D&D 5E Breaking down the Fighter archetypes.

[krakistophales]

Personally i quite like the 5E fighters/warriors. There seams to be a bit of many things for everyone in them, and all that is wrapped up in a neat package that allows for lots of flexibility and customization in regards to multi classing or background/skill choices. I haven't been compelled to play a fighter in 2 editions now, and this one made me do it (with pleasure). I am rolling a half elven, out lander war master right now, but my next PC would probably be a high elven eldritch knight.

EDIT: action economy and DPS be damned! Why can't we enjoy the class for its "play potential"?

You sure can. We're discussing the fighter archetypes from a min/max point of view, but the great thing about 5th edition is that you can totally have fun both mechanically and roleplaying even if you don't have a numerically superior specimen.

 

[TheLoneRanger1979]

You sure can. We're discussing the fighter archetypes from a min/max point of view, but the great thing about 5th edition is that you can totally have fun both mechanically and roleplaying even if you don't have a numerically superior specimen.

Amen to that!

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Yeah, except that the champion has remarkable athlete, which pretty much renders your entire argument wrong, since many of the things they can do outside of hitting, they do better than everyone else. I.e., it isn't the same thing for any character.

Uh, no? Name one combat action, other than grappling or escaping from a grapple, that you can do better in combat as a Champion as a result of Remarkable Athlete--and even then, somebody with Str (or Dex) and Athletcs (or Acrobatics) is strictly superior. Which is literally anyone, because two skills can be whatever you want them to be (come up with your own background if one of the provided ones doesn't do it). For the vast majority of players, since high-teens levels are almost as rare as hens' teeth, it's a +1 or +2 bonus to a small handful of things, most of which a Fighter is going to want to be good at anyway. If you have sky-high Dex or Str, you have little reason not to pick up one of Athletics or Acrobatics, which is both ~twice as good and non-stacking! If it stacked with proficiency, you'd have me--it would be a benefit basically nobody (not even Bards) could get, that makes them genuinely remarkable athletically.

And that's not even considering all the other things that would put a fighter in a better position at certain tasks than other PCs. Nice try though. Doubt it will stop you from complaining about the subclass though.

Like what? Name a few. Preferably, at least one that isn't solely derived from "[I can] do X because it makes a cool story." Any character can be used to tell a cool story. That you can tell a cool story independently of whatever a character's class is, regardless of any features it might have or lack, says that the coolosity of the story you tell with the character is orthogonal to whether the class equips you or fails to equip you with meaningful tools. Anybody can have fun playing with a cardboard box, and anybody can have fun playing with the computer that came in it, but that doesn't mean the cardboard box and the computer are precisely identical in the tools they provide you with. Both act as canvasses for projecting something interesting and entertaining, but the computer can do so many other things besides.

Edit:

EDIT: action economy and DPS be damned! Why can't we enjoy the class for its "play potential"?

I don't really care all that much about action economy or DPS*. I care about having tools to effect change within the world.

Every class has play potential. It's inherent to the concept of roleplaying a character--a character that had no class at all would still have play potential. But a character that is equipped with tools to meaningfully impact the world--which, in 5e, is largely though not completely confined to non-combat spells and classes that have casting as their primary feature--has far more than just "play potential."

*Technically, the term usually used is DPR, rather than DPS, because combat proceeds in "rounds" that can take many minutes to resolve in real-time, even though within the game world there is a seconds-based definition of the round (6 seconds, IIRC).

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I pretty much like all of the fighters. When I did a break down of Champion vs. Battle Master a while I go, I was initially concerned that Champion was weak. After lots of math and taking various things into account, I discovered that Champion is only marginally weaker than Battle Master on average--and that's assuming not even using feats (which can help a Champion more than a Battle Master). It's not worth stressing about unless you are in a power-gaming campaign. Fighter in general is a very effective class. After my analysis, I no longer felt concerned about the character concept I have for a straight up Basic Rules human (non-variant), no-feats Champion Fighter.

As far as the thematic nature of the Battle Master subclass, I think it is usually represented wrong. People a lot of times think "warlord" because the name sounds like a version of that, and because it has a few maneuvers that are warlordy. But really, it is designed as much or more for other concepts than for a battlefield leader type.

