D&D 5E Do Fighters Still Suck?

[GMforPowergamers]

Quite a bit would depend on what exactly was included in those " lots of extra options" and how plentiful they were. Doing a little less damage for a few options might seem balanced at a glance but if those options had significant effects such as replicating magic or inflicting nasty action-denying conditions then it would be a closer call.

we can use wizard as our goal post... if I deal about as much damage as a wizard (so full range this new set of options runs the same as unoptimized wizard to optimized wizard) but could do only 3/4 the status effects and less then 1/2 the buffs the wizard can throw, and to replace that 1/4 of the status effects and most of the buffs they got armor (witch without a mage armor variant would be needed) and there weapon profs.....

 

[ExploderWizard]

we can use wizard as our goal post... if I deal about as much damage as a wizard (so full range this new set of options runs the same as unoptimized wizard to optimized wizard) but could do only 3/4 the status effects and less then 1/2 the buffs the wizard can throw, and to replace that 1/4 of the status effects and most of the buffs they got armor (witch without a mage armor variant would be needed) and there weapon profs.....

Not sure why all the wizard stuff is needed. We already have an eldritch knight subclass.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Battlemaster... I really wish I could like it more, but I'll admit I'm a bit biased against it.

It was maybe talked up a bit much as the 'complex fighter option,' (which, in a way, has been nonsense the whole time, nobody /wants/ complex for its own sake, they want option-rich, versatile, and interesting, and are willing to pay a high price in putting up with complexity). The Battlemaster is still a fighter, and between the bone-simple Champion and modest-complexity EK - all clearly behind even comparatively 'simple' full casters like the Warlock or Sorcerer.

The game could use a more interesting/flexible/versatile martial class, not because the 5e fighter sucks, but because it does such a great job as a 'training wheels' class for new players, and a simple class option for players who want that.

4-5 dice/short rest until level 15 seems a bit miserly to me, considering the effects are single target and some of them scream to be comboed with others. And because you are short handed on dice, it tends to be a bad idea to use them on the weaker effects, which artificially cuts your maneuver list. Compare this to the monk, who's got 10 Ki points by level 10, and one of the best status effects in the game to boot (Stunning), and some really unique things to use Ki on.

Sure, the Monk is there for players who want more than the fighter has to give.

In the end, my biggest objection is still that you don't get a whole lot of mechanical payoff for staying with the Battlemaster or Champion. You hit a little harder and swing a little more accurately as you level, and considering you're supposedly the master of swordplay (or bow play or mace play), it's really disappointing to have the same potential for 10+ levels: you don't come up with new and special ways to hurl allies, or break things, or to use the environment to your advantage, you just get better at them.

Which isn't an objection to the class, just an objection to playing it if you want more options as you level - casters give you that in spades, so if concept isn't important, just play a caster, if concept is important, then you don't have an objection to the BM fighter, you have a reason to want a new martial class with more options, like a Warblade or Warlord or Sword Sage or 3.5-style fighter or 4e-style fighter (neither of which filled the need for a simple/training-wheels class).

You've had two of us come right out and say that we prefer fighters and not for the reasons you gave. It literally has nothing to do with not caring at all, or "as much" about options.

If you prefer something with orders of magnitude fewer options, it's not unreasonable to conclude that you are indifferent to the number of options available through the class, or, alternately, that you have an aversion to options, or of course, that you simply like the concept so much that the implementation is secondary. The first appears to be the case: you delight in manufacturing your own options be declaring actions that have no established formal resolution, so you are indifferent to the number of options presented by the class.

Case closed, AFAICT. Not sure what you two are going on about at this point, other than whose preference is somehow 'right.' (Hint: it's a preference.)

 

[Tony Vargas]

OK, so do a lot of people, I don't see why that matters when no one has suggested changing your fighter subclass, or taking it away... if you enjoy the fighter today you will after new more complex subclasses are out... because it wont change what we have...

I suppose there could be misgivings about adding a more 'advanced' martial class, that could cover, broadly speaking, some of the same sorts of concepts as a BM fighter (among others not currently covered, of course), possibly overshadowing the simpler fighter the way casters do.

It's one thing to be overshadowed by a character with a completely different concept - your character may feel inferior at that moment, but he's still distinct, he's still got his thing to be be good at, his way, you can still swing that sword harder than any puny wizard - but when your fighter is being shown up by, say, a Warblade, it's a little more personal.

Not sure why all the wizard stuff is needed. We already have an eldritch knight subclass.

I'd think people would miss the wizard if it were removed from the game. ;P

 

[Bluenose]

The fighter isn't the versatility in a box type of character. That is the wizard's job- to perform feats of magic that those who have not studied it cannot. If you hand out that utility to every class then all classes kind of feel the same.

I enjoy fighters. I am running three campaigns at different times and only get to be a player once every few weeks and I am playing a battlemaster fighter without multi-classing. A dex based fighter that is good with both bow and paired weapons (rapiers). Menacing attack, and trip can be used with either bow or melee attacks, that is versatility. The fun comes from applying this focused skill set to actual situations. I wouldn't say the fun of playing this character would dramatically increase by adding a dozen new abilities to the character sheet which amounted to flowery descriptions of doing X amount of damage.

A class that has extreme versatility is perfectly fair. A class that masters a particular area is also perfectly fair. When the two are combined in one class and it's proponents refuse to tolerate anything that reduces it's ability to be versatile and to be a master - that's not desirable by any measure.

