D&D 5E Building a better Fighter

[steeldragons]

The Fighter is, and kind of has been since 2e-ish, a catch 22.

They are the character with the least amount of "built-in flavor"...They are the class that fights. It's what they do. They're the best at it.

Sword and shield? Mounted knight in shining armor (when you didn't want the "holy baggage" of the paladin)? Throwing axes in studded leather woodsman (when you didn't want the "Aragorn-baggage" of a ranger)? Chain wearing battle-axe wielding madman? Swashbuckler/buccaneer/pirate? Cavalier/chevalier/knight (before and even after there was a Cavalier)? Mercenary/solider/guardsman? Amazon/Valkyrie...Xena? Samurai? WWF-inspired wrestler/brawler? Kid with a borrowed (or stolen) sword who'd never left the farm before? Hercules and Perseus. Conan and Lancelot. Blackbeard and Gilgamesh.

The Fighter was, purposefully, left to handle all of these (and many more) archetypes. And, through the majority of the editions (and iterations of fantasy TTRPG clones), this is what they have been. The Fighter has been a class of its mechanics devoid of any true single core "identity" of flavor and story to fall back upon.

5e is no different. They built the Fighter and their subclasses around mechanics, not story. The "simple" fighter. The "slightly more complex/mechanically interesting" fighter. And the "slightly more complex than that because it involves magic (spell progression, spells known, and all that)" fighter.

Is an Eldritch Knight a literal "knight" in plate mail that belongs to a sanctioned (or unsanctioned) order of arcane adepts? Is it just an elfin warrior-mage trained in the skills of both because that's what elves (or elves of a certain social standing) can do? Is it a tribal warrior who has learned just enough of this shaman's teachings to generate magical effects to assist his fighting? Or Elric of Melnibone mixing innate ancestral magical ability with swordplay to conquer the known world?

The answer is "Yes." It is all of those things. On purpose. By design. As is the Battlemaster. As is the Champion. The fighter is the class in which you get to make the MOST story for your character, because other than "the Fighter fights [with weapons]" the class is given (and has) no single story of its own.

So, you come to the issue of, "The Fighter has no identity. It doesn't have any interesting/fun mechanics like paladins or druids or warlocks get. It's just boring."

When, at its core, the Fighter's "lack" of identity IS its identity.

The Fighter fights. That is the extent of their story and, simultaneously, the root mechanical framework upon which you can paint your greatest heroes and villains as you see fit.

If the Fighter "needs" anything, and I do not ascribe that it does, it would be a "fully/very complex" subclass option, with multiple moving parts and player choice options (a la a warlock), that are not "magic" upon which people that prefer a "later editions style of play" can have their "superheroic -but its not with magic- warrior." That would fill the Fighter class, as far as subclass options. Simple. Simple +1 special mechanic. Simple +Magic. Simple +2 (or more) special mechanics (a.k.a. "Not Simple").

It is a curiosity, that of all of the classes that have been developed over the years, all of the nooks and crannies of mythologies and legends and histories and cultures from which D&D has drawn PC classes...the Fighter, a warrior guy who can swing a sword, still is just the tabula rasa class that you can style however you like. No other class has this distinction.

Starting, arguably, from the Magic-user or at least from the original Thief/Rogue concept on down, every class that had come after, the built-in fluff/story of a class have become more and more specific and narrow. Some open up and some narrow further, here and there, from edition to edition. But always, there is some degree of an assumed (and generally accepted) backstory to go along with the class.

 

[DaedalusX51]

The Fighter is, and kind of has been since 2e-ish, a catch 22.

They are the character with the least amount of "built-in flavor"...They are the class that fights. It's what they do. They're the best at it.

Sword and shield? Mounted knight in shining armor (when you didn't want the "holy baggage" of the paladin)? Throwing axes in studded leather woodsman (when you didn't want the "Aragorn-baggage" of a ranger)? Chain wearing battle-axe wielding madman? Swashbuckler/buccaneer/pirate? Cavalier/chevalier/knight (before and even after there was a Cavalier)? Mercenary/solider/guardsman? Amazon/Valkyrie...Xena? Samurai? WWF-inspired wrestler/brawler? Kid with a borrowed (or stolen) sword who'd never left the farm before? Hercules and Perseus. Conan and Lancelot. Blackbeard and Gilgamesh.

