D&D 5E Fixing the fighter (I know...)

[Sacrosanct]

You could even have a fighter that gets History Proficiency and Advantage on checks related to Military History and Battle Tactics. You know some type of Tactician or War Expert. No that's probably a crazy idea.

They might even be able to inspire others to fight longer or do better in battle...

 

[The Crimson Binome]

So, knowing all of the above are objectively true, how do you “fix” the fighter while keeping all of the above in play?

Given all of those things (including the assumption of feats, for the sake of argument), what needs to be fixed? Is it that fighters are exceptionally vulnerable to save-or-helpless? Is it that they feel very frail, next to a raging barbarian? Is it that their climbing and jumping ability is not sufficient?

I'm not sure that you can do much with Remarkable Athlete, without stepping on the toes of certain feats. You could give fighter Expertise in Athletics, so that they are actually competitive with rogues; but at that point, it's hard to justify wizards not having Expertise in Arcana, and clerics not having Expertise in Religion. (Which wouldn't be a bad thing, by any means.)

As for saving throws, the core mechanics are kