D&D 5E Do Fighters Still Suck?

[Xeviat]

1. The fighter has no damage dealing advantage over the other martial classes ...

Action surge, expanded crit, superiority dice, and 3rd and 4th attacks say otherwise.

2. Strength based PCs suck at range being reduced to throwing javelins often at disadvantage. As a further kick in the balls they can only make 1 attack a round since you can only draw 1 weapon a round.

Yes, str lacks range. You should be able to draw and throw multiple javelins as drawing ammo is part of firing it. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's how I've understood ranged attacks.

3. Dex based melee tends to be underpowered along with dual wielding which uses the bonus action. That bonus action is often better off used for Polearm Mastery, Great Weapon Fighting, or moving around hunter mark/hex or casting quickened hastes or whatever.

Those other options require spells or feats, so they should be better. Dex melee is fine with duelist on fighter; rogue and ranger are better for twfing.

4. Most classes casting spells.

Yes.

5. Other classes tend to be better targets for haste/twinned haste. THis is due to spells like hex/hunters mark and advantage to hit that Barbarians and Avenger Paladins can easily get.

Classes are different. Different buffs are more optimal on different classes. I have found that only a gwfing paladin or a twfing rogue out damage a gwfing fighter, and that's even the champion and requiring the paladin to use all of their spells for smite. The fighter has second wind every short rest, giving them amazing recovery in long days. Indomitable is huge.

All the fighter needs is liberal application of skills, since they lack hard coded spells.

They may be mundane, which isn't fun for some people. Try the Eldritch Knight.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I rolled up a Sharpshooter Eldritch Knight recently. Apparently I think fighters are fine.

Although I do think fighters make better archers than melee tanks. Tanking is for paladins and barbarians.

 

[jgsugden]

The biggest factor in how effective a well designed fighter will be is the DM's campaign design.

If the DM has 1 to 3 encounters per long rest, then the fighter will seem weak compared to the barbarian, ranger or paladin. The main strength of the fighter is their high level of effectiveness without the use of limited use resource abilities (like spells). When their competition gets to recharge their abilities during more short or long rests than anticipated by game designers, those classes gain an advantage over fighters. However, if the DM has a short rest every 1 to 3 encounters and a long rest every 4 to 8 encounters, the fighter is more balanced - and if the DM forces 7 to 10 encounters per long rest, the fighter will tend to shine above the classes that burned out all their spells, rages, smites etc... while the fighter continues to benefit from their higher stats, their extra feats, etc...

 

[Zardnaar]

I have seen a couple of fights so far, however my amount of playtime is far far less than yours. 14 hours a week? Really? Anyhow, back on topic.

One Battlemaster fighter and one Eldritch Knight. Both seemed to contribute plenty to their respective campaigns. One had thought about multi-classing into bard but ended up staying full fighter (to level 13).

I always wonder though Zard, your groups just seem to DPR centric. I don't have that feel at any of my tables. I haven't even seen one person go for a polearm weapon to get the feat eventually. Something that I think is pretty strong for melee as you have also said.

The battlemaster did take Great weapon mastery though and kicked some pa-toot with it. Fights that he took out all the stops, he did large amounts of damage in.

In terms of what other melee classes are played, I am seeing a lot of barbarians. People seem all over the resistances to damage. Kind of say honestly, I want to see at least one berserker...

I did see both a ranger and a paladin played in my groups. The ranger (lvl 7) did very well and very much enjoyed his character. The paladin(lvl 7), I think there was a disconnect with how the paladin worked for that player. He came away not liking it a lot. In contrast, I enjoyed it greatly while playing in Iserith's Roll20 transcript campaign.

I do have a rogue in the Out of the Abyss campaign that I just started running. Already did a sweet sneak attack and he is fully enjoying it (lvl 2).

Party one: (lvl 7)
Paladin (devotion)
Ranger (Hunter)
Fighter (battlemaster)
Sorcerer (dragon)
Cleric (tempest)
Barbarian (totem)

Party 2: (finished at lvl 11)
Barbarian (totem)
Fighter (Eldritch)
Warlock (blade)
Ranger (Hunter)

Party 3: (lvl 2)
Bard
Barbarian (plans on totem)
Fighter
Rogue
Druid

My opinion is that it doesn't suck, nor does it outshine any other class. I have seen a lot more of class testing going on than in previous editions. Melee comfortable players are playing spell casters and ranged heroes. The same can be said with players that I have seen traditionally gravitate to ranged or magic using classes.

Again though, seeing a lot more of the barbarian class than ever before.