The Fighter was, purposefully, left to handle all of these (and many more) archetypes. And, through the majority of the editions (and iterations of fantasy TTRPG clones), this is what they have been. The Fighter has been a class of its mechanics devoid of any true single core "identity" of flavor and story to fall back upon.

5e is no different. They built the Fighter and their subclasses around mechanics, not story. The "simple" fighter. The "slightly more complex/mechanically interesting" fighter. And the "slightly more complex than that because it involves magic (spell progression, spells known, and all that)" fighter.

Is an Eldritch Knight a literal "knight" in plate mail that belongs to a sanctioned (or unsanctioned) order of arcane adepts? Is it just an elfin warrior-mage trained in the skills of both because that's what elves (or elves of a certain social standing) can do? Is it a tribal warrior who has learned just enough of this shaman's teachings to generate magical effects to assist his fighting? Or Elric of Melnibone mixing innate ancestral magical ability with swordplay to conquer the known world?

The answer is "Yes." It is all of those things. On purpose. By design. As is the Battlemaster. As is the Champion. The fighter is the class in which you get to make the MOST story for your character, because other than "the Fighter fights [with weapons]" the class is given (and has) no single story of its own.

So, you come to the issue of, "The Fighter has no identity. It doesn't have any interesting/fun mechanics like paladins or druids or warlocks get. It's just boring."

When, at its core, the Fighter's "lack" of identity IS its identity.

The Fighter fights. That is the extent of their story and, simultaneously, the root mechanical framework upon which you can paint your greatest heroes and villains as you see fit.

If the Fighter "needs" anything, and I do not ascribe that it does, it would be a "fully/very complex" subclass option, with multiple moving parts and player choice options (a la a warlock), that are not "magic" upon which people that prefer a "later editions style of play" can have their "superheroic -but its not with magic- warrior." That would fill the Fighter class, as far as subclass options. Simple. Simple +1 special mechanic. Simple +Magic. Simple +2 (or more) special mechanics (a.k.a. "Not Simple").

It is a curiosity, that of all of the classes that have been developed over the years, all of the nooks and crannies of mythologies and legends and histories and cultures from which D&D has drawn PC classes...the Fighter, a warrior guy who can swing a sword, still is just the tabula rasa class that you can style however you like. No other class has this distinction.

Starting, arguably, from the Magic-user or at least from the original Thief/Rogue concept on down, every class that had come after, the built-in fluff/story of a class have become more and more specific and narrow. Some open up and some narrow further, here and there, from edition to edition. But always, there is some degree of an assumed (and generally accepted) backstory to go along with the class.

While I understand your viewpoint. I don't think broad classes work as well in a class based role playing game as narrowly focused ones. If you going to force me to have a certain set of class features, I would like those class features to be tightly tied to the narrative; unfortunately with the fighter, you have to do all that work yourself since it is not given to you.

If you want flexibility, you can obtain that much better in a classless game.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Lets talk Fighters. What works about them?

The basics. Weapon & Armor proficiency, d10 HD, Extra Attack. Everything else (not that there's a whole lot else), not so much.

What would you change and why?

Reduce the number of caster classes and cut down their breadth and power of their abilities until they could be balanced with non-casters like the Fighter. Consolidate the Rogue & Barbarian into the Fighter (and probably re-name it). Then either give it tons of sub-classes or break it out into several classes to separately cover various archetypes in structured ways, plus a highly-modular/customizeable non-caster class hopefully comparable in elegance to the 3e fighter without being stuck at Tier 5.
Balance the class set in each pillar, independently, rather than trying to balance one class by making it awesome in one pillar and incompetent in others.

OK, that's not what I'd do, that's what I'd want some very talented game designer to do.

But that "wouldn't be D&D."

How can they be improved?

