A critique and review of the Fighter class

[Oofta]

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.

I've never been in a game or seen a stream where the rogue did not get SA almost every round. What the devs intended is not something I'm privy to, and neither are you.

 

[Neonchameleon]

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.

Part of this is character "feel", complete with my problem with the 5e rogue being that getting advantage is too easy.

I loved the 4e rogue; it was a squishy character with a relatively weak weapon that would seriously underperform if I didn't find a way of getting Combat Advantage and would more than hold its own if I did. But I had to actively do some work from round to round to find a way of getting combat advantage (or have an ally set it up). There were lots of ways and it wasn't hard - but because I was small, weak, squishy, and tricksy I had to adapt what I was doing to the exact situation on the map, and occasionally this lead to me having to choose between extra risks and not getting sneak attack. Which made me feel ... roguelike.

By contrast in 5e and in 13th Age it was too easy. I didn't have to think and to continually have to outsmart the fight because otherwise I'd be weaker. Which was nowhere near as satisfying.

 

[Minigiant]

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.

I'm not doubting that you can have fun with the fighter outside of combat.

The point is that the fighter is tied for the least mechanical strength for social and exploration. So it's very easy for the fighter to get outshone.in noncombat.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

I disagree. If you want simple, reliable, and straightforward, the Dex fighter is right there.

The rogue is partly defined by a playstyle. What they should have done IMO, is give the rogue the ability to hit even harder under a couple even more limited circumstances.

Eg, Backstab - when you hit with a weapon attack against a target that you are hidden from or who is surprised, you can deal 2d10 extra damage with the attack. This damage increases at XYZ levels.

Another way would have been increased crit chance under ideal circumstances.

But that’s a tangent, the rogue is one of the best designed classes in 5e as is.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I've never been in a game or seen a stream where the rogue did not get SA almost every round. What the devs intended is not something I'm privy to, and neither are you.

They’ve talked about it explicitly. Crawford has literally said that this was the intention by which they balanced the class. Explicitly.

So yes, we are privy to it.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

Okay. I enjoy fighters, too. What has that to do with the topic?

The fighter sets the floor for non-combat ability, while being…about on par with other warrior types in combat.

“I don’t experience the problem” is great for you. It’s a weird thing to keep repeating over and over again any time anyone talks about the fighter being dissatisfying for people other than you.

 

[Oofta]

They’ve talked about it explicitly. Crawford has literally said that this was the intention by which they balanced the class. Explicitly.

So yes, we are privy to it.

I've seen them state that they should get sneak attack most rounds, and they do. As far as getting advantage? Maybe. Wouldn't be the first time I disagree with Crawford.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I've seen them state that they should get sneak attack most rounds, and they do. As far as getting advantage? Maybe. Wouldn't be the first time I disagree with Crawford.

And at enough tables that they talked about it in videos, rogues weren’t getting sneak attack often enough. So they added a feature that makes it very reliable while still requiring a rogue-style approach. (Ie hitting hard because of what you did last turn or with your BA this turn, before the attack).

 

[Oofta]

I'm not doubting that you can have fun with the fighter outside of combat.

The point is that the fighter is tied for the least mechanical strength for social and exploration. So it's very easy for the fighter to get outshone.in noncombat.

Compared to what classes? Rogues and bards are supposed to be skill monkeys, but other than that what classes are "better"?

I think fighters are more flexible than some classes, tied with others, along with every class that does not get expertise they fall behind those PCs that do get expertise. Under some circumstances, spells can accomplish some things but they are limited resources, not always applicable and PCs have limited options.

So ... yes ... fighters are tied for last place with every PC that does not get expertise in a specific skill and are not the caster who happens to have the correct magic spell and resources available. No PC will have expertise in every skill, no caster will always have the needed spell available for every scenario.

Then again I've never felt outshone in non-combat situations because it's a team effort and different PCs contribute in different ways.

But we're never going to agree so unless there's something new, we just have different opinions.

 

[Oofta]

And at enough tables that they talked about it in videos, rogues weren’t getting sneak attack often enough. So they added a feature that makes it very reliable while still requiring a rogue-style approach. (Ie hitting hard because of what you did last turn or with your BA this turn, before the attack).

I can't speak to all tables, just what I've seen in my private games, AL and streams. I don't know why a rogue would not get sneak attack most rounds unless DMs don't understand how the feature works.