A critique and review of the Fighter class

[Scott Christian]

So once again the fighter is getting a house ruled class feature and a universe that deliberately be is warped round him.

I mean the bard is using their charisma and their actions to take and promote random NPCs scattered around the world. Meanwhile you are literally custom-crafting NPCs and by doing so twisting your setting in order to keep the fighter socially relevant.

If the mayor is an elected mayor they almost certainly have more in common with the bard than the fighter. Skill on the battlefield is not how you become mayor - and seeking popularity and performing may be. Meanwhile the role of mayor is basically a glorified administrator. There is absolutely nothing inherent in the role of mayor that says they should prefer fighters to any other class. The only reason this one does is because you have invented him specifically to have talks with the fighter.

Yes as the DM you can by fiat and by putting a thumb on the scales make anyone relevant. But please don't pretend that this is anything other than you playing favourites.

And there is no mental tally the DM must (or IMO even should) do. The main reason you feel the need to do one is that you know the fighter falls short.

I disagree. The reason a DM should keep a mental tally of an NPC's likes/dislikes/favorites is to make the world varied. If every elected official is like a bard, that makes for a silly world. Ned Stark wasn't a bard. Pretty sure he wouldn't want anything to do with them.

There is no custom crafting either. NPCs are varied. They should be. And, as I stated earlier, I think it's best to not have too many. This way you can flesh them out. And just like regular people, they might be inclined to like a person based off their physical characteristics or their wit or their demeanor. The mayor may hate brutish fighter types. They may admire them. They might think themselves above them and use them as pawns. But no matter what is thought, it should be a bit varied. That is the DM's work.

And speaking of DM's work, it should be noted that many DMs, including Mercer and other so called "professionals" tailor their game to their players' characters. I made a remorhaz ice cave where he would dip into the pool and create a steam cloud, blinding the party. I was hoping the wizard ( a new player still learning), that had Gust of Wind, would think to use it. I tailored to show how she could be helpful and not always Magic Missile. I can name a dozen other things in this last campaign that I tailored to my players based off background, race, or class. Is that wrong?

 

[James Gasik]

I don't see a problem with NPC's being individuals, and players gaining circumstantial advantages for being the kind of person an NPC would like. But this is universal- there's going to be just as many NPC's who value a keen, academic mind as someone who heals the infirm, or can triple the yield of a harvest with magic. I can't see one character gaining this sort of advantage more than anyone else.

But being gregarious and socially dynamic is a trait that is universal, by it's very definition. People are going to be drawn to characters with high Charisma, even if they have made pacts with devils or their great-great grand dad had a fling with a dragoness. That may work against them, but it won't ever nullify their charm, confidence, and poise. They have that je nais se pais, that quality that lets them be popular for...uh...being popular, like certain celebrities I could name.

The fact that the game allows you to be intelligent, wise, or persuasive and lets you convert that trait into combat or exploration effectiveness is a little bit of a problem. Maybe you shouldn't be able to use Dexterity to hit and damage with weapons. Maybe shillelagh shouldn't be a thing.

And definitely, maybe Hexblades should have to give up some casting ability in order to wade into melee combat! After all, if it's not important to have a high stat in Strength to be a Fighter, then it follows that a magical swordsman might not need as much Intelligence or Charisma either!

It's double dipping, and the Fighter should be allowed to do it too! If traits exist that let me swap one ability bonus to another, or even add one to another, then I think my Fighter should be able to use the ability scores he values to other things as well! And if, for some reason, adding more abilities to the Fighter somehow makes them too strong, you can take Indomitable away, I won't mind!

Or even better, delay Action Surge to a higher level- it's too easy for multiclassed characters to get it anyways, if you ask me!

 

[Vaalingrade]

The problem isn't wizards.

It pretty much is.

Everything else must be nerfed so the wizards can feel superior.

 

[James Gasik]

Oh I guess I could have worded that better, I didn't mean the problem with Fighters directly was Wizards (even if Wizards are really too good at what they do, it's still kind of apples and oranges), instead I meant that was the problem with Wizard design overall, and why they seem able to contribute so much when compared to other classes.

