right?

 

[Oofta]

The Out of Combat is not the same. The Paladin has social and exploration spells. The Fighter has none.

What social and exploration spells? I'm playing a paladin (now 10th level), I have zone of truth, I think I used it once and threatened to use it one other time. I suppose I have a couple of locate spells that I've never used.

Heck even a ranger with negative Charisma has better social strength because they can talk to animals and plants and get bonus languages which open up semi-exclusive silos withi the pillar.

And getting that Fighter's OOC strength up requires sacrifice of combat power via a fighting style or feat.

If someone cares about OOC, they can do things to make themselves better.

You keep insisting that casters have all these amazing abilities, and every once in a great while a niche spell will come in handy. But in my experience they are rarely used.

So what spells, exactly, does a paladin get that make them so much better?

Now I'll admit that it's also a different perspective. In the game where I play a paladin*, over a hundred or so hours of gameplay a spell has made a difference OOC probably twice. Even then, it wouldn't have bothered me in the least if I had come up with a good way of using that Zone of Truth and asked the cleric to cast/threaten to cast it. It's a team game, one where everybody at the table contributes in every game I've played in. In or out of combat.

*I was going to play a fighter because we needed someone front-line, but we have a big group and only 1 cleric so I made a variant human with the healer feat and went paladin to give us some extra oomph in the healing department.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Bear in mind that it is entirely possible for fighters to genuinely be fine in some games.
If you have long adventuring days, full of combat, in dungeons or other confined areas, for example and not a lot of other-pillar interaction or downtime, then fighters will shine, particularly at low levels. As social and exploration/investigation pillars start creeping in, days have fewer fights, and the party moves out of the dungeon and starts getting downtime, fighters will start doing less well.

100% I can run a agame where martial classes shine (although when I do I normally let my players know that so we load up on them). my issue is that there are huge divides between classes.

Most groups have a balance of all of these factors that is unique to them. Many people can say "Fighters are fine" in complete honesty because it is true. For them.

right and if someone says "Oh, you have that issue, I never ran into it" that's cool... it's when "I never ran into it so it doesn't happen" I have an issue with.

Lets keep the snark down to a dull roar can we please? I don't want Fighters to go the way of the Katana.

I will try... also I don't want it to either... my pitched fix is to break it up into 3 classes... 1 based on champion 1 based on eldritch knight and one based on battle master but with very diffrent feels. (I also am pro breakk up wizard )

 

[bedir than]

What social and exploration spells? I'm playing a paladin (now 10th level), I have zone of truth, I think I used it once and threatened to use it one other time. I suppose I have a couple of locate spells that I've never used.

If someone cares about OOC, they can do things to make themselves better.

You keep insisting that casters have all these amazing abilities, and every once in a great while a niche spell will come in handy. But in my experience they are rarely used.

So what spells, exactly, does a paladin get that make them so much better?

Now I'll admit that it's also a different perspective. In the game where I play a paladin*, over a hundred or so hours of gameplay a spell has made a difference OOC probably twice. Even then, it wouldn't have bothered me in the least if I had come up with a good way of using that Zone of Truth and asked the cleric to cast/threaten to cast it. It's a team game, one where everybody at the table contributes in every game I've played in. In or out of combat.

*I was going to play a fighter because we needed someone front-line, but we have a big group and only 1 cleric so I made a variant human with the healer feat and went paladin to give us some extra oomph in the healing department.

Just by have Zone of Truth and Detect X that's infinitely more social and exploration as part of the base class.

When you say it's a team game and everyone contributes out of combat, what's the Fighter contributing that's unique to their class?

 

[Bill Zebub]

When you say it's a team game and everyone contributes out of combat, what's the Fighter contributing that's unique to their class?

Why does a contribution have to be unique?

Taking your zone of truth example, 4 different classes can cast it. It's not unique.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

In a whiteroom scenario where the wizard always has the correct spell prepared and spell slots to spare, sure.

in any non white room scenero even if the wizard does NOT have any spells at all (no cantrips, no spells per day nothing) if they have the same stat and the same skill prof thee wizard and fighter are equal out of combat... but the wizard will NEVER have NO spells, they will have cantrips and SOMETHING preped.

