A critique and review of the Fighter class

[Minigiant]

The feat is good enough that it's well worth taking at level 4, putting them ahead of Sword & Board despite the lower Str. And no the fighter isn't "at or below the cleric" at levels 1-3; Second Wind and Action Surge are both pretty impressive abilities compared to level 1 spells and at least some subclasses, like battlemasters, are solid at level 3 - and the dueling style lets you hit harder than the cleric will with a longsword. Basically you give up 1 damage per attack Vs a longsword at L1-3 which isn't the end of the world.

As for the non-combat stuff, I disagree. Again taking a battlemaster as your build you get your background at level 1 - and at level 3 you get three maneuvers and you can afford to give up one of them without serious costs (because you still have your best two picks for combat) to get the ability to use superiority dice on History, Investigation, or Insight.

When the only actual problem is one damage per hit compared to a longsword I'm not seeing the problem as huge.

It absolutely does scale to Tier 2. Various feats are close to gamebreaking in T1 and ASIs and the good combat feats multiply the effect of each other so you generally get a lot of benefit from two ASIs and one feat (two in cases like Sharpshooter + Crossbow Expert). But this caps out after three.

The fighter however almost stops scaling at L11 (or in rare cases L12); they have a complete Feat + Full Stat combo, and three attacks. This is definitely a T2 combo and should utterly roll anyone in T1.

The Barbarian is a worse case, stopping at L5 or 6 with a good subclass. Their levels 7 and 9 features are meh and bad respectively, and their level 11 feature looks good on paper but in practice it will stop half an attack then you'll go down to two papercuts. And you don't get the closeness of the multiplier in the 4-6-8 ASIs

Again the issue is that unless you are a human, you don't get feats until the earliest level 4. That is the last level of Tier 1.

So making a class that only does what it say from level 4-11 is iffy if the book goes from 1-20. And some concepts and archetypes require 2-3 feats to work.

That's the issue I keep bringing up. If you want the fighter to encompass 30 different warrior archetypes, you need to give it the mechanical space or claim mechanics don't matter. But you can't stick 30 archetypes in 6 pages.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Again the issue is that unless you are a human, you don't get feats until the earliest level 4. That is the last level of Tier 1.

So making a class that only does what it say from level 4-11 is iffy if the book goes from 1-20. And some concepts and archetypes require 2-3 feats to work.

That's the issue I keep bringing up. If you want the fighter to encompass 30 different warrior archetypes, you need to give it the mechanical space or claim mechanics don't matter. But you can't stick 30 archetypes in 6 pages.

The thing is that the Tier 1 fighter is as good a hoplite or other fighter as you would expect from a tier 1 character. And perfectly capable of kicking the snot out of the non-martials, especially at levels 1-2 (with the exception of the Moon Druid at levels 2-4). If you are playing a tier 1 character you do not expect them to be hypercompetent - and a lot of caster concepts won't come together until tier 2 either.

At levels 1-2 the wizard and sorcerer are cowering. They have about 3-4 spells per day (counting Arcane Recovery and Metamagic as an extra spell) and an AC of about 10-12 vs the 16-18 of the fighter. They also have far fewer hit points - and firebolt does 1d10 damage, while a duelist with a spear is doing 1d6+5. Meanwhile Second Wind and Action Surge are each worth a first level spell per short rest at this tier. Even the cleric, despite a solid AC, is behind. And literally the only problem with the spear and shield hoplite is that it's not min-maxed and there are better fighters. That and the apprentice levels are apprentice levels.

At levels 3-4 the 7-8 1st and 2nd level spells bring the sorcerer and wizard into the game. But a good fighter subclass (i.e. not like the Champion) can keep up as well as having a vastly better base chassis. And the fighter's lead in combat is enough over the non-martials and especially the arcane casters in tier 1 that it doesn't really matter that they're not great out of combat. And the archetypes are mostly fine for most low level fighters.

The fighter does what it claims from level 1 to level 11. And a lot of archetypes either seriously overlap or are tweaks of each other. But yes the fighters need more. And none of them are great tactical fighters.

The key problem is that to cover the higher level expressions of an archetype you need more detail. The last new ability a fighter gets from their class is either Indomitable at level 9 or More Attacks Than Anyone Else at level 11 (which makes a fine tier 2 capstone one level late).

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I find it much easier to read threads like this if I mentally replace "problem" with "thing I don't like". Maybe I should write a Chrome extension that does that for me automatically.

I mean it would most likely help for you to assume (unless noted elsewhere) most conversations on here are our opinions and that is based on our experiences... so it isn't really just 'things I don't like' as much as it is 'things that are problems for our tables'

 

[GMforPowergamers]

The thing is that the Tier 1 fighter is as good a hoplite or other fighter as you would expect from a tier 1 character. And perfectly capable of kicking the snot out of the non-martials, especially at levels 1-2 (with the exception of the Moon Druid at levels 2-4). If you are playing a tier 1 character you do not expect them to be hypercompetent - and a lot of caster concepts won't come together until tier 2 either.

