A critique and review of the Fighter class

[Bill Zebub]

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.

I somewhat agree with this, although I would actually prefer Wizard, Paladin, etc be more like Fighter, with weaker base classes and more in the subclasses.

I think it was a mistake to put spellcasting in the Ranger base, and shape shifting in the Druid base.

 

[Scott Christian]

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.

Literally, all of them. You simply choose to not look at the depth and complexity. Why? My guess is because you need everything maxed out.

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.

I was talking about being inventive. Take any situation a DM describes and use you class to its potential. For some classes, it takes more creative thinking because it's not spelled out for you. But again, it doesn't matter what example I give you, you are simply going to dismiss it as being "tailored" to the fighter.

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.

What is wrong with a blank sheet?

 

[Neonchameleon]

Literally, all of them. You simply choose to not look at the depth and complexity. Why? My guess is because you need everything maxed out.

Given how clearly and obviously wrong the idea that fighters have as much complexity as casters is there's no point continuing this.

What is wrong with a blank sheet?

Nothing. It's just a blank sheet. And you can write whatever you want on it, unconstrained by anything other than the physical limits of the medium. Others prefer to respond to and build on what's actually there.

Goodbye.

 

[Minigiant]

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.

No. It's really just the fighter and rogue.

The ranger isn't a blank slate. Neither is the monk. They have a normal sized collection them. The problem is some of those archetypes have elements too major and powerful so you have to quarantine them off into subclasses.

That's not the problem with the fighter. The problem is the fighter's set is too large.

 

[Neonchameleon]

No. It's really just the fighter and rogue.

The fighter, the rogue, and the wizard IMO (but not the cleric). Part of me would suggest that at tier 3 and above the fighter and the rogue should merge almost into one class.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

The fighter, the rogue, and the wizard IMO (but not the cleric). Part of me would suggest that at tier 3 and above the fighter and the rogue should merge almost into one class.

I actually ran a 7 1/2 month campaign where I let a player be a hybrd/gestalt fighter (battlemaster) rogue (mastermind) and at no point did he out do our druid for usefulness... so I can see it.

(Note what he did do was damage... ungodly damage... multi attack sneak attack battle master die all adding lead to him out doing ANYTHING the rest of the party could do for damage... and with the d10 HD a goodish con and the ability to use his reaction to take 1/2 damage he was a good tank just not as good as the forge druid)

 

[Minigiant]

The fighter, the rogue, and the wizard IMO (but not the cleric)

I agree. The Wizard is every spellcaster who "knows what they are doing".

Part of me would suggest that at tier 3 and above the fighter and the rogue should merge almost into one class

Nah.

The fighter and rogue are 2 different things in Tiers 3 & 4.

The issue with that one is..

..the community does not acknowledge nor agree with what the fighter or rogue equal to an archimage or high priest is.

Nor do most of us want admit it wouldn't be simple to implement.

That's the other part. Since the fighter is "blank", you need a subclass for EVERY ARCHETYPE to scale with tiers as feats don't scale.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

The fighter and rogue are 2 different things in Tiers 3 & 4.

The issue with that one is..

..the community does not acknowledge nor agree with what the fighter or rogue equal to an archimage or high priest is.

this is the thing... a 15th level cleric can create a aura of anti magic, can control the weather, can cause an earth quake and create a super aura of holyness... 20th level fighter can do anything like that... they can hit well and take hits well.

a 15th level wizard knows 2 of the following: can hoard wilt an area, can cause an earthquake, create clone back ups, control weather, create a demiplane, force there will taking control of a monster, destroy someones mind, summon a super deadly cloud, create an imaginary maze to trap enemies, make themselves immune to a bunch of things, or with a word stun a 'relatively' weak creature.

and next level the wizard gets 2 more of those to know and both can swap everyday...

 

[HammerMan]

Note what he did do was damage... ungodly damage... multi attack sneak attack battle master die all adding lead to him out doing ANYTHING the rest of the party could do for damage... and with the d10 HD a goodish con and the ability to use his reaction to take 1/2 damage he was a good tank just not as good as the forge druid)

I just want to know how a Druid of anything out tanks a fighter with D10s for hp second wind and evaision and uncanny dodge.

 

[Bill Zebub]

w

I just want to know how a Druid of anything out tanks a fighter with D10s for hp second wind and evaision and uncanny dodge.

Add in a sprinkle of Bear Totem Barbarian? And half-orc?