 

[Oofta]

As a class, Rogues keep up pretty well with fighters in damage. Sneak attack damage stays broadly comparable with equivalent extra attack damage, and their superior manoeuvrability and uncanny dodge help significantly in staying alive.

In your game, when two identically-dressed warriors step into the tavern, do the patrons automatically know which is the fighter and which is the bard?


Level 11 you're looking at what? +10 to hit? Unless you're still just exclusively fighting zombies at that level, almost any attack in definitely not guaranteed to hit.


Maybe thinking of it like dice might be easier for you to visualise it:
In any random situation, there will be a random level of capability that your character may be able to apply to it.
At baseline (1) you're making non-proficient ability checks on non-primary abilities. Then you might have proficient ability checks on non-primary abilities or non-proficient ability checks on primary abilities (2). Proficient primary ability checks get you 3, but if you're really lucky you may be able to apply a proficient primary ability check with some sort of special bonus or advantage to get a score of 4.
Spells allow more spectacular results than you can get with ability checks: a high-end spell directly applicable for the situation might score a 6, but lower-level, or spells not specifically designed for the situation would be lower, all the way down to not having any applicable spells for this random situation. Or being out of spell slots. - There is no guarantee that in any specific situation a caster will have the right spell.

The issue is not so much that wizards get to roll a d6 while fighters only get a d4. It is that wizards roll both a d4 and a d6, and pick the best. Even if you posit a situation where there are no spells applicable, the wizard class has the same options as the fighter class. If not better, because like all casters, wizards can be generally better overall than fighters at ability checks.


. . . and the fighter needs Strength, but may also want to put better scores into dexterity and constitution if they want to live.



Having a powerful ability but choosing not to use it all of the time is better than not having that ability at all.




OK. You specifically added the bolded words: they are not part of the original statements that you are reacting to.
Why did you feel the need to do this?

Sorry if I'm skipping over most of your post, but if casters are basically on par with fighters, why is this such a big issue? I keep pointing out why I don't think that there's much of a difference. There are very few spells that add a significant amount to social interactions - charm person has significant drawbacks. Familiars and a few spells help with exploration, but at the cost of limited resources. Disguise/alter self can be quite useful but can also be replicated with a hat of disguise or even a simple disguise kit for what it's normally used for.

I'm not saying that casters get no benefits from spell outside of combat, obviously they do. They tend to be things that aid the party, there's nothing that makes the other PCs without spells pointless. That's not their role. But reasonably competent? Able to contribute to the group's goals? The sentiment I get is that unless fighter are the optimal choice for something outside of combat, they're worthless. If casters are not far and above better than fighters out of combat, why is it such a huge issue?

A lot of it depends on style of campaign and DM as well. Invisibility is great if the party regularly casts it on the rogue who then goes off on their own to do some scouting. For a lot of people that would be boring and based on the DM "never split the party" may be the best way to ensure survival. Most people I play with don't care if they're the ones that cast [insert spell here], if they can be the one to suggest the spell or if the spell helps the party achieve their goals.

I guess what it really comes down to is that this is just one of those things I've rarely encountered in an actual game. Most people have fun just trying to figure out solutions to obstacles, it doesn't really matter who actually does the thing to overcome the obstacle in the majority of cases. People recognize that different classes have different capabilities in and out of combat.

 

[Oofta]

Just by have Zone of Truth and Detect X that's infinitely more social and exploration as part of the base class.

Why does it matter if it's only used 1 time per 50 hours of play?

When you say it's a team game and everyone contributes out of combat, what's the Fighter contributing that's unique to their class?

Why does it have to be unique to their class? Why can't a player just contribute by having fun playing a game with friends? Do you feel like you can only have value if you have a spell or the best bonus to a specific skill possible?

I'm looking at how the game is actually played. Obviously I can only speak from personal experience, but across editions and across thousands of hours of play, people contribute to the out of combat part of the game all the time in ways that have nothing to do with their class. In addition, as I've stated many times, a fighter can be pretty decent at some out of combat skills if it's important to the player. Not being the most optimized min/maxer possible doesn't detract from their ability to contribut.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Compared to what classes? Rogues and bards are supposed to be skill monkeys, but other than that what classes are "better"?

name a class that has spells (1/2 cast 1/3 cast or full cast) and give them the same secondary stat and skills as the fighter... now tell me who is better.