A hex blade with a cha equal to the hoplite's str, the same con and dex has better social skills 2 spells (1 at 1st level) per short rest, the hex, 2 cantrips and get all of that for the trade of 1hp on average per level (2 at 1st) second wind, a fighting style and action surge... the only one of those features as good as the spells is the action surge... wait I almost forgot 2 class mini feats called invocations.

the action surge per short rest you can write off as being equal to one spell per short rest (they get that a level sooner though then upgrade to two by the time the fighter gets it) I guess one of the cantrips (not eldritch blast) could be about equal to second wind, and eldritch blast or hex is WAY better then any fighting style...

At levels 1-2 the wizard and sorcerer are cowering.

I don't play 1st or 2nd level alot... about half my games start at 3rd and the ones that do start at first we normally level 1 level per session... so I am unsure about this

firebolt does 1d10 damage, while a duelist with a spear is doing 1d6+5.

as much as I agree that wizards are more flimsy... saying that a huge range d10 magic damage isn't equal to up front 1d6+5 is a bit of a stretch...

The key problem is that to cover the higher level expressions of an archetype you need more detail. The last new ability a fighter gets from their class is either Indomitable at level 9 or More Attacks Than Anyone Else at level 11 (which makes a fine tier 2 capstone one level late).

this is a HUGE issue... starting at level 5 really you don't get new class abilities (you get indomitable so 1) you just do your things more often... while the casters not only do the things more often they ALSO get higher level abilities

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It doesn't.

But that's my point.

The wizard covers 8 pages before you count all the spells. And that's after the warlock, artificer and sorcerer all taking some archetypes.

The fighter is 6 pages INCLUDING Maneuvers. And the barbarian, ranger, and paladin only take up a few narrower but classic archetypes. The ultra-religious temple guard is still a fighter even with the paladin existing.

That's the problem. The traditionalists want the fighter to be a blank slate but don't want to offer the mechanical paint to paint all those archetypes.

If they didn't want the fighter itself to hold all those mechanics then the mechanics should have when to another subsystem or the base system.

5e is a game that says the fighter can be a hoplite but makes spears weak, shields weak, no phalanx, and no bonuses to knowing military stuff.

would you be interested in trying to build a small set of "optional variant features" in the style of Tasha's to address what you see as the problem?

if so, what do you think the amount of room to add to the fighter is, before changing or replacing anything? 1 feat or so before level 10, and and 2-3 more spread over the remaining 10 levels, would be my eyeball it and hope for the best estimate.

From there i think slight expansion of what the primary class abilities can be used to do would be a big help.

My goal would be to figure out a set of options that "fix" the issue without requiring a rewrite.

My biggest idea for the feat equivelent optional additional feature would be d6 superiority dice that can normally only be used to add to damage rolls, saving throws, or ability checks. Probably PB/Long Rest. You still have to take a fighting style, feat, or subclass to get manuevers, but you have a limited resource that can be used in and out of combat to simply make you more capable of pushing harder to get the job done, which i think is a good meta-niche for the fighter.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I mean it would most likely help for you to assume (unless noted elsewhere) most conversations on here are our opinions and that is based on our experiences... so it isn't really just 'things I don't like' as much as it is 'things that are problems for our tables'

Except it's wrapped up in all this rhetoric about how terrible the Fighter is, and how WotC either hates martials or is incompetent. Given the reality that lots and lots of people really enjoy the Fighter, it really is just your preference. And all the complaining just drives people away. (Maybe you haven't noticed, but I'm just about the only person left in the thread who isn't in the "Fighter sucks/WotC hates martials" camp. I think everybody else gave up.)

I'd love to engage in design discussions, but honestly it feels like participating without strongly disagreeing with the premises is somehow joining the pile-on.

For example, I thought this was an interesting point, buried in "no your solution doesn't work because all four of these things absolutely must be addressed" (pro tip on interpersonal communication: "that's a good start" works better than "that's insufficient so you fail")

• The fighter doesn't come with anything significant to counter magic as it levels up. In particular there is a lack of "gap closers" like the ability to sprint more or faster at higher levels (I find it a travesty that martial characters mostly have unchanged speed) and the ability to e.g. parry magic.

It would be fun to brainstorm new abilities, unique to the Fighter, that served this purpose. (With the caveat that "martial characters mostly have unchanged speed" appears to be wrong: rogue, monk, and barbarian all have increased movement of various flavors.). But can we do it from a position of "hey let's think of cool abilities for house rules" not "this is absolutely necessary because the fighter sucks."?

