A critique and review of the Fighter class

[doctorbadwolf]

You won't be as persuasive as a bard or sorcerer who can prioritize charisma but you'll be decent.

This is really my issue with the fighter. They aren't good enough at combat to justify never being capable of being very very good at non-combat challenges.

Recent feats like Skilled Expert help, by allowing you to get expertise and an extra skill, but seriously you could give fighters the ability to turn an ability check failure into a success twice a day and it'd be fine. Or find a way for fighters to "push harder" by spending hit dice to add to rolls, or give them an ability to help multiple characters when making a group skill check with a skill they're proficient in, or just bloody something that does the same sort of "just do better" thing like they have for combat, outside of combat.

Maybe a few fighting styles that incentivise strong mental stats with thematically appropriate benefits. IDK.

It's just that the argument is always that "you can't be excellent at everything" and....it falls flat. The Fighter is not powerful enough in combat to justify having next to nothing anywhere else.

 

[Minigiant]

Nice video. Agree and disagree with it at some points. Great quality for a beginner.

But on the issue with the fighter, it misses the forest for the trees.

The problem isn't that they forget the noncombat aspects, the issue is they can't choose which ones make it in without picking favorites.

The problem with the fighter is that a large portion of the community see it a the representation of 80% of all advance warriors. So it is kept too generic in order to cover 50 different archetypes at base.

Every other class, at base PHB, is a combination of 3-6 archetypes in its core. This allows it to focus on how those archetypes handle or doesn't handle well certain common D&D challenges.

Because it cover several dozen ideas at base,the core fighter can't lean in nor away from different noncombat aspects of the game as some of its archetypes have mutually exclusive aspects and you would have to decide which ones make it in. For example, a feudal class system could have fighters in every caste and multiple versions of fighter in several castes, each with their own OOC foci and OOC weakness.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

I was initially confused because I view role-playing as separate from out of combat mechanical capabilities.
Others have brought up the issue with the audio when the speaker wasn't on screen and their confusion about the number of ASIs that Fighters get.

But yes, the baseline Fighter is the worst class in the game when it comes to skill use and doesn't really get much other mechanical support for doing stuff outside of combat either, outside of spending ASIs on it.
That ASI could increase their Wisdom for example, or if feats are allowed, gain some more skills or a first and second level spell.
That really isn't amazing compared to what most other classes get to do outside of combat.

 

[ad_hoc]

It isn't the abilities or lack of that are the issue with the fighter for me.

It is the lack of identity in the narrative. The other classes all have a built in identity but the fighter is a blank slate.

Most of the subclasses are just 'good at fighting'. Narratively speaking there is no difference between a champion and a battle master.

 

[Oofta]

It isn't the abilities or lack of that are the issue with the fighter for me.

It is the lack of identity in the narrative. The other classes all have a built in identity but the fighter is a blank slate.

Most of the subclasses are just 'good at fighting'. Narratively speaking there is no difference between a champion and a battle master.

A class has never been a PC's identity to me and honestly I'm not sure what kind of identity you would want. Sometimes a blank slate is the best option. On the other hand, there are plenty of fighter subclasses, many of which (to me) have far more flavor than, say, the wizard subclasses. A cavalier feels different from an arcane archer from a rune knight in ways that the school of illusion vs enchantment never will. Strength based fighter wielding a maul or dex based throwing daggers, dual wielding or using a shield to help protect your fellow PCs? Archer or melee? The list of variation goes on.

Wizards in the other hand? School of evocation? Cool, you get some nice benefits but you can still cast that charm person just like every other wizard. That's boring to me, at least at the class level (bladesinging is the exception, but I've never seen it). The choices they make will vary, but they'll always be intelligence based and have access to the same list of spells. If they take a feat, the vast majority of times it will be warcaster.

