A critique and review of the Fighter class

[Scribe]

The Warrior of Talented Athleticism and Raw Emotion
The Warrior of Trained Weapons based Physicality
The Warrior of the Mental Art of War
The Warrior of Spirituality and Limitlessness
The Warrior of Underhandedness and Unfairness

Barb
Fighter
Warlord
Monk
Rogue

?

Those are not 'fighting men' though, or Fighters, (other than the fighter) I dont think that fixes what is so unsatisfying about 5e classes, and Fighter's specifically.

 

[Minigiant]

Barb
Fighter
Warlord
Monk
Rogue

?

Those are not 'fighting men' though, or Fighters, (other than the fighter) I dont think that fixes what is so unsatisfying about 5e classes, and Fighter's specifically.

The point is none of those fully or even halfway delve into the different aspects of weapons and armor combat in 5e. And one doesn't even exist in 5e so it's art is mostly missing.

The whole source of the issue the OP's brother's video brought up is like what I said before. The fighter is forced to handle so much it can't fully dive into many of the archetypes it is supposed to represent without a subclass written precisely for each one. So its core is bland.

 

[Shardstone]

Barb
Fighter
Warlord
Monk
Rogue

?

Those are not 'fighting men' though, or Fighters, (other than the fighter) I dont think that fixes what is so unsatisfying about 5e classes, and Fighter's specifically.

Its more of, you posted the names that could maybe fit, but the classes as they exist do not capture the actual narrative weight of what @Minigiant is suggesting.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

I agree with you, but the execution of the classes imo does so little to really narratively capture many of these concepts, that I just think they might as well be combined into one.

But...if there was a D&D variant that had 5 super diverse and super solid martials based off of these ideas you present here, I would play that in a HEART BEAT.

There was... Called Iron Heroes, by none other than Mike Mearls. Most classes built up resources in a fight, which helped avoid the sameyness per encounter class resources can fall into with a set rotation. For example, you had the armiger, a heavily armored class who built up counterattack combo points by being beaten on. I wish he had brought some of that to 5E.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The monk and fighter might get to expend HD for Ki and Superiority dice on short rest.

I doubt they’ll have to spend anything to do it. It’ll just have a limited number of uses.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Well man, that's not what I said, so don't put words in my mouth, alright?

I don't think Fighter is broken or Paladin is broken. I love both classes and have played both. But you're hostile attitude is so increidbly out of pocket and pulled out of nowhere over something so minor, and it poisons the conversation before it even begins. Next time, don't assume people are the worst possible version of the argument that you can imagine, try to be a little realistic in your persepctive.

That being said, no, after a few levels, I don't think Second Wind healing 1d10+X HP is as good as the Paladin being able to heal 50 hit points with a touch, or remove diseases and poisons with a touch, etc. Crazy that I can say that these two things are not equal without saying any of the stupid stuff you pretended I did, huh?

Whoah.


Ok, in fairness what I wrote did sound like I was going after you in particular. That wasn't my intent: it's more the whole tenor of this thread has been "Fighter is so terrible" and then "Frenzy is unplayable" etc. etc. etc.

But also in fairness, what you wrote, "How in any way are these two features balanced against each other?", is pretty hyperbolic. First, they aren't supposed to be balanced against each other: there's no point in the game where you make a choice between just those two features. Second, they are not really all that unequal. Lay on Hands can do more total healing (depending on number of short rests) and has more utility, but Second Wind is a bonus action not a main action, which in combat is a big deal.

So, yeah, the last part of my post should have been in a separate post, and wasn't directed at you in particular. AND the part I quoted was not exactly dispassionate discussion of mechanics.

 

[Scott Christian]

The problem is fish was on the menu until 4E haters screeched it out of existence. Any requests for fish on the menu are met with more shouts from others on how they want steak. If you point out that while you don't want steak, you aren't in fact asking for it to be removed, just fish added, you get told to shut up and eat chicken. Ignoring the fact that you're a pescatarian.

There is no satisfying class for many of us who want to play a non-caster with mechanical depth and versatility. Telling us to just play a caster or the unsatisfying fighter isnt going to work. What's truly frustrating is the whole "we don't need another fighter type class cuz we gots the fighter!" argument. We have 4 different full 9 level casters that are all basically copies, including the biggest waste of space, the sorcerer, but we can't have two fighter types, with a new complex 4E fighter/warlord/B09S and the existing one?

Saying the fighter has no mechanical depth and complexity boggles my mind. Some are as in depth as any other class. Others require you to be more inventive than any other class.

Maybe some players like to be more like an escape artist - put me in these confines and I will still get out. Maybe others like to be magicians - give me the illusion that I can do anything. I can see both being viable.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Saying the fighter has no mechanical depth and complexity boggles my mind. Some are as in depth as any other class.

This looks like an admission that most fighters are as shallow as a paddling pool even if "no depth and complexity" is slight hyperbole. If some fighters are "as in depth as any other class" then it implies that most fighters aren't.

I'm also curious which fighters are as in depth as ... just about any spellcaster.

Others require you to be more inventive than any other class.

I'm again curious about examples here. Especially when compared to a monk who can't readily stand on the front line as and take a beating thanks to a lack of AC, hit points, and self healing as a bonus action.

Maybe some players like to be more like an escape artist - put me in these confines and I will still get out. Maybe others like to be magicians - give me the illusion that I can do anything. I can see both being viable.

No one wants the fighter to be able to do anything. It's more like there are two groups of creatives. Ones who are inspired by a blank sheet of paper and consider anything added to interfere with their vision and ones who want to use what is already there and build off it. And the fighter is almost a blank sheet of paper.

 

[Minigiant]

Again I think the core issue comes down to the fighter being required to encompass all trained warriors who don't rely on spellcasting that the base class was forced to be bland.

The other aspect to this is 5e's slow release schedule of PC options.A blank slate fighter works best if you have tons of options. But 5e has a low feat count AND new subclasses are slow to arrive. I mean you can't run an optimized hoplite and it takes 6 levels or more to run a proper romantic knight.

It is basically like a wizard with only 50 total spells in the class list. Sure some wizards would work but other classic wizardly archetypes would not be supported

 

[Mort]

Again I think the core issue comes down to the fighter being required to encompass all trained warriors who don't rely on spellcasting that the base class was forced to be bland.

To be fair, it's not just the fighter. Ranger and monk also have this issue.

The base class is lacking so the subclasses have to pick up the slack - most fail to do so.

Compare with Paladin, and (of course) Wizard. The base class is extremely strong, so while there IS clear difference in power between the subclasses, you will be fine no matter what subclass you end up with.

The fighter class has some nice early abilities (second wind and action surge) but is VERY sparce after that, other than extra, extra attacks. It relies too heavily on the subclasses and most don't boost it enough. As far as I'm aware, NONE boost it enough in the two non-combat pillars.