Well, Fighters aren't a skill-based class. I don't expect them to have the best skills, but some of them are generally quite good. And personally, I don't think Athletics is outclassed by levitate or fly because at most levels, the mage in your party will really want those slots for other things.
Also in most situations you don't need much of either. Levitate sprang to mind to me again because I'm a warlock fan; warlocks can at will levitate as a level 9 invocation.
I've found that being able to climb, swim, or jump - in short, covering difficult terrain - comes up a lot in my games in terms of exploration, although yours may be different.
Generally, yes in my experience.
On the contrary, those few points of AC can make all the difference in a bounded accuracy system. It means a decrease in damage taken over the course of an entire day, which makes a big difference in your resilience. When fighting creatures with +4 to hit (happens surprisingly often), a 20 AC (plate and shield) nearly halves your chance to be hit compared to 16 (Studded Leather + 4 from Dex). That's a big deal if you're getting swarmed by low-level monsters!
It's also half from the shield. Your off-hand is really useful, whether to wield a two handed weapon or bow, or to wield a second melee weapon, or to wield a shield. Unless you're carrying a bastard sword with a shield on your back (or two entire weapon sets) you've just given up a lot of damage for that extra +2AC. Is it worth it against low level enemies? Yes. But a fairer comparison would be only an AC of 18 (plate, no shield).
Is Will the most important save? I'm not sure - at the very least it's up for debate. Certainly plenty of nasty effects are based on both. And if your Fighter goes EK or multiclasses caster, it'll be the best by a mile as Concentration is super important.
Generally both are really useful - but Will edges out Con because both can cripple and kill you, but only Will can force you to attack your own party; the consequences are that much worse.
Agreed with you there. Still, in practice much of the game is played at low levels.
There is that.
Doh!
Your point is taken but that doesn't invalidate the ability - versatility
is important, especially at higher levels. Also, all your maneuvers get stronger as you level up so there is a reward for continuing to advance in the subclass. Finally, gaining Extra Attacks means that you can pull off "combos" that you couldn't before (trip, then menace, then push) - so the ability does subtly scale with level even when it's not obvious.
Also, you mean you don't want to find out the combat stats of people you interact with socially? "Hey, DM. That sinister-looking merchant and all of his guards. Could we take them?"
Oh, it's useful information. It's just a niche ability. Most of the people we kill are ones who we haven't spent that long talking to. But it
might be a piece of genius game design to encourage pre-battle conversations, boasts, or taunts (I'm reminded of a 3.X rogue who got the villain talking long enough to run out almost all their buff spells before the inevitable fight).
Can Bards summon their weapon from anywhere on the plane?
I'm fairly sure they can just create one.
Can they make six attacks in a single round?
Isn't there a capstone Ranger spell to do that? Endless Quiver or something? Because the Bard can steal Ranger and Paladin capstone spells from memory at level 10 despite the fact the classes they are intended for can't use them until very high level.
Can they stand in the way of a Beholder's death ray and say "please, sir, may I have another?"
That's what illusions are for?
I'll buy your logic on True Polymorph, but not Animate Dead. When you've dumped all your spell slots on a skeleton archer army (with huge logistics issues, I might add) and the enemy mage with Fireball wipes them out with just one spell, you've lost out. It's a high risk high reward maneuver, but I wouldn't call it gamebreaking.
You shatter anything without AoEs, and don't have to dump all your spells into skeletons. Even a dozen are distinctly worrying (especially for Necromancers).
Them's (if you'll excuse me) fighting words!
They were hyperbole for all the reasons you state
The 5e fighter stands somewhere between the 3e and 4e fighters in terms of out of combat capability and nearer the latter. I would point out that what you try to do generally gets harder as you level up - and the only skills in 3.X that officially got harder were opposed ones like Bluff and Hide.
Given that lots and lots of DCs in the system are 10,
*grumbles about former DM - who had my low level Warlock a couple of times attempt DC 25 (he even passed one of them, convincing the Kobolds that the illusionary giant black pudding (tall enough to block their LoS to us) we'd just fired arrows through had in fact eaten the kobolds we'd killed)*
Of course the Rogue is the best at skills, but lots of 5E Fighters could effectively accompany the Rogue on scouting missions (not a bad backup in case of discovery). This wasn't necessarily true in 4E or any other edition.
Heavy armour... It was easier for a 4e fighter than a 5e one.
Also, how did you get six trained skills at first level in 4E?
Human, two multiclass feats into Rogue (one also granting 1/encounter Sneak Attack).
Okay, so several counterpoints to your points. First, just about every class gains fewer new abilities after level 11 - witness the Warlock's four new spells as an extreme example, but even other full spellcasters will find themselves falling back on level fours and fives as they don't get tons of new abilities,
On the other hand the new spells they do get are better than any previous spells they had. Also you underrate the Warlock - they get access to new and better invocations (Alter Self At Will for at will shapeshifting as opposed o at will illusionary shapeshifting is really nice). True Polymorph (Adult Red Dragon) is seriously good. And there's other good stuff in there.
and other martials like the Rogue and Ranger mostly get smaller bennies like blindsense and improvements on their existing abilities.
There's a split here between casters and non-casters. It's not 3.X level but is there.
Although I can't claim to have played it at high level, I suspect that the Fighter's abilities remain interesting, relevant, powerful, and fresh even late in the game. Can Fighters compete with high-level casters for versatility? No, but the casters can't compete with them for damage output (barring AoEs) and resilience.
There's a reason I really like Rogues and Warlocks in 5e and consider Bards a little OTT
I maintain that the Fighter class is well-designed, fun to play, and a solid addition to an adventuring party at any level.
And I maintain it's a very good class at low level that caps out early and loses a lot of ground later.
Thanks, however, for the in-depth critique. It's an interesting discussion!
And thank you
*Please note the use of excessive hyperbole in my writing style in this thread. I do actually think that other classes in 5E have significant strengths and the Fighter has significant weaknesses; talking this way is just more fun.[/QUOTE]
