D&D 5E Do Fighters Still Suck?

[Corpsetaker]

if people don't like it how can it be fine?

You will never "ever" find something that "everyone" likes.

 

[ccooke]

Hmm. So, I'm running two current campaigns and have just started a third. In all of them, there's at least one fighter and (for the two games that have actually had sessions) the fighter is either the or one of the primary damage dealers, and extremely flexible with it.

But it does seem that - while the fighter doesn't actually suck, it is dependant on GM style. Or, rather, all the classes in 5e are balanced to certain expectations and it's up to the GM to fix things if they alter those expectations. For instance, if I have a plot that ends up requiring a smaller number of combats than the expected, I tend to try to throw in some plot or action that favours the characters who are less short rest dependant, so that they keep their chance to shine.

 

[imabaer]

Fighters are a class for new players, or players who don't care as much about in combat options or character variation. That's not meant as a negative. Their shtick is consistency and reliability. Even their best power is basically "swing one more time," which is great from a numbers perspective, but not particularly exciting.

More experienced players will gravitate towards more polarized or varied classes, which is probably why you haven't seen fighters lately, as opposed to them being mechanically inferior. This is exacerbated because fighter leveling suffers from "more of the same" syndrome: most of their strongest features are attainable by level 2-3, making it far more rewarding to dip than to dedicate. This is actually their biggest problem, design wise: while the Champion is supposed to be as simple as possible, and the EK gets spells, the battlemaster really needed more fiddly bits to play around with.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

combat and tactics introduced Weapon mastery (3rd weapon prof) weapon high master (4th weapon slot) and Grand mastery (5th weapon slot) between them they gave more attacks better initiative higher die of damage and a +2/+1 that stacked with weapon specialization.

Okay, definitely S&P era then. Analogous to UA in 1E.

 

[Sacrosanct]

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...

bwuh? Fighters aren't a "basic easy mode". You're confusing "easy" with "#of options". And "easy mode" usually means making the challenges faced in game play not challenging at all. They aren't the same at all. I'll also say that the battlemaster is just complex as any other class. So you're not SOL unless you're wanting complexity out of 5e that it isn't designed to have at all. Stick with Rollmaster or something if that's your thing. And one final thing, there hasn't been a single class in D&D ever that was easier to play than another from a mechanical standpoint on a meaningful level. Yeah, one might be as complex as "2+2=4" and another is "2+2+4=8", but both are pretty easy to figure out without requiring some sort of special skills

 

[Sacrosanct]

Fighters are a class for new players, or players who don't care as much about in combat options or character variation. That's not meant as a negative. Their shtick is consistency and reliability. Even their best power is basically "swing one more time," which is great from a numbers perspective, but not particularly exciting.

More experienced players will gravitate towards more polarized or varied classes, which is probably why you haven't seen fighters lately, as opposed to them being mechanically inferior. This is exacerbated because fighter leveling suffers from "more of the same" syndrome: most of their strongest features are attainable by level 2-3, making it far more rewarding to dip than to dedicate. This is actually their biggest problem, design wise: while the Champion is supposed to be as simple as possible, and the EK gets spells, the battlemaster really needed more fiddly bits to play around with.

I like to consider myself an experienced player (almost 35 years) and I disagree with this assessment. Myself, and nearly everyone I have played with, still like fighters, and it's not for the reasons you say. For one, "combat options and character variation" have very little to do with what's actually on your character sheet. Combat options and variation are almost solely dependent on my imagination: how I want to role play the character, and ideas to use the environment to my advantage in a fight. Secondly, what is rewarding is the experience from what is happening in the game, not getting a new shiny from a *ding*

And to be honest, whenever I hear something like this, with the implication that what makes your character interesting is how many powers are listed on a character sheet? I get sad. Talk about limiting yourself. What makes a character interesting is YOU and your fellow players at the table.

 

[imabaer]

I like to consider myself an experienced player (almost 35 years) and I disagree with this assessment. Myself, and nearly everyone I have played with, still like fighters, and it's not for the reasons you say. For one, "combat options and character variation" have very little to do with what's actually on your character sheet. Combat options and variation are almost solely dependent on my imagination: how I want to role play the character, and ideas to use the environment to my advantage in a fight. Secondly, what is rewarding is the experience from what is happening in the game, not getting a new shiny from a *ding*

And to be honest, whenever I hear something like this, with the implication that what makes your character interesting is how many powers are listed on a character sheet? I get sad. Talk about limiting yourself. What makes a character interesting is YOU and your fellow players at the table.

This is from a roleplaying/fluff perspective, which is fine. But following that mentality to its hyperbolic conclusion, you could play a game with commoners only and have it be interesting. However, some people enjoy the "ding" and more toys to play with though, and that doesn't preclude roleplaying or experience.

