A critique and review of the Fighter class

[James Gasik]

But the problem is that if you have a class (I'll take rogue as an example) that doesn't keep up with the fighter in combat people complain about that as well. Then next thing you know, there's steady aim and suddenly rogues can easily get advantage almost every round. In games I've played they almost always get sneak attack anyway but now that ranged rogue is getting a big bonus to hit on top of their sneak attack.

I can't control what WotC decides to do with the balance of their game, but I'll point out the Rogue has a lot of other things to do besides deal damage, so they really shouldn't be able to complain at all about being outstripped in combat by a guy called a "Fighter"...

 

[Neonchameleon]

A fighter can get a decent Charisma, Persuasion, Inspiring Leader, etc. No they won't mechanically "outshine" the 20 Charisma Bard with Expertise in Persuasion. If they did, the Eloquence Bard would start whining about being "outshined".

And a wizard can get a decent Charisma, Persuasion, Inspiring Leader, etc. with almost exactly the same expenditure of resources. It's all skills (of which the fighter has the joint fewest in the game), backgrounds (of which the fighter gets one - just like everyone else) or feats (of which the fighter gets an extra at level 6 and level 14 - but the wizard has nothing as defining as Polearm Master, Great Weapon Master, or Sentinel). The fighter gets basically nothing socially that the wizard does not also get.

This is where the DM is supposed to use reason and not let skill checks and mechanics rule the table. A high level Noble Fighter Lord of the Manor doesn't need to have a Persuasion skill competition with some random Bard who shows up in town.

And a high level Noble Wizard Lord of the Manor can do exactly the same thing. This is just saying "Background should matter" (true) and "Fighters should get more super special backgrounds than anyone else" (for which there is little in the way of mechanics).

In most towns, the common folk would identify the most with Fighters too - not clergy, wizards, bandits, or musicians.

Why? Which would you identify with more? The grim faced man continually wearing armour or the musician who knows and sings your favourite songs and therefore shows they can empathise with you? The high level fighter is just as far removed from ordinary people as any other high level character but with fewer icebreakers.

The DM could just let's things play out with some of the common assumptions and NOT rely on dice rolls and modifiers, etc. The social pillar can be the most subjective pillar though - so maybe some guidelines or something would be helpful. I'm not sure if there are mechanics around Fame or Popularity.

There aren't.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Other than the specific "be an archer" from the post I was responding to, I think any class could have those backgrounds. For example even the "enforcer" thug as a wizard could work, you just have to explain it correctly. Instead of flexing muscles, the wizard uses their shocking grasp cantrip (or prestidigitation for that matter) to make their hand crackle with electricity as they reach for the bound captive with an evil grin.

But if the narrative about how a fighter became a fighter is more varied, that's a good thing. It's just that I believe it's encompassed in the backgrounds and class rarely changes anything other than descriptive fluff.

Or I'm just still missing the point.

The point is that the fighter has less things with which to make those story elements actually ever do anything when mechanics come up, which is unsatisfying.

The wizard can use spells for it with practically no opportunity cost, the fighter can spend one of their two class granted skill profs on intimidation, and that’s it.

The fighter gets less in two pillars, and doesn’t actually get more in the one pillar they have features for, compared to every other class. Even the Barbarian gets more out of combat mechanics.

The point is that it matters to a very large number of players whether they have a high chance of success on attempts to do a thing that their character concept is focused on, and to have some degree of mechanical support beyond just the baseline that anyone can have. And that is a perfectly valid preference.

 

[Minigiant]

A fighter can get a decent Charisma, Persuasion, Inspiring Leader, etc. No they won't mechanically "outshine" the 20 Charisma Bard with Expertise in Persuasion. If they did, the Eloquence Bard would start whining about being "outshined".

This is where the DM is supposed to use reason and not let skill checks and mechanics rule the table. A high level Noble Fighter Lord of the Manor doesn't need to have a Persuasion skill competition with some random Bard who shows up in town. In most towns, the common folk would identify the most with Fighters too - not clergy, wizards, bandits, or musicians. The DM could just let's things play out with some of the common assumptions and NOT rely on dice rolls and modifiers, etc. The social pillar can be the most subjective pillar though - so maybe some guidelines or something would be helpful. I'm not sure if there are mechanics around Fame or Popularity.

The DM playing favorites with classes proves the point that the fighter has little to no noncombat strength in the base out of the box game.

And if favoritism was the assumption but it's not written in the books, then you cannot be surprised that people don't know this.

