D&D 5E Do Fighters Still Suck?

[Tony Vargas]

I never claimed the sucked in combat just they sucked because their combat skills are not that impressive in regard to the other classes and they give up everything else to do that.

Can't argue to hard with that last bit, but it's hard to beat out multiple attacks in a system like 5e. If you bring in bells and wistles and add-ons like CS dice, the fighter is not outclassed by smiting or what-have-you, and any other tricks - feats, items, whatever - to boost damage the fighter leverages harder than anyone else via Extra Attacks and Action Surge.

Besides, not measuring up to some game-breaking build (you said you're dealing with some serious powergaming) is not 'sucking.' Breaking the game sucks.

In 2E for example the fighter was a lot better at combat than the Paladin and Ranger just because of weapon specialization. 1E they were outclassed by the Ranger even if you used UA IIRC.

I thought all 2e Warrior-group classes could specialize? The 1e Ranger actually had it pretty tough, MAD before that was a thing, got multiple attacks on a slower schedule than the fighter, no special TWFing benefits, so had to scrape together DEX for that....

 

[Zardnaar]

Can't argue to hard with that last bit, but it's hard to beat out multiple attacks in a system like 5e. If you bring in bells and wistles and add-ons like CS dice, the fighter is not outclassed by smiting or what-have-you, and any other tricks - feats, items, whatever - to boost damage the fighter leverages harder than anyone else via Extra Attacks and Action Surge.

Besides, not measuring up to some game-breaking build (you said you're dealing with some serious powergaming) is not 'sucking.' Breaking the game sucks.

I thought all 2e Warrior-group classes could specialize? The 1e Ranger actually had it pretty tough, MAD before that was a thing, got multiple attacks on a slower schedule than the fighter, no special TWFing benefits, so had to scrape together DEX for that....

Only fighters could get weapon specialization in the 2E PHB (assuming it was used). Using books like Skills and Powers/Combat Rangers and Paladins could get delayed access to it or access to it via point buy class abilities and fighters could get multiple weapon specialization.

Good luck finding DMs to let much in from Skills and Powers, Combat and Tactics isn't to bad.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I thought all 2e Warrior-group classes could specialize? The 1e Ranger actually had it pretty tough, MAD before that was a thing, got multiple attacks on a slower schedule than the fighter, no special TWFing benefits, so had to scrape together DEX for that....

Aside from the S&P-era abominations, specialization was limited to

1.) single- or dual-classed fighters (no multi-classed);
2.) Dark Sun gladiators (again, no multi-class).

No paladins or rangers allowed.

 

[PnPgamer]

I thought all 2e Warrior-group classes could specialize? The 1e Ranger actually had it pretty tough, MAD before that was a thing, got multiple attacks on a slower schedule than the fighter, no special TWFing benefits, so had to scrape together DEX for that....

for those who don't know:
Must have min. STR of 13
Must have min. INT of 13
Must have min. WIS of 14
Must have min. CON of 14
basic stat rule is rolling 3d6 IN PLACE.
But once you got yourself a ranger, you would notice that by raw 1e rules they were pretty powerful. For example the list of favored enemies is immense and also the bonus is out of this world

includes:
bugbears, ettins, giants, gnolls, goblins, hobgoblins, kobolds,
ogres, ogre magi, orcs, and trolls.

what is the bonus? well +1 damage per ranger level attained per strike.

more details courtesy of my 1e buddy https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/22333214/1/2ph/ranger.htm

 

[Zardnaar]

for those who don't know:
Must have min. STR of 13
Must have min. INT of 13
Must have min. WIS of 14
Must have min. CON of 14
basic stat rule is rolling 3d6 IN PLACE.
But once you got yourself a ranger, you would notice that by raw 1e rules they were pretty powerful. For example the list of favored enemies is immense and also the bonus is out of this world

includes:
bugbears, ettins, giants, gnolls, goblins, hobgoblins, kobolds,
ogres, ogre magi, orcs, and trolls.

what is the bonus? well +1 damage per ranger level attained per strike.

more details courtesy of my 1e buddy https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/22333214/1/2ph/ranger.htm

You are wrong about 3d6 BTW. In 1E there is no default (page 11 DMG). There are 4 options and Method I is actually 4d6 drop the lowest. 3d6 in order is actually method III. 3d6 was BECMI default. 4d6 drop the lowest assign how you like and its not that hard to qualify for the ranger.