I agree with your point on two-weapon fighting also. Not seeing a lot of use. Makes me sad, that was one of my old favorites and it just feels very 'Meh' once you obtain a certain lvl, and especially if you have other valuable things to spend bonus on.

Only the barbarian is a DPR machine. My avenger Paladin has inspirational leader and resilient feat.

My normal group is sword and bwoard with one dual wielder as we are testing out the tempest ranger

 

[Zardnaar]

The biggest factor in how effective a well designed fighter will be is the DM's campaign design.

If the DM has 1 to 3 encounters per long rest, then the fighter will seem weak compared to the barbarian, ranger or paladin. The main strength of the fighter is their high level of effectiveness without the use of limited use resource abilities (like spells). When their competition gets to recharge their abilities during more short or long rests than anticipated by game designers, those classes gain an advantage over fighters. However, if the DM has a short rest every 1 to 3 encounters and a long rest every 4 to 8 encounters, the fighter is more balanced - and if the DM forces 7 to 10 encounters per long rest, the fighter will tend to shine above the classes that burned out all their spells, rages, smites etc... while the fighter continues to benefit from their higher stats, their extra feats, etc...

Number of encounters varies. Last week wad a dungeon hack maybe 8 to ten encounters. Sunday session was against a war backdrop so 2 to 3 combats but rrally over the top with 20+ opponents with reinforcements nearby. More RP and exploration last session.

 

[Merchant of Shadows]

As the title says.

No.

1. Action surge, fighting style, archetype features.
2. Strength based PCs don't fight at range for a long period of time. At worst they throw a javelin or two and close in for melee. They don't suck more than wizard in the middle of anti-magic field. Battle masters can trip a flyer to the ground, eldritch knights can fly themselves, champions do suck a little.
3. Yes, DEX-based melee character that are not rogues or monks tend to be underpowered. It is a good thing that fighters are usually DEX-based archers or STR-based melee beasts.
4. Fighters casting spells.
5. Sure. Unless they are sharpshooting battlemaster archers.
Fighter also get more feats/ability boosts (Having Lucky or Mage Slayer and not having it can be a big difference). Fighters are very prone to multiclassing after lvl 11-12 since then they peak out... but suck they do not. As a proud owner of Fighter 12/Ranger 4/Diviner Wizard 2/War Cleric 2 I can tell you... unleashing 200+ damage salvo at an ancient black dragon does make Tiamat raise an eyebrow and a Fighter 20 could probably do better if a bit less consistently.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Fighters never sucked. Casters have been more or less broken in various editions, and the more broken the casters, the harder it is to have a lot of fun enjoying even the not-suckiest of fighters. And, very early on, the Thief stole a few basic abilities from everyone else tjat the fighter might have missed them more than the others. So there's been reason to complain about the fighter's lot at times, but the fault was never entirely the Fighter's.

In 1e the fighter's % strength, full-CON-bonus-to-hps and superior saving throws at high levels made him potent at low level (with high enough stats, anyway), and very durable at higher levels.
In 1e+UA & 2e the Fighter was a quisinart of doom, able to dish damage like nobody's business thanks to double-specialization and extra attacks from TWFing (or higher RoF ranged weapons).
In 3.5 it was an elegant, customizeable design, and a platonic-ideal of a build component, marred in it's near-perfection only by being in the same game as all those other classes (especially those radioactive CoDzillas). ;P
In 4e, it was a solid (some would argue the best) defender and, until Essentials, the most-supported class in the game, and yet still reasonably balanced.
In 5e, the fighter is once again a multi-attacking DPR machine - one that's even expanded beyond 'just' TWFing & Archery.

 

[Uchawi]

My main complaint with the fighter is versatility with the champion fighter being dead last, and the battlemaster needing more maneuvers. I am not sure why the eldritch knight is not it's own class, with other subclasses like a swordmage or even an avenger.

So overall there should be maneuvers based fighters, which should include rogues and rangers (without spells). The barbarian has a rage mechanic to build on, just like a monk has ki.

 

[Mouseferatu]

My main complaint with the fighter is versatility with the champion fighter being dead last

That's what some people want. I know people whose favorite 5E class, bar none, is the champion fighter, precisely because it's got no maneuvers or regular powers to worry about.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

That's what some people want. I know people whose favorite 5E class, bar none, is the champion fighter, precisely because it's got no maneuvers or regular powers to worry about.

yes, and I wouldn't want to deprive them of a basic easy mode class... if you want it have fun. However for those of us looking for a complex martial class without spell casting... we are SOL even a year+ later...


fighters don't suck (not compared to 3e they rock) but they don't live up to the combat class a lot of us want