D&D 5E Fighters are amazing!

[Gadget]

The introduction pretty much says (in Gygaxian prose) that the rulebooks can't included every rule, but only those rules that he felt were core to the structure of the game, and that DMs not only should, but will need to come up with their own rulings for things that the players want to do that aren't covered in the rulebook.

It seems that the combat examples we are speaking of are pretty 'core to the structure of the game', and that while Gary was pretty big on 'The DM is The-Ultimate-Authority-and-Don't-Let-Anyone-tell-you-different' he was also strong on 'This is THE RULES (TM) and you must follow them' as evidenced by his many statements to fact, that many of the rules players needed where actually in the DMG and statements made in the rules themselves. And while relying on the DM to make rulings was inherent in 1E, they were usually supposed to within the framework that the rules provided. Giving fighters significant mechanical advantages to attacks that are not described in the rules may be a cool thing to do, but it seems to me if one wants to go that far, you're pretty much house ruling back in the feats you took out in the first place in one form or another. The difference being that the processing burden is merely shifted almost completely to the DM.

Sounds like your DM is one of those people who like to say how homosexuality is a sin while at the same time eating a nice lobster after getting home from work on a Sunday before rubbing one out later that night. I.e., selectively choosing which 'RAW" to follow while ignoring others. Which of course make him or her not RAW. Just a dick

While your point is well taken, your example is flawed on several levels: First off being a possible violation of the no Religion/Politics rule; Secondly, I believe most Christians have never followed the Law of Moses as that was viewed as fulfilled and done by the events in the Gospels (Apologies if this is viewed as an egregious violation of policy, I will remove the comment if so). Lastly, 1e was probably the most house ruled version of any edition, largely because the rules themselves were such a hodgepodge themselves. I still am not sure how RAW initiative, surprise, grappling, overbearing vs overrunning were supposed to work; many people made adjustments or house rules to compensate or to make the game more playable. Running the game this way while adhering to largely RAW in other areas does not make one a hypocrite, let alone a 'dick', just a different play style than what you may be used to in your games.

 

[awesomoecalypse]

Its funny. In 4e, most charop discussions pointed to the twin-strike Ranger as a top-tier class, because despite being somewhat boring and repetitive in play, it was at the absolute top of the dpr charts.

Well, the closest 5e has to the twin-strike Ranger is the fighter, who is also somewhat repetitive and could even be seen as boring, but via stacking a huge number of attacks with the right feat and equipment choices, can surpass any other class in the game for single target damage. A level 20 greatweapon fighter with the right weapon and feats is doing absolutely insane damage. Much higher than any caster, and higher than any other martial class as well.

Despite this, I often see people argue that the 5e fighter is somehow "underpowered." It really isn't. It might not be super interesting if you're looking for a class that gives you a lot of interesting tactical decisions, but dealing more damage than anyone else is a pretty valuable niche, and one the fighter stakes a strong claim to.

 

[SirAntoine]

Is there a generic fighter?

 

[koga305]

Its funny. In 4e, most charop discussions pointed to the twin-strike Ranger as a top-tier class, because despite being somewhat boring and repetitive in play, it was at the absolute top of the dpr charts.

Well, the closest 5e has to the twin-strike Ranger is the fighter, who is also somewhat repetitive and could even be seen as boring, but via stacking a huge number of attacks with the right feat and equipment choices, can surpass any other class in the game for single target damage. A level 20 greatweapon fighter with the right weapon and feats is doing absolutely insane damage. Much higher than any caster, and higher than any other martial class as well.

Despite this, I often see people argue that the 5e fighter is somehow "underpowered." It really isn't. It might not be super interesting if you're looking for a class that gives you a lot of interesting tactical decisions, but dealing more damage than anyone else is a pretty valuable niche, and one the fighter stakes a strong claim to.

I definitely agree that the Fighter is top-tier, but I also don't think it's boring to play, even for players that like "interesting tactical decisions." This is true particularly if you pick up the Battle Master subclass and one of the combat feats that allows extra "at-will" abilities (Shield Master, Sentinel, etc.). There are a lot of tactical and resource management decisions to be made there, and your background and skills give you utility outside of combat.

Is there a generic fighter?

You mean the Champion? It's in the basic rules and is the simplest of the Fighter subclasses, so I'd call it that.

 

[sidonunspa]

Is there a generic fighter?

Fighter (Champion) no feats... or a mix of melee/ranged feats (best option I think)

 

[KarinsDad]

This is so different from my experiences in Chicago... Out of the 7 DM's I've played D&D under only one ran like this and it was at a public 4e encounters game at our local comic shop... which I and a couple friends ended up quitting.

Yeah. I suspect that this is a player type thing. Players, especially groups of players, take their gaming habits with them from table to table. And it's probably not an either / or situation. A given DM might allow a trip outside of RAW, but might not allow ducking behind a pillar when it is not your turn in order to get a save versus a Fireball.

 

[SirAntoine]

Fighter (Champion) no feats... or a mix of melee/ranged feats (best option I think)

I want to play just a simple fighter, no subclass. I don't want to have to pick from any lists of abilities, just get whatever the fighter gets with level advancement.

 

[sidonunspa]

I want to play just a simple fighter, no subclass. I don't want to have to pick from any lists of abilities, just get whatever the fighter gets with level advancement.

you have to take a sub class... but the champion is the "basic fighter" one no frills.. very easy to play

they get things like extended crit range with any weapon and an extra fighting style

its the fighter in the basic D&D rules

 

[awesomoecalypse]

I want to play just a simple fighter, no subclass. I don't want to have to pick from any lists of abilities, just get whatever the fighter gets with level advancement.

Every character in 5e must choose a subclass. But the champion is pretty much the "simple fighter" subclass. Once you pick it, you basically dont make any decisions again as you level up.

If having to check "champion" bugs you, you could also just play the fighter from the basic rules, who has "champion subclass, no feats" baked right in from the get go.

 

[Sacrosanct]

It seems that the combat examples we are speaking of are pretty 'core to the structure of the game', and that while Gary was pretty big on 'The DM is The-Ultimate-Authority-and-Don't-Let-Anyone-tell-you-different' he was also strong on 'This is THE RULES (TM) and you must follow them' as evidenced by his many statements to fact, that many of the rules players needed where actually in the DMG and statements made in the rules themselves. And while relying on the DM to make rulings was inherent in 1E, they were usually supposed to within the framework that the rules provided. Giving fighters significant mechanical advantages to attacks that are not described in the rules may be a cool thing to do, but it seems to me if one wants to go that far, you're pretty much house ruling back in the feats you took out in the first place in one form or another. The difference being that the processing burden is merely shifted almost completely to the DM.
.

Given Gary's contributions to various expansions and rules in Strategic Review and later Dragon, I am pretty confident that his words in the Forward in the DMG and Introduction are sincere: the books can't cover all the rules, so come up with what you want as long as you aren't breaking the core skeleton of the game. For example, ability checks first appeared in what? The first three issues of Dragon?