Also, given the huge amount of hostility there was to 4e martial abilities that involving anything involving pushing and other actions, I expect you'll be getting a deluge of complaints about "unrealistic" MMO-style manoeuvres. Just to warn you about the likely consequences of mentioning tripping with a missile weapon.

 

[Zardnaar]

The damage from the spider staff is 2d6 (1d6 bludgeoning and 1d6 poison) or 1d4+1d6 with the bonus action attack, so the main result of it is that he has +1 AC from being able to use a shield and deals ~3 extra damage each time his bonus action attack hits. I wouldn't call him "optimized" - the feats allow him more opportunities to act when he takes the front lines, but "I have two feats" is hardly CharOp stuff.

What is evident is that this is part of the benefit of being in melee - if you're not using your reaction to make an attack, you're kind of leaving some significant damage on the table.



Sure - the feats he's taking are available to anyone, and someone with a greataxe and those feats might be dealing similar damage. But in this datapoint, you can definitely see: the fighter didn't suck. It doesn't really matter if someone might hypothetically outperform him in a vacuum - in practice, he didn't suck.

Polearm master is one of the best feats in the game and PM+sentinel or PA+GWM is a bit of a combo. Feats are also optional rules as well and there is nothing stopping say an avenger Paladin using the exact same combo except they will deal 3d6 damage instead of 2d6 with that staff.

My avenger Paladin won't win any damage dealing awards in 5E as I took inspiring leader and resilient as my feats. By level 6 though I will be giving everyone in the party an additional 10 temporary hit points and +4 on all saving throws (within 10' feet). Thats also why I don't rate the fighter that high either because one failed hold person spell and you are no a free critical hit target. On Sunday the rnager lead 100 odd refugees through a swamp at full speed.

The highest level fighters are DPM machines but thats all they are and those builds often get hosed at range. Our ranger would just pull out a bow and make 2 attacks a round adding 1d6 on each attack, the Paladin would likely bless the ranged PCs or use moon beam. Paladin also found a succubus infiltrator using divine sense.

You could go with a dex based fighter I suppose but dex based melee tends to be weak unless you are a rogue or a dex based ranger (hunter or tempest) it seems.

It seems marginal fighters actually deal more damage until level 11 and even then its not by a larege amount and even that is debatable as combat doesn't always take place in a 10' by 10' room.

 

[Zardnaar]

I suppose there could be misgivings about adding a more 'advanced' martial class, that could cover, broadly speaking, some of the same sorts of concepts as a BM fighter (among others not currently covered, of course), possibly overshadowing the simpler fighter the way casters do.

It's one thing to be overshadowed by a character with a completely different concept - your character may feel inferior at that moment, but he's still distinct, he's still got his thing to be be good at, his way, you can still swing that sword harder than any puny wizard - but when your fighter is being shown up by, say, a Warblade, it's a little more personal.

I'd think people would miss the wizard if it were removed from the game. ;P

Wizard won the most popular class award when they polled people in 2012.

 

[Salamandyr]

My main beef is almost everything that looks like a "power option" is also a limiting option. Like Polearm Master, and Sharpshooter.

The fighter ought to be the guy who is, for his level, the master of all kinds of combat. Drop him naked and unarmed into a gladiator pit? He's gonna win, or at least be competitive. Dragon attacks him from 200 yards away? He nails that sucker with his longbow, which incidentally, is so stout that no one but him, and maybe the barbarian (who can't hit the broad side of a barn with it) can draw it. On foot, or mounted, in the air, or under the sea, with any weapon or none, the "fighting man" is the quintessential warrior. Others may equal him, and maybe even exceed him a little, in one particular area, but no one but the fighter, excels in all of them.

He's D'Artagnan at low level, Conan at mid level, and Li Mu Bai or Hercules at high level.

5e gets pretty close, but it still tries to steer you to doing one thing, over and over again, and taking your toys away from you if you can't do that one thing. The steering isn't as overt as 3e and its clones, but it's still there.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Polearm master is one of the best feats in the game and PM+sentinel or PA+GWM is a bit of a combo. Feats are also optional rules as well and there is nothing stopping say an avenger Paladin using the exact same combo except they will deal 3d6 damage instead of 2d6 with that staff.

Again, hypotheticals don't mean anything in practice. Nobody in the group is a paladin. It doesn't matter what a paladin might do to this party. Even if a fighter is outperformed, it's hard to argue that the fighter sucks just because they're not the very best.

The highest level fighters are DPM machines but thats all they are and those builds often get hosed at range. Our ranger would just pull out a bow and make 2 attacks a round adding 1d6 on each attack, the Paladin would likely bless the ranged PCs or use moon beam. Paladin also found a succubus infiltrator using divine sense.

That ranger would be giving up all those delightful reaction attacks that makes the fighter in this game such a powerhouse.

It seems marginal fighters actually deal more damage until level 11 and even then its not by a larege amount and even that is debatable as combat doesn't always take place in a 10' by 10' room.

And absent theorycraft, this fighter is...frankly kind of wiping the floor, at least as of last game!

 

[Mistwell]

Polearm master is one of the best feats in the game and PM+sentinel or PA+GWM is a bit of a combo. Feats are also optional rules as well and there is nothing stopping say an avenger Paladin using the exact same combo except they will deal 3d6 damage instead of 2d6 with that staff.

Fighter gets more feats than the Paladin though. It's an important aspect of the fighter in fact. Unique to them in the quantity of feats.