Tactical Leader ("warlord")
There are 4 maneuvers that are clearly in this category: Commander's Strike, Distracting Strike, Maneuvering Attack, and Rally.
That's pretty much it. Out of 16 maneuvers, 4 of them speak to this concept.

Duelist/Swashbuckler
There are 9 maneuvers that speak clearly towards this concept: Disarming Attack, Evasive Footwork, Feinting Attack, Goading Attack, Lunging Attack, Parry, Pushing Attack, Riposte, Trip Attack.
This class has twice as many targeted options for a swashbuckling duelist as it has for a tactical leader.

Gladiator
There are 7 maneuvers that are just asking you to gladiator up: Disarming Attack, Feinting Attack, Goading Attack, Lunging Attack, Menacing Attack, Pushing Attack, Trip Attack.

Samurai
The Student of War and Know Your Enemy class features just scream Samurai.
It only has 2 maneuvers (Menacing Attack, Precision Attack) that seem to directly evoke a samurai feel, but that's because there aren't really a lot of specific combat maneuvers one associates specifically with a samurai.
But the non-maneuver features really do just scream Samurai to me.

So of just these four obvious fighter concepts, a duelist/swashbuckler and a gladiator both have about twice the maneuver support of a tactician warlord, and Samurai seems about equal.

So the over-emphasized (by fans I would say--WotC hasn't really pushed it very hard) warlord-ish concept of a Battle Master is tied for 3rd place out of the top four contenders that immediately come to mind.

I suppose there is a lesson here about not judging a class by the impressions others (including myself) have given you about what it is about or what it does. Look at it yourself and see if you like what it does. I know that my Battle Master character, for instance, is quite envious of the initiative bonus that Remarkable Athlete is gives the party's Champion.

 

[Marandahir]

Yeah, Battle Master's also envious of that second fighting style!

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Yeah, Battle Master's also envious of that second fighting style!

You bet! We're both two-weapon fighting, but she get better AC to go with hers.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Uh, no? Name one combat action, other than grappling or escaping from a grapple, that you can do better in combat as a Champion as a result of Remarkable Athlete--and even then, somebody with Str (or Dex) and Athletcs (or Acrobatics) is strictly superior. Which is literally anyone, because two skills can be whatever you want them to be (come up with your own background if one of the provided ones doesn't do it). For the vast majority of players, since high-teens levels are almost as rare as hens' teeth, it's a +1 or +2 bonus to a small handful of things, most of which a Fighter is going to want to be good at anyway. If you have sky-high Dex or Str, you have little reason not to pick up one of Athletics or Acrobatics, which is both ~twice as good and non-stacking! If it stacked with proficiency, you'd have me--it would be a benefit basically nobody (not even Bards) could get, that makes them genuinely remarkable athletically.



Like what? Name a few. Preferably, at least one that isn't solely derived from "[I can] do X because it makes a cool story." Any character can be used to tell a cool story. That you can tell a cool story independently of whatever a character's class is, regardless of any features it might have or lack, says that the coolosity of the story you tell with the character is orthogonal to whether the class equips you or fails to equip you with meaningful tools. Anybody can have fun playing with a cardboard box, and anybody can have fun playing with the computer that came in it, but that doesn't mean the cardboard box and the computer are precisely identical in the tools they provide you with. Both act as canvasses for projecting something interesting and entertaining, but the computer can do so many other things besides.
.

Since the very beginning; since day 1 of D&D, players have have their PCs attempt things that often came down to a simple ability check. Even if there was no rule for this. This may be shocking to you, but even my fighter in B/X did things in combat like flip over tables, flying tackles, disarms, tripping, etc. And like it's always been, all the DM has to do is assign a DC value to it (back in AD&D it was a simple ability check) since the main structure of how to resolve that is already in the game. Since fighters not only typically have stats that are high in the physical, that already sets them up to be better at attempting physical challenges than say the mage or cleric who probably doesn't have as high as stats. Champion fighters get an extra bonus on top of that because of remarkable athlete.