More reasonably, keeping to the feel and design philosophy of 5e and just tweaking the fighter:

• Give fighters proficiency in all saving throws. If not at first level to avoid dipping, let them choose new saves as they level, at the higher levels more until they have them all covered.
• Introduce a Shield Proficiency that allows you to add Proficiency to AC & appropriate saves (perhaps as a Reaction, or more often if you have a Weapons & Shield Style, maybe).
• Give Indomitable teeth: make it an auto-success instead of a re-roll
• Ahead of Indomitable, give a feature to model heroism/courage - advantage on WIS & CHA saves, for instance.
• For the poor Champion, apply Remarkable Athlete to proficient checks, but not to checks were Expertise applies.
• Give fighters additional Reactions equal to their Extra Attacks
• Allow Second Wind to be triggered off-turn when the Fighter would otherwise be dropped to 0 hps. This can be an improvement to it at a higher level to avoid dipping.
• When not otherwise using Feats, allow the fighters two 'bonus' ASIs to be used for Feats.
• Add more powerful 'high level' BM maneuvers.
• Add non-combat features that key off CHA (Champion) or INT (EK) and give the (BM) a choice of such features each keying off different mental stats.

 

[SmokingSkull]

If I could change the Fighter I'd get rid of superiority die in general, to me adding that much more dice resolution just to do an attack is not welcome in my eyes. I'd rather have actual mechanics that change my Fighter based on subclass while making said subclasses flavorful and evocative. For instance I found an archetype online when I was searching and I liked it so much that I've petitioned my DM to let me change from Champion to the new subclass, it's called Juggernaut. All it is is a reskinned Samurai from UA except its level 7 ability: The Best Defense, the gist of it is is whenever you provoke an OA from something hostile you can use your reaction to either shove or make a weapon attack against that target, which may or may not let them resolve their OA depending on what you choose. While it does have the limit of only working on Large creatures (The shove portion) the attack does not have a limit.

The best part is once I hit level 18 in Fighter that feature no longer consumes my reaction, it's little things like that that make or break it for me. Not to mention I don't like rolling more dice than I need to, it's basically a hard coded feature that opens up interesting opportunities for me in play because I like a bit of depth to combat. Another thing I'd do is make Fighting styles more distinct and impacting, while Fighters are the de-facto weaponsmasters in 5E at the same time focus and specialization should matter both mechanically and story wise. While I don't like SD I like the idea of maneuvers and would institute such a system that only Fighters could do, and they would work based on circumstance, the cost would be something like exchange an attack or two to pull x off. That would mean that there are higher level maneuvers but that can be something Fighters could look forward to in play, the carrot on a stick if you will.

When it come to non combat stuff I'd say at certain levels you are given a small list of choices, like 2-3 depending, and it would be mixxed in at the base class and subclass level. They would be broadly applicable insomuch as they are generally useful in most but not all situations. This way you can make whatever your dream Fighter would be: a samurai that was disgraced and now lives as a vagabond ronin surviving out in the wild, a juggernaut who after leaving the army decided to become more of a people person to help soothe their guilty conscious from all the things they did, a mage school dropout who found out they were better at hitting things so they blended their magic and martial prowess all the while being studious and learned. Those are but examples and while backgrounds do a fair bit everyone gets one, it's not so unique in the grand scheme of things.

So TL;DR, remove SD and make mechanics to allow for maneuvers without spending and rolling from a dice pool, give Fighting styles more substance and narrative impact and offer non combat stuff in both base class and subclass.

Otherwise the Fighter is pretty solid imo.

 

[Quickleaf]

The Fighter is, and kind of has been since 2e-ish, a catch 22.

They are the character with the least amount of "built-in flavor"...They are the class that fights. It's what they do. They're the best at it.

That's not quite true. In AD&D and BD&D, fighters were feudal lords.

At least that was the narrative built into the mechanics as they leveled up. Other classes of the era did get followers, but not to the size and extent of the fighter who amassed an army. 3e marked a departure from that assumption, and that departure continued in 4e, and now in 5e. Nothing wrong with that – many modern players don't want to play feudal lords – but removing that bit of identity left a vacuum.

3e tried to fill that vacuum with a huge assortment of prestige classes & feats.

4e tried to partly filled that vacuum by making all fighters Those Who Defend Others.

5e tries to partly fill that vacuum with backgrounds.

So, you come to the issue of, "The Fighter has no identity. It doesn't have any interesting/fun mechanics like paladins or druids or warlocks get. It's just boring."

When, at its core, the Fighter's "lack" of identity IS its identity.