Mechanically, the fighter is pretty frontloaded. Claiming people aren't using enough "theater of the mind" type combat doesn't change that.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

If I had to answer the OP in a single word, the answer would be, "No." I'd be really gorram annoyed to have to answer with a single word though, because my answer would properly be, "No, but IMO they're never impressive."

I believe that the natural, overall inclinations of players and DMs--as I see them*--are opposed to the kind of situation that the Fighter (and Warlock) is designed to face. Instead, these inclinations favor classes which lean heavily on long rest resources. Further, because the Fighter (and Warlock) "specializes" in kicking butt over the long haul--both in the short-term/adventuring "day" sense, and in the long-term/level-by-level sense--you're much less likely to see Fighters be "flashy" or "exciting." When coupled with the sharply narrowed space of actions Fighters are allowed to access, and the highly skeptical stance of most DMs toward the limits of physical abilities...yeah I just feel like the Fighter doesn't quite cut it.

Again, though: It doesn't suck. It's just not nearly as interesting, exciting, or engaging as it could be--mechanically. I'm already perfectly well-engaged with the fluff, there are zero problems there. But the mechanics--and D&D culture generally--leave me wanting.

*Avoid short rests whenever possible, avoid more than 4 fights per long rest, favor fights with many small enemies or a single big one, tasks which are entirely possible in the real world for actual athletes are difficult or even impossible without magic in D&D, etc.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

bwuh? Fighters aren't a "basic easy mode".

I meant easy to play, and I didn't say it was a bad thing, the champion fighter fills a needed void... but there are other voids...

You're confusing "easy" with "#of options".

well yes...it's 'easy to make choices just swing sword' is what I meant...

And "easy mode" usually means making the challenges faced in game play not challenging at all. They aren't the same at all.

that isn't what I meant at all

I'll also say that the battlemaster is just complex as any other class.

nope...

level 8 wizard knows 4+int mod spells +2 per level so about 21 spells they range in level from 1-4 and even the level 1 ones may be usable in higher slots to higher effect. SO my choice points are 'pre game' what spells I know and what ones I prepare, at table witch prepared ones I use and in witch slot... I also have 3-4 at will spells... and my spells can be pure combat, or no combat, or a mix of the two. I can recall a few spells on a short rest....there is a lot going on. I have a huge list of spells to pull from, and bet I can make 5 or 6 wizards with little to no overlap just form the pHB alone.

battle master at level 20 has 6dice he can use, they all come back on a short rest, and 1 comes back if I have none and roll initiative I have 8 of 16 special manuvers that I could have chosen any of at level 3... I can't make a 3rd battlmaster without some over lap, and the manuvers are rather dull some are even just basic options from privus editions.... he is a damage mechine and has more attacks then 2 average adventurers, but he is far from complex...

the two are night and day... look at Bo9S in 3.5 or a 4e fighter to see all the options you could have...

So you're not SOL unless you're wanting complexity out of 5e that it isn't designed to have at all.

I want as many bells whistles and I think they call them ribbons on my 16th level fighter as a wizard half my level (see above 8th level wizard) That is in no way "outside what 5e can do"

Stick with Rollmaster or something if that's your thing.

what is roll master?

And one final thing, there hasn't been a single class in D&D ever that was easier to play than another from a mechanical standpoint on a meaningful level.

are you kidding, I just showed a 20th level fighter vs an 8th level wizard on amount of complexity... and there were editions that were WAY worse....

Yeah, one might be as complex as "2+2=4" and another is "2+2+4=8",

are you kidding...

but both are pretty easy to figure out without requiring some sort of special skills

yup a champion fighter requires some basic mini/tactic placement, and a battle master a little more of picking manuviers... the wizard has to keep track of spells known prepared and spent and choose when to use each... one is a bit more complex then the others...

 

[Leugren]

I like to consider myself an experienced player (almost 35 years) and I disagree with this assessment. Myself, and nearly everyone I have played with, still like fighters, and it's not for the reasons you say. For one, "combat options and character variation" have very little to do with what's actually on your character sheet. Combat options and variation are almost solely dependent on my imagination: how I want to role play the character, and ideas to use the environment to my advantage in a fight. Secondly, what is rewarding is the experience from what is happening in the game, not getting a new shiny from a *ding*

And to be honest, whenever I hear something like this, with the implication that what makes your character interesting is how many powers are listed on a character sheet? I get sad. Talk about limiting yourself. What makes a character interesting is YOU and your fellow players at the table.

As a player with almost 40 years under my belt, I second everything you just said here. I have always preferred fighters and other martial characters to spellcasters. Frankly, I don't like flipping through a deck of spell cards and trying to manage a limited power budget when I'm playing. It detracts from my immersion. With that stated, I've been mostly playing Barbarians in 5E. I like the flavor, and I love the mechanics. Damage resistance, advantage on Grapple and Shove, at-will advantage on attack rolls all make the game a lot more enjoyable for me as a frontliner, since I hate whiffing, and since I think that AC is overrated for purposes of damage mitigation in this edition.