Since two classes already have increased speed, I wouldn't want to just replicate that. How about increased jumping distance, and as a bonus action you can jump without it counting toward your movement? So you can run 30', then jump 30' more and whack WotC's little pet wizard four times. Plus there's OOC combat utility in just being able to jump longer distances.

And maybe @GMforPowergamers was right, and that could be included in my earlier proposal, when you choose Strength as one of your heroic ability scores.

(Another idea on messaging: instead of "no you are wrong the Fighter sucks and if you enjoy it you're a noob" it could be "just think how much more you'd enjoy Fighter with these ideas".)

 

[Neonchameleon]

A hex blade with a cha equal to the hoplite's str, the same con and dex has better social skills 2 spells (1 at 1st level) per short rest, the hex, 2 cantrips and get all of that for the trade of 1hp on average per level (2 at 1st) second wind, a fighting style and action surge... the only one of those features as good as the spells is the action surge... wait I almost forgot 2 class mini feats called invocations.

Not disputing that the level 1 hexblade is OP (and cherry picked); the Hex Warrior abilities of medium armour, shield proficiency, and the Cha to hit and damage should sit on the Pact of the Blade; it's a patch that makes for a ludicrously good one level dip. And you underrate Second Wind - 6.5hp healed as a bonus action at L1 is definitely in Healing Word territory. The warlock is also weird in its casting; it's intended as a semi-caster.

And I absolutely hope the 2024 reboot puts Hex Warrior onto the Pact of the Blade and errata's it off the hexblade. (Also keeping it away from paladins, bards, and sorcerers unless they want to go for three rather than one level).

I don't play 1st or 2nd level alot... about half my games start at 3rd and the ones that do start at first we normally level 1 level per session... so I am unsure about this

as much as I agree that wizards are more flimsy... saying that a huge range d10 magic damage isn't equal to up front 1d6+5 is a bit of a stretch...

WTF? 1d10 has a range of 1-10 and an average of 5.5. 1d6+5 has a range of 6-11 and an average of 8.5. The spear fighter does more than 50% more damage, its lowest possible damage is above the average of the firebolt, and it has a 1/3 chance of doing at least the maximum possible of the fire bolt.

There is no world in which 1d10 is equal to 1d6+5. The only "huge range" involved is a 50% chance of rolling less than the minimum of the 1d6+5.

this is a HUGE issue... starting at level 5 really you don't get new class abilities (you get indomitable so 1) you just do your things more often... while the casters not only do the things more often they ALSO get higher level abilities

You generally get a new ability out of your extra feat. But yes there is an issue here. A fighter with a good subclass gets two big abilities at level 7 and 10 (and with a bad subclass doesn't) and a bonus at level 6. The fighter's fine in tier 2 - but I wouldn't go further than calling them fine and heavily dependent on their subclass (not that I mind heavy subclass dependence).

 

[Neonchameleon]

Since two classes already have increased speed, I wouldn't want to just replicate that. How about increased jumping distance, and as a bonus action you can jump without it counting toward your movement? So you can run 30', then jump 30' more and whack WotC's little pet wizard four times. Plus there's OOC combat utility in just being able to jump longer distances.

I'd look at an action surge equivalent. Something like "Sprint"; proficiency bonus times per day you can, as a free action, get an extra move. While you do this your jump distance is doubled and you gain a bonus to jump checks equal to your proficiency bonus.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Except it's wrapped up in all this rhetoric about how terrible the Fighter is, and how WotC either hates martials or is incompetent.

yeah... and that is STILL how we see it even as you KEEP posting that we should not...

Given the reality that lots and lots of people really enjoy the Fighter, it really is just your preference.

and since lots of people like it and lots of people don't and we have no way to put reliable numbers to either... what difference does that make?
We had a dedicated thread to 'is popularity enough to say something should not be changed'... it cam out none of us are changing our minds

And all the complaining just drives people away.

and yet it seems to call in the people who complain that we are complaining...

(Maybe you haven't noticed, but I'm just about the only person left in the thread who isn't in the "Fighter sucks/WotC hates martials" camp. I think everybody else gave up.)

I WISH that was true.

I'd love to engage in design discussions, but honestly it feels like participating without strongly disagreeing with the premises is somehow joining the pile-on.

and I would love for you to join in discussion how to make it better but leave out the 'but enough people like it we can't change it too much' side argument.

For example, I thought this was an interesting point, buried in "no your solution doesn't work because all four of these things absolutely must be addressed" (pro tip on interpersonal communication: "that's a good start" works better than "that's insufficient so you fail")

yeah giving 'pro tips' doesn't seem to be a great way to interpersonal communicate either.

 

[Irlo]

WTF? 1d10 has a range of 1-10 and an average of 5.5. 1d6+5 has a range of 6-11 and an average of 8.5.

The fire bolt has a range of 120’ vs. the spear’s melee attack or 20’ range when thrown. That difference in range is a balancing factor.