A critique and review of the Fighter class

[Mort]

But I get and hear your point. You find the fighter not in balance with other classes. Other people do. I still say the easiest solution would be to explain it to your group and DM, and then ask that any fighter get a feat at first level to help with the perceived imbalance.

LOL, I am the DM (90% of the time) and the reason I don't get complaints is because I know (and have seen) the issues and make sure they don't exist in my group.

My group has a PC sword and board fighter who has seemed to have just as much or more fun than any of the casters in the group.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

I agree, but many do not and are quite vocal about it.

And that's why designing for the fighter is SO hard. The second any mechanics are introduced that make the fighter even SEEM vaguely more than mundane they cry out vocally.

There is an unfortunate tendency amongst humans that a group requesting equality can be misinterpreted as demanding to be treated better than everyone else.

 

[Bill Zebub]

This - right here.

A debate as old as time. Players insisting they need a maxed out bonus to be any good versus the person that can play a first level fighter with a 14 strength and be just fine.

That’s based on the misconception that people want 16s because they are comparing themselves to others.

It’s been explained many times, but apparently rarely comprehended, that it’s not that the 16 is mandatory, or that a 14 isn’t viable, but just that what you get in exchange for the +1 on your primary rolls simply isn’t very compelling most of the time.

 

[Bill Zebub]

That would be extremely true. I mean, when I played a wizard, he got dropped all the time.

That’s my experience, too.

 

[tetrasodium]

On a tangent, I believe the strain of the wizard covering too many types of magic user is why, IMO, the subclasses are the lamest. I could probably win a bet that the wizard has the discussion of subclasses, builds, and variants because it's in the same boat as fighters except magic is treated differently.

I think that can be more attibuted to a hamfisted slapdash overuse of concentration/legendary resist/magic resist/overly watered down spells along side a relentless quest for simplification that did away with SR ASF ACP & so on. The combination didn't really get applied in a way that gives enough weight to how the whole works out

I think if wizards still had a D4 HD, we'd have this same discussion about wizards in a lesser intensity because wizards would have to devote so much of their slots to defence that they wouldn't be able to afford to social and exploration.

"My critique of the wizard is that the D4 HD means having less than 14 Con is a death sentence and I need half my slots for shield"

I think that d4 hit die would be an improvement for the wizard classbecause it would kill dead any semblance of reasonableness that the combo of 5e's toned down spells overused concentration overused magic/energy resist or immune & silliness of legendary resist in the absence of things once present like spell penetration & SR:Yes/No spells. Wotc would have needed to fix part of the reason why fighter is already too good right out of the gate & only getting better as levels advance to justify the changes being suggested much sooner rather than letting it sit for so many years.

Personally I dislike the lack of squishiness on the wizard & other arcane full casters* because it erodes their ability to be awesome casters & justifies the LWQF. For the record I'd do away with cantrips as written & tie them to nonscaling wands/staffs/etc while reworking spells themselves so magic feels impressive when dropped rather than generally beinh just mediocre

*Bard should not have been a full caster

 

[Neonchameleon]

A Hero (Fighter, Cleric, whatever) who just rescued the village children is going to have more "Charisma" than some wandering Bard who happens to have expertise in Persuasion. Depends on the situation of course, but I just don't want the Social Pillar to devolve into dice rolls with no actual interaction.

And here again the comparative ineptitude of the fighter is exposed. A bard can be a hero just as well as a fighter can - and if we're talking PCs it's most likely to be both or neither that saved the village. But a bard can also have expertise in Persuasion that stacks on top of being a hero.

In addition to this the fighter can be some wandering bum like the bard - but with no expertise in persuasion. And the bard can either (a) heal or (b) entertain the village with the help of illusions in ways that the fighter simply can't.

 

[Neonchameleon]

That would be extremely true. I mean, when I played a wizard, he got dropped all the time. Much more than the fighter on the front line. And, if you really think about, getting dropped can take you out of combat for a turn or two, which in turn, greatly reduces DPI. That is something I have never seen in everyone's DPI equation - how often a class is likely to be dropped.

And this just leads to yet another issue with the fighter. Unlike in 4e they aren't defenders. Even with the Sentinel feat. They aren't the person you don't dare turn your back on. Instead they're the lineman and the goal is to sack the quarterback. We all know which has more influence over the success of the team and will get more spotlight time.

 

[lingual]

And here again the comparative ineptitude of the fighter is exposed. A bard can be a hero just as well as a fighter can - and if we're talking PCs it's most likely to be both or neither that saved the village. But a bard can also have expertise in Persuasion that stacks on top of being a hero.

In addition to this the fighter can be some wandering bum like the bard - but with no expertise in persuasion. And the bard can either (a) heal or (b) entertain the village with the help of illusions in ways that the fighter simply can't.

I just don't see it. Fighter is not broken in my experience. Lots of players I have played with took Persuasion as a Fighter. They worked out just fine. You wanna buff them at your table then go ahead. Some pretty cool ideas in this very thread.

There's been a wide range of expectations on this thread though. From Fighter must not be "outshined" by Bards (which could be interpreted as Fighters have to be the best at Social?). To Fighters are hobo bums.

If you are the DM, then we would all be interested in seeing your house rules. If you are a player, you should try to convince your DM.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I just don't see it. Fighter is not broken in my experience. Lots of players I have played with took Persuasion as a Fighter.

And where exactly has someone claimed that you can't take Persuasion as a Fighter? I'm interested to see any posts.

There's been a wide range of expectations on this thread though. From Fighter must not be "outshined" by Bards (which could be interpreted as Fighters have to be the best at Social?).

And who has said that fighters "must not be "outshined" by Bards" in the social pillar? I'm interested to see posts.

To Fighters are hobo bums.

And who has said all fighters are hobo bums? I'm interested to see posts.

Or is it literally impossible for a fighter to be a hobo bum? Because my bringing up that fighters might be that was a rebuttal to your attempt at special pleading by assigning the role of hero to the fighter and wandering minstrel with no means of support other than what they can persuade people to give them to the bard. I pointed out that we can easily reverse those roles. There is nothing inherent in the fighter that means they will be a hero and the bard won't. (But there are things the bard can do to help that the fighter can't).

Please stop with the strawmen.

 

[Mort]

A 14 strength fighter is not sacrificing anything. A measly +1. But, for people who insist a class is bad or a race is bad, it always boils down to they need that +1. And the truth is, a +1 is not even noticeable in game. If you had no idea what the + was to your rolls and the DM just said whether you hit or not, you would never be able to tell the difference. And that's even more true at later levels.
And we shouldn't compare the caster to the fighter at all. I mean, HP and AC account for a whole heck of a lot.

A fighter that limits himself to a 14 strength (assuming it's a strength built fighter) is REALLY gimping himself - it's not a "measly +1"

Edited out the part re: strength and armor. Penalty is only -10 ft movement which is annoying but not ridiculous.

The fighter doesn't just have a -1 to hit he ALSO has a -1 to damage. This double whammy adds up quick. DO the math and you'll see it's not an insignificant hit to DPR (and yes DPR isn't everything but for the fighter, it's a lot). And that's vs a 16 strength. If he chose to go a 2nd round of ASIs without increasing strength? That's going to be huge difference.

The fighter ALSO has a -1 to all strength saves AND ability checks. A big loss considering he doesn't have magic to bridge the gap and these are supposed to be his thing.