A critique and review of the Fighter class

[Mort]

And Rogues also get an extra Tier 2 Feat.

The Fighter's unique thing isn't unique

And the strange thing is, some fixes are SO easy. Just spit balling:

low tier ability: Master of War: the fighter can add their proficiency bonus to ANY check involving a military application of a skill (be it history, survival, etc.) This expressly stacks with proficiency and expertise (if the fighter can get it). So the fighter will be equal to or even better than other classes when it comes to military applications.

Sure this open ended ability might have players arguing for military angles - but IME that just gets them more engaged, and is a good thing.

Stuff like that would go a long way and not be the least bit overpowered or unbalancing.

 

[lingual]

And the strange thing is, some fixes are SO easy. Just spit balling:

low tier ability: Master of War: the fighter can add their proficiency bonus to ANY check involving a military application of a skill (be it history, survival, etc.) This expressly stacks with proficiency and expertise (if the fighter can get it). So the fighter will be equal to or even better than other classes when it comes to military applications.

Sure this open ended ability might have players arguing for military angles - but IME that just gets them more engaged, and is a good thing.

Stuff like that would go a long way and not be the least bit overpowered or unbalancing.

Seen some good ideas here! No one is saying you shouldn't try them out in your games. Some of us just don't think the Fighter is broken.

I think the above ability could be extended to include Intimidation/Insight/Persuasion/etc. in social situations with "soldiers". Soldiers could be kind of ambiguous though.

 

[Mort]

Seen some good ideas here! No one is saying you shouldn't try them out in your games. Some of us just don't think the Fighter is broken.

It's not a question of "broken" it's a question of, can it be better (not "better" as in more powerfull, better as in more fun, more diverse and more encompassing to various playstyles.)

I think the above ability could be extended to include Intimidation/Insight/Persuasion/etc. in social situations with "soldiers". Soldiers could be kind of ambiguous though.

Some ambiguity is good, it forces the player to be more engaged and advocate for their character. This isn't a style D&D generally adopts - but it has its benefits.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

This thread has split a bit (as this type of thread usually seems to) as to what "make the fighter better..." means.

Quite a few people are arguing (and a few against) - better in combat:

I would not be happy with major combat buffs... I would not be super opposed to it IF it came in the way of options and buttons and levers... but I would prefer it stay ABOUT combat wise were it is... I want options though

My position here - Mechanically, properly designed, fighters are fine in combat - as a matter of fact they can exceed the much vaunted paladin DPR. But there are 2 caveats.

let me just say I have never complained that the DPR was too low. I have pointed out other classes if they push for combat can come pretty close to fighter though... but also have other options.

The second prong, though, is the other 2 pillars:

that is the HUGE part

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Oh, yeah, and the Tier 1 constraint feels like an attempt to define the problem in a way that proves the point. Not gonna play.

We have data that most games don't go above level 10, right? By then Fighters have two bonus feats.

no they don't they get 1 extra in 1st 10 levels and 1 extra in the 2nd 10... so 2 over 20 levels not 10.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

And the strange thing is, some fixes are SO easy. Just spit balling:

low tier ability: Master of War: the fighter can add their proficiency bonus to ANY check involving a military application of a skill (be it history, survival, etc.) This expressly stacks with proficiency and expertise (if the fighter can get it). So the fighter will be equal to or even better than other classes when it comes to military applications.

Sure this open ended ability might have players arguing for military angles - but IME that just gets them more engaged, and is a good thing.

Stuff like that would go a long way and not be the least bit overpowered or unbalancing.

this is what I thought backgrounds were going to be like "I can add my prof to any skill if it is related to sailing cause I took pirate"

 

[Mort]

this is what I thought backgrounds were going to be like "I can add my prof to any skill if it is related to sailing cause I took pirate"

That's actually a pretty good idea!

 

[GMforPowergamers]

That's actually a pretty good idea!

it was what I thought back when 5e was playtesting as 'next'

 

[Mort]

it was what I thought back when 5e was playtesting as 'next'

Next had some great ideas that, sadly, didn't make it. A better sorcerer for ex.

And fighter indomitable was a mini legendary resistance not the pale imitation we have now (where, if it's a weak save, rerolling likely means absolutely no difference).

 

[doctorbadwolf]

So that's why Dexterity keeps getting more powerful over time when compare to Strength. Though I'm not sure why Intelligence is so...vestigial in 5e.

I really like this idea. Even moreso if it could exceed human limits.

This thread has split a bit (as this type of thread usually seems to) as to what "make the fighter better..." means.

Quite a few people are arguing (and a few against) - better in combat:

My position here - Mechanically, properly designed, fighters are fine in combat - as a matter of fact they can exceed the much vaunted paladin DPR. But there are 2 caveats. First, properly designed is important. As my prior post mentioned, that's NOT easy and there are quite a few ways to mess it up. Second, while they are mechanically fine (in combat), they are not as diverse as other classes (for ex. rogue's cunning action opens up huge amounts of options and variations and casters get, well, spells). They generally hit things until the things go down. Certainly wouldn't hurt to open it up a bit (I'm a big fan of the Book of 9 swords, for example, your mileage may vary).

Even "poorly" designed fighters are fine in combat.
However, one way to open things up is to replace action surge with heroic actions, which are just legendary actions with a per day reset. Basically, make a table, base the number of uses on how many attacks with the attack action you could make with action surge per day, assuming 2 short rests, give that many Heroic Actions. Allow the fighter at level 5 to spend a Heroic Action to do something that would normally cost a reaction, without spending their reaction.

The second prong, though, is the other 2 pillars:

Fighters are nowhere NEAR fine in either exploration or social interaction. They get fewer tools than any other class except for, possibly, the barbarian.

I'd say with Tasha's the Barbarian is noticeably ahead of the fighter outside of combat. Extra speed is very useful in exploration IME, and the extra skill is always useful. Why isn't the fighter getting bonus skills as they level?

Why not give the fighter the ability to reroll a skill check that relates to their background PB/LR?