I agree that Mike Mearls is on the right track that the fighter subclasses are a good place to provide identity (identity-as-a-tool-like-other-classes NOT identity-as-a-straightjacket).

The Fighter fights. That is the extent of their story and, simultaneously, the root mechanical framework upon which you can paint your greatest heroes and villains as you see fit.

Where you see absolute truth, I see self-fulfilling prophecy.

Back when I read the AD&D2e PHB as a boy, I remember reading about figures from literature, history, and myth that the fighter class was inspired by: Hercules, Perseus, Hiawatha, Beowulf, Siegfried, Cuchulain, Little John, Tristan, and Sinbad. El Cid, Hannibal, Alexander the Great, Charlemagne, Spartacus, Richard the Lionheart, and Belisarius. Many of these men (and yeah they were all men sadly) were very charismatic, they were renowned, and people followed them. Many were also masterful tacticians. And most came from cultures with a warrior tradition.

My thought-experiment for anyone subscribing to "The Fighter Fights" theory is imagine the class was named "The Warrior" – it wouldn't make sense to say "The Warrior Wars", would it? A simple name change invites us, as designers & players/DMs, to wonder what it means to be a warrior, and (hopefully) makes us ponder the nature of a warrior when it comes to game moments, and not just those involving swinging swords.

 

[Tinker-TDC]

I think there are a few suggestions in here that work well.

I like the 'shift the enemy 5 feet' or 'shove' on a successful attack, though I might make the shove a couple times per short rest (maybe making either of these abilities a bonus action).

A small change I could see in a similar vein would be sentinel-style opportunity attacks at level 2 or 3 (the part where you can OA someone who moves while in your range, not the part where you stop their movement).

Now, these ideas appeal to me, but I play on a grid and I don't know how ToTM palyers would feel about it.

 

[Pauln6]

You can't please all of the people all of the time. The basic chassis of the Fighter does what it's supposed to. What I would have liked is bundled themed manoeuvres to replicate fighting styles similar to what they had in the playtest. Maybe choosing that style could grant an additional benefit as gravy on top.

 

[JeffB]

I don't use feats, so unsure if this is covered in the PHB, but I have been tweaking the Champion a bit. Some of the things I have been doing

Add proficiency bonus to initiative.
They get their own Escalation Die ala 13th Age
Second Wind can be used as a "power strike" on a successful attack
Proficiency bonus to perception in ambush/trap situations

 

[S'mon]

I didn't like Superiority Dice when I tried running a Fighter, and most Fighter players IME want a simple Champion-style Fighter that works. I find giving the Champion the Remarkable Athlete half Prof to all STR/DEX checks helps - and it's nice that it adds to Init per RAW.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I would take the 4e essential fighter as my base, but I would make some minor changes.

Hd d12
1 free skill in athletics or intimidate
1 free tool kit either healers kit, or blacksmith or leather worker
prof in Str and Con saving throws

fighting style at level 1 I would keep, along with second wind. I would make 2nd wind better at level 11 (I think 2d10)
Action surge I would move to a later level, at 2nd level I would give a +1d4 combat die. you can use it to add to hit and damage it recharges when you roll initiative. at level 4 you get a second one (but only 1 recharges when your roll initiative, but you get them all back on a long rest) at 6th level you get a 3rd one, at 8th level you get a 4th one, at 10th level the recharge changes to 1/2 of them recharge when you roll initative, and they all come back on short or long rest. At 12th level you upgrade to d6, at 14th level you get a 5th, and at 16th level you get BOTH a 6th die and they upgrade to d8s. At 18th level you get your 7th die, and finally at 20th level you gain both the 8th die and they upgrade to d10's...

these combat dice can be rolled after your roll to hit but before you declare if you hit or not... if used you add it to hit, if you hit you also add it to damage. so I roll a 11, add my +5 to hit I can either call a 16 or add my +1d4 if I do and roll a 2 lets say, I would hit an 18 and deal +2 damage if I hit.

I think I would move action surge to level 3, but I would never give a second one.

I would keep extra attacks at 5 and 11, but I would move the 3rd one down to 17.

Indomitable I keep at levels at 9, 13, and 17.

Then subclasses would be more flavorful, and add uses for the combat dice and/or add other features.