1E was also the last time the Ranger class was considered good and it felt like a ranger (excelling at tracking, favoured enemy, spells). 4E had a good striker crap ranger, 3.0 had a weak Ranger, 3.5 had the wilderogue and the 2E Ranger was usually regarded as weak. 5E at leat has the Hunter which is decent at least.

 

[PnPgamer]

You are wrong about 3d6 BTW. In 1E there is no default (page 11 DMG). There are 4 options and Method I is actually 4d6 drop the lowest. 3d6 in order is actually method III. 3d6 was BECMI default. 4d6 drop the lowest assign how you like and its not that hard to qualify for the ranger.

1E was also the last time the Ranger class was considered good and it felt like a ranger (excelling at tracking, favoured enemy, spells). 4E had a good striker crap ranger, 3.0 had a weak Ranger, 3.5 had the wilderogue and the 2E Ranger was usually regarded as weak. 5E at leat has the Hunter which is decent at least.

I don't own 1e books, 2e I do have and it had the methods in different order. I thought they would've been same.

 

[Zardnaar]

I don't own 1e books, 2e I do have and it had the methods in different order. I thought they would've been same.

There are a lot of small changes between the editions that are not apparent at a 1st glance. 2E nerfed most of the classes compared with 1E (thief got a relative buff), and then there are subtle things like the way magic resistance works, dice rolling methods, initiative etc. Overall they seemed to try to drag the power level of PCs down as 2E weapon specialization for example is weaker than the 1E one and they removed it from Rangers. Part of the appeal of 1E I supppsoe is the appeal of playing OP classes (Druid, Ranger, Paladin) and those classes were a bit behind the curve in power in 2E.

The fighter lost vassal income, his cleave ability and had weapon specialization nerfed from 1E to 2E.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

So, since I and others have been quoted and interpreted as saying the Fighter sucks...when explicitly saying it doesn't...I'd like to reiterate in simple terms.

The Fighter doesn't suck. It does competent damage, and is roughly as easy to optimize as any other "melee" combatant. It may even have a slight edge in damage, especially at very high levels. Some of this depends very heavily on optional rules, and some of those optional rules are frequent targets of nerfs (how many people complain about the power of GWM? Prior to the endless Warlord threads, that was the issue that kept eternally recurring.)

However, that's pretty much where its features stop. Defensively, it's not as easy to optimize as a Paladin or Barbarian (who may not even need feats to be defensive powerhouses). In social situations, it's vastly outclassed by basically everyone else--and its extra feats are often quite easily outclassed by mere first-level spells. In exploration, Action Surge may or may not be useful, but otherwise the Fighter has diddly.

So: Sucks? No. Limited? Hell yes.

 

[Psikerlord#]

So, since I and others have been quoted and interpreted as saying the Fighter sucks...when explicitly saying it doesn't...I'd like to reiterate in simple terms.

The Fighter doesn't suck. It does competent damage, and is roughly as easy to optimize as any other "melee" combatant. It may even have a slight edge in damage, especially at very high levels. Some of this depends very heavily on optional rules, and some of those optional rules are frequent targets of nerfs (how many people complain about the power of GWM? Prior to the endless Warlord threads, that was the issue that kept eternally recurring.)

However, that's pretty much where its features stop. Defensively, it's not as easy to optimize as a Paladin or Barbarian (who may not even need feats to be defensive powerhouses). In social situations, it's vastly outclassed by basically everyone else--and its extra feats are often quite easily outclassed by mere first-level spells. In exploration, Action Surge may or may not be useful, but otherwise the Fighter has diddly.

So: Sucks? No. Limited? Hell yes.

Custom feats are what unlocks the awesomeness of the Fighter.

 

[Sezarious]

Fighters SUCK! I hate them so much! I would have gotten away with my dastardly DM plans if it wasn't for them and their darn dogs always snooping around! There's always a dog...

In all seriousness though, I enjoy fighters and find them quite fun at times.