Indirectly, yeah, it seems that the Fighter's advantages are =/= Wizard spellcasting, especially when you can actually get some of those advantages with a subclass.

I would say a Wizard gets more out of being a Bladesinger than a Fighter gets out of being an Eldritch Knight, for example.

 

[Minigiant]

It pretty much is.

Everything else must be nerfed so the wizards can feel superior.

It it isn't/

The problem isn't that the other classes were nerfed. It was that the wizard was buffed more that the other classes.

Or more accurately, 5e is using a 1e/2e version of the Fighter and Wizard with 5e mechanics and subsystems. But the 5e base mechanics and subsystems benefit the Wizard and Cleric the most, benefit the Fighter the least , is even with the 3e heavy Rogue.

The fighter went from a system were it didn't need social and exploration class features to be involved to one that it usually does. Except it really doesn't had (unique nor exclusive) ones.

 

[Vaalingrade]

It it isn't/

The problem isn't that the other classes were nerfed. It was that the wizard was buffed more that the other classes.

Or more accurately, 5e is using a 1e/2e version of the Fighter and Wizard with 5e mechanics and subsystems. But the 5e base mechanics and subsystems benefit the Wizard and Cleric the most, benefit the Fighter the least , is even with the 3e heavy Rogue.

The fighter went from a system were it didn't need social and exploration class features to be involved to one that it usually does. Except it really doesn't had (unique nor exclusive) ones.

Didn't the ancient fighter get a title, a castle and a horde of murderhobos to do their bidding?

And nowdays Leadership isn't even a feat anymore.

 

[James Gasik]

Yes, and that was the reason to not dump Charisma as a Fighter. Unfortunately, 1) not all campaigns got to 9th level, 2) "building a keep" was a heinous expense not every 9th level Fighter could afford, and 3) not all campaigns were about base building and turning the PC's into lords and rulers- a lot of people just wanted to keep adventuring, which is why Leadership was made into a Feat in 3e...and then, when people kept finding ways to abuse Leadership, a lot of DM's stopped allowing it entirely, so now that entire aspect of the game is now up to the DM if they want to allow it.

And the Fighter didn't really get anything to replace losing their "best saves" and "best deal on followers" abilities, which were pretty big parts of the class in high level play.

 

[Minigiant]

Didn't the ancient fighter get a title, a castle and a horde of murderhobos to do their bidding?

And nowdays Leadership isn't even a feat anymore.

Feats don't carry that level of power anymore.

That's my point. The set of base subsystems the fighter has access to are weaker than the set the Wizard does. Becuase originally, there wasn't one for the fighter in the old days, they didn't need one.

 

[Mort]

It it isn't/

The problem isn't that the other classes were nerfed. It was that the wizard was buffed more that the other classes.

Or more accurately, 5e is using a 1e/2e version of the Fighter and Wizard with 5e mechanics and subsystems. But the 5e base mechanics and subsystems benefit the Wizard and Cleric the most, benefit the Fighter the least , is even with the 3e heavy Rogue.

The fighter went from a system were it didn't need social and exploration class features to be involved to one that it usually does. Except it really doesn't had (unique nor exclusive) ones.

But the 5e wizard WAS heavily nerfed. They can't be invisible AND fly AND reign death from above like in the good old days.

They can't summon creatures that fight nearly as well as the fighter and have them do their thing while still doing their (the wizard's) full schtick (including the invisible fly and fry bit).

They can't duplicate a rogue's schtick with scrolls and the occasional wand to the point the rogue is feeling useless.

But even with all that, they still outshine the fighter in 2 of the 3 pillars because fighters WERE buffed in combat but given next to nothing anywhere else.

 

[lingual]

Didn't the ancient fighter get a title, a castle and a horde of murderhobos to do their bidding?

And nowdays Leadership isn't even a feat anymore.

Yes they did!

They had titles for every level too. A 9th level fighter would be a "Lord" - iirc