5e says I can tool a Noble Fighter. 5e doesn't tell the DM to ban CHA casters if a player runs a noble fighter or to have NPCs speak to nobles first (and ban anyone else from being a noble).

 

[doctorbadwolf]

But the problem is that if you have a class (I'll take rogue as an example) that doesn't keep up with the fighter in combat people complain about that as well. Then next thing you know, there's steady aim and suddenly rogues can easily get advantage almost every round. In games I've played they almost always get sneak attack anyway but now that ranged rogue is getting a big bonus to hit on top of their sneak attack.

Except the designers balanced the rogue on the assumption of getting SA every round, and having advantage often, so it’s literally just a patch fix to put the rogue more reliably where they intended in combat.

 

[Neonchameleon]

You don't need white room.

The fighter has 0 and the wizard has a potential 1-2.

More to the point there are a few other issues

• The wizard can change their spells prepared so if they've enough time they can have almost an entire loadout of relevant spells
• Any wizard should have at least something prepared for social or exploration situations. It might not be relevant
• Rituals can be cast from a wizard's spellbook without being prepared so should be included as normally being possibles

I can't control what WotC decides to do with the balance of their game, but I'll point out the Rogue has a lot of other things to do besides deal damage, so they really shouldn't be able to complain at all about being outstripped in combat by a guy called a "Fighter"...

Indeed. The pre-Tasha's fighter has just about no out of combat abilities. So if there's any balance at all they (and barbarians) should be the leading in-combat classes.

 

[Oofta]

This is a conversation about noncombat. You cant talk with a sword or swim using an axe

I was assuming we're talking pre-level 1 PCs and that the wizard would at most have cantrips. Besides, spells have limited duration and utility that people often ignore. On the other hand I don't deny wizards have other options.

You don't need white room.

The fighter has 0 and the wizard has a potential 1-2.

And that potential is highly likely due to wizard fans constant lobbying for stronger spells, more versatile spell, more spell slots, and fewer restrictions.

And that's just the wizard because the fighter can't take social spot light from the Charisma based Bard, Charisma based Paladin, Charisma based Sorcerer, and the Charms based Warlock. And the bard and rogue get expertise. And all those charisma classes have spells.

That assumes that you have those PCs in the party or that the applicable spells (and slots) are available. That only charisma based skills matter. If there's a bard in the party, they're going to be the party face. Big surprise. It's not a competition.

There is no such thing as perfect balance in or out of combat. I've had fun playing fighters (and other classes) that stepped out of the combat or designated role and were effective and fun to play.

 

[James Gasik]

Except the designers balanced the rogue on the assumption of getting SA every round, and having advantage often, so it’s literally just a patch fix to put the rogue more reliably where they intended in combat.

Although this begs the question of why the Rogue needs advantage in the first place. If they wanted Sneak Attack to work every turn, it should just work, and not have a conditional requirement.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

And if favoritism was the assumption but it's not written in the books, then you cannot be surprised that people don't know this.

5e says I can tool a Noble Fighter. 5e doesn't tell the DM to ban CHA casters if a player runs a noble fighter or to have NPCs speak to nobles first (and ban anyone else from being a noble).

That is a mischaracterization of the other poster’s statements.

The core tells DMs to only call for roles that will determine soemthing that is in doubt and has stakes. That what the other poster is actually talking about. They never mentioned not letting anyone make a charisma class or play a noble or whatever.

 

[Oofta]

The point is that the fighter has less things with which to make those story elements actually ever do anything when mechanics come up, which is unsatisfying.

The wizard can use spells for it with practically no opportunity cost, the fighter can spend one of their two class granted skill profs on intimidation, and that’s it.

The fighter gets less in two pillars, and doesn’t actually get more in the one pillar they have features for, compared to every other class. Even the Barbarian gets more out of combat mechanics.

The point is that it matters to a very large number of players whether they have a high chance of success on attempts to do a thing that their character concept is focused on, and to have some degree of mechanical support beyond just the baseline that anyone can have. And that is a perfectly valid preference.

About the only evidence we have of whether or not the fighter works for people is statistics we get from tools like DndBeyond where the fighter is quite popular. With WOTC's acquisition of the tool they'll be able to do far more analytics than will likely ever be made public.

All I can say is that in games I play, the fighter gets played and I enjoy playing them. I make no claim that my experience is universal or that I have any special insight into what "a very large number"* of people think. If you do, please site your sources.

*Whatever that means.