Which doesn't mean I have a problem with either the fighter or wizard. They're not perfect because nothing is, I just disagree that there's not a narrative difference. A fighter in plate trying to chop you in half with a greataxe feels a lot different than that guy wearing studded leather trying to make you into a pincushion with their arrows.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It's just that the argument is always that "you can't be excellent at everything" and....it falls flat. The Fighter is not powerful enough in combat to justify having next to nothing anywhere else.

Exactly this.

People present it as "Fighter is 100% combat/0% non-combat, it's not meant to have stuff outside that, other classes are less combat and more non-combat." But that's really not the case. Paladins are essentially equal to Fighters in combat terms, but also have spells on top, with the versatility to choose whether to focus those spells into raw combat potential (Divine Smite/smite spells) or utility effects. Hell, some Clerics aren't too far behind Fighters (e.g. War or Storm) and they get full 9th level spells!

The Fighter is not so overwhelmingly, unequivocally amazing at combat that it justifies the class itself offering piddly-nothing beyond baseline mechanics all characters get.

 

[James Gasik]

At least in the first 10 levels. The back 10 is where the Fighter does eventually pull ahead with more attacks. But I don't think enough people play at those levels to really see it in action, and if they do, they're probably more cognizant of the Fighter's weaknesses at that point.

Clerics can heal scores of hit points with a single spell, Rogues are reaching for every d6 in sight, Wizards are creating an army of Simulacrums, and the Fighter is like "yeah, but I got three attacks! Man I hope I don't get asked to make a DC 19 mental save."

 

[EzekielRaiden]

At least in the first 10 levels. The back 10 is where the Fighter does eventually pull ahead with more attacks. But I don't think enough people play at those levels to really see it in action, and if they do, they're probably more cognizant of the Fighter's weaknesses at that point.

I've done the math. It really doesn't change that much. Paladins and Clerics get improvements to their damage (and the latter of course get amazeballs high-level spells). Even the highest-performing non-spell Fighters, namely Battle Masters, fall behind unless you actually get at absolute bare minimum 6 actual fights a day and 2 (preferably 3) short rests. Champions need even more fights per day (or, alternatively, much longer fights than is typical for 5e, since their boost is purely chances based), preferably 7-8.

Clerics can heal scores of hit points with a single spell, Rogues are reaching for every d6 in sight, Wizards are creating an army of Simulacrums, and the Fighter is like "yeah, but I got three attacks! Man I hope I don't get asked to make a DC 19 mental save."

On this, however, we are agreed. Though they do at least get Indomitable to help with some of those nasty saves. (I may be a major critic of the 5e Fighter, but I don't want to pretend it doesn't have features it does actually have.) It doesn't FIX the problem that Fighters remain sucky at dealing with saves, but it's not absolutely nothing either.

 

[James Gasik]

I've done the math. It really doesn't change that much. Paladins and Clerics get improvements to their damage (and the latter of course get amazeballs high-level spells). Even the highest-performing non-spell Fighters, namely Battle Masters, fall behind unless you actually get at absolute bare minimum 6 actual fights a day and 2 (preferably 3) short rests. Champions need even more fights per day (or, alternatively, much longer fights than is typical for 5e, since their boost is purely chances based), preferably 7-8.


On this, however, we are agreed. Though they do at least get Indomitable to help with some of those nasty saves. (I may be a major critic of the 5e Fighter, but I don't want to pretend it doesn't have features it does actually have.) It doesn't FIX the problem that Fighters remain sucky at dealing with saves, but it's not absolutely nothing either.

Indomitable is a joke. You go up a level and get a once per long rest ability to reroll a saving throw. A proper ability would be proficiency in a saving throw, or, if it has to be a limited resource, Legendary Resistance.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Indomitable is a joke. You go up a level and get a once per long rest ability to reroll a saving throw. A proper ability would be proficiency in a saving throw, or, if it has to be a limited resource, Legendary Resistance.

Don't get me wrong, I agree (or, rather, I think the entire saving throw infrastructure of 5e was not designed all that well), but it IS technically present.