This has been argued time and time again for years, and I know you've seen most of them. Heck, I think just a couple months ago [MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION] did a detailed breakdown on how a champion is actually better than most at these types of ad hoc actions. So why you insist on pretending this discussion hasn't happened over and over and insist on making the same argument is beyond me. I don't know, maybe the fighter stole your girlfriend so you're bound and determined to complain about them. Maybe the very concept of thinking out of the box to do actions not listed on your character sheet like players have been doing for 40 years is something you can't grasp. I don't know. Don't really care. Not gonna get into yet another long argument about something that's already been argued to death. The bottom line is whenever someone says all the fighter can do (champion fighter in 5e context) is "I attack, I attack, I attack again", then either they are being deliberately obtuse, or they have zero imagination on how to play their PC. Which is odd for a game whose tagline was "Products of your Imagination".

 

[Salamandyr]

I personally see the Champion as the "Basic" and the Battlemaster as the "Advanced" version of the same thing; the tough as nails, expert with all weapons and none, warrior par excellence. It's not that either of these subclasses really does anything different from the other-it's just a question of how much what they do is abstracted into a die roll.

Sure the flavor text reads a little differently, but that's flavor text. It's meant to inspire the players creativity, not stifle it.

 

[TheLoneRanger1979]

I pretty much like all of the fighters. When I did a break down of Champion vs. Battle Master a while I go, I was initially concerned that Champion was weak. After lots of math and taking various things into account, I discovered that Champion is only marginally weaker than Battle Master on average--and that's assuming not even using feats (which can help a Champion more than a Battle Master). It's not worth stressing about unless you are in a power-gaming campaign. Fighter in general is a very effective class. After my analysis, I no longer felt concerned about the character concept I have for a straight up Basic Rules human (non-variant), no-feats Champion Fighter.

As far as the thematic nature of the Battle Master subclass, I think it is usually represented wrong. People a lot of times think "warlord" because the name sounds like a version of that, and because it has a few maneuvers that are warlordy. But really, it is designed as much or more for other concepts than for a battlefield leader type.

....

I'm not sure i'd chose the 4E Warlord as a direct counterpart to the 5E Battle master either (though some roles seam to have been transferred), but for different reasons. But first thing first....

I actually see the "Know your enemy" and "Student of War" features and the "evasive footwork" maneuver as part of the "tactical package" (along with Commander's Strike, Distracting Strike, Maneuvering Attack, and Rally) because they actually are directly involved with the mastery and control of the "field of battle".

Second... Parry, Pushing Attack and Trip Attack, seam to me more like universal fighting actions, that should be available to either all fighters (if not martial types in general), and if not, there should be a way to RP them.

So from my perspective there are actually 7 "warlord-y" features to this archetype, not 4. But this does not necessarily make the archetype a classic 4E warlord. Maybe we confuse it because of the naming and some of the powers that the TACTICAL warlord had. But the way i saw the 4E WL regardless of type was just that, a leader, a general, a chief. Not a person that can take on that role, but the roll itself. The way i perceive the 5E battle master is the exact opposite. It is a person that can take on the role, but is not the role. If the 5E's champion is the archetypal "hero" and "warrior", then the 5E's war master is the "soldier" and the "officer". Not as epic and "worthy of a song" through sheer prowess and superhuman feats of heroics, but more of the organized and disciplined variety of fighters that rises to the occasion through training, cunning and understanding the "flow of battle". The WM is not the leader that charges into the fray because the situation demands it, he's the soldier that takes the initiative of command because of it.

Or at least, that's the way i see it

I don't really care all that much about action economy or DPS*. I care about having tools to effect change within the world.

Every class has play potential. It's inherent to the concept of roleplaying a character--a character that had no class at all would still have play potential. But a character that is equipped with tools to meaningfully impact the world--which, in 5e, is largely though not completely confined to non-combat spells and classes that have casting as their primary feature--has far more than just "play potential."

Interesting, but i think this is exactly what i think makes the current classes so versatile and flexible. In 4E i.e. this was completely reversed. You'd need a hell of "liberated" GM to do anything outside the box. The rules were so "tight", the classes so shoehorned, you were stuck given roles even if you had plenty to do with your PC 9on paper). I actually find the 5E back to the roots approach "liberating".

 

[Uchawi]

It makes no sense that the Battlemaster has maneuvers yet for some reason those can not be used by the champion or EK. Where technically, the EK should be a separate class. The only reason the champion exists is for game reasons so someone can use a simple class. So overall the fighter archetypes are an anomaly when compared against each other. You have much more cohesion when looking at a wizard/subclasses, monk/subclasses, etc.