A critique and review of the Fighter class

[Jefe Bergenstein]

This is starting to feel like watching someone at a nearby table complain about their drink because the steak they ordered is not fish.

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?

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

I agree, in general.

Though I still don't understand how the designers didn't catch that they were putting in a massive trap for new players with frenzied rage.

Having frenzy impose exhaustion is bad. Exhaustion is one of the nastiest and most difficult to get rid of conditions in 5e. To have one of the basic barbarian options impose it, and for not THAT great a trade-off is unfortunate.

Removing a level of exhaustion on a short rest and 2 levels with lesser restoration does wonders. The problem isn't frenzy, the problem is exhaustion and that it's easier to bring someone back from the dead than make them less tired.

 

[Mort]

Removing a level of exhaustion on a short rest and 2 levels with lesser restoration does wonders. The problem isn't frenzy, the problem is exhaustion and that it's easier to bring someone back from the dead than make them less tired.

Exhaustion is a brutal mechanic - but in 5e, which generally lacks such, it's sometimes welcome to have a brutal mechanic. I actually like the mechanic under many circumstances.

Frenzy imposing such a brutal mechanic and being, as far as I'm aware, the only class ability to impose this kind of consequence (the only 1 that comes close is the Evoker's overchannel ability, but that has NO consequence for 1 use and only damage for subsequent uses), IS the problem. They COULD have made the consequence less severe, they didn't.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Yeah it’s entirely possible they regret Frenzy, but they are not going to change it.

the only time they will is if they do in 2024

 

[Minigiant]

I agree, in general.

Though I still don't understand how the designers didn't catch that they were putting in a massive trap for new players with frenzied rage.

I do.

I don't know the real tend but I call them Author Blindness and Veteran Bias.

"The Author cannot fully realize what the reader might miss, misunderstand, or misinterpret because they themselves wrote the text and done so purposely"

"Once you gain expertise in something, you cannot truly understand the difficulty of learning something very similar without interaction with novices or remembering your own time as a novice."

Because they wrote the barbarian berserker, were not D&D noobs, and had an expectation of how 5e would be played, they could guess how a new D&D player or someone new to 5th edition would be confused.

That's what the surveys were for. However most of it was focused on the classic 4 classes. And almost purely on low level combat.

 

[Shardstone]

If I'm being honest, there should not be a Fighter and a Barbarian class.

The game would be better fit for something like a Champion and a Warlord class. Champion absorbs the ideas of Conan et. al, various kinds of muscle bound heroes. The Warlord should be what the fighter is now, but with the abilities of a warlord on top in terms of organizing your team and making tactical decisions.

Champion would be the simple martial class. You pick it up, you rage or you what ever you do, you make lots of attacks, you roll really high, hell ya fun time. Warlord is the martial class for people who want to really dig into the fantasy of being a warrior with tactical acumen in a fantasy setting.

I just don't see why Barbarian and Fighter, other than for nostalgia, had to be the choices. These ideas on paper are just not that different, and mechanically, you can combine them into one class and then you probably have something that is about as strong as a Paladin (no, not doubling subclasses here, but you get the point).

As it stands now, the Fighter is a cool class but...why isn't every Fighter a battlemaster? And why isn't every Barbarian a berserker (even "calm rage" can be a berserk kind of cold-machine killer)? I know the reason why, but...the reason, to me, just isn't that good.

And the Barbarian...it feels...incomplete. And...playing one at high levels is...well, I mean, you get improved brutal critical, and Tommy the Warlock gets feeblemind. Just, it doesn't seem to compare.

On top of that, look at the lower Fighter levels. Paladin starts with Lay on Hands, Fighter starts with Second Wind. How in any way are these two features balanced against each other? Or second level, Fighter gets action surge, that's cool, but...Paladin has spellcasting and smite...there's just a huge gap, imo, in the balance here. Not that Fighter's are falling behind in combat, they aren't, but like...Paladins literally are just better Fighters.

 

[Bill Zebub]

On top of that, look at the lower Fighter levels. Paladin starts with Lay on Hands, Fighter starts with Second Wind.

Yeah. I wish Lay on Hands was a bonus action that refreshed on a short rest.

Or is that not what you meant?




Seriously, I really do enjoy thinking about and discussing mechanics. I just wish so much of it didn’t start with “Feature X is completely broken; the designers must be blind or stupid or evil or all of the above.”

 

[Shardstone]

Yeah. I wish Lay on Hands was a bonus action that refreshed on a short rest.

Or is that not what you meant?




Seriously, I really do enjoy thinking about and discussing mechanics. I just wish so much of it didn’t start with “Feature X is completely broken; the designers must be blind or stupid or evil or all of the above.”

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?

 

[Minigiant]

If I'm being honest, there should not be a Fighter and a Barbarian class.

The game would be better fit for something like a Champion and a Warlord class. Champion absorbs the ideas of Conan et. al, various kinds of muscle bound heroes. The Warlord should be what the fighter is now, but with the abilities of a warlord on top in terms of organizing your team and making tactical decisions.

The Fighter/Barbarian VS Fighter/Warlord divide is more based on different philosophies.

Fighter/Barbarian is Nurture vs Nature. The Fighter is the trained warrior who relies on taught skill or arms and armor. The Barbarian is the talented warrior who relies on pure athletic talent and closeness to the rawness of nature


Fighter/Warlord is Physical vs Mental. The fighter is trained in the martial skill or using ones body in battle. The Warlord is trained in the martial skill of using ones mind in battle.

Truly in literature there are more than 2 aspects of combat. Really in the magic user can be split into 3-6 parts, so can the fighting man.

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

 

[Shardstone]

The Fighter/Barbarian VS Fighter/Warlord divide is more based on different philosophies.

Fighter/Barbarian is Nurture vs Nature. The Fighter is the trained warrior who relies on taught skill or arms and armor. The Barbarian is the talented warrior who relies on pure athletic talent and closeness to the rawness of nature


Fighter/Warlord is Physical vs Mental. The fighter is trained in the martial skill or using ones body in battle. The Warlord is trained in the martial skill of using ones mind in battle.

Truly in literature there are more than 2 aspects of combat. Really in the magic user can be split into 3-6 parts, so can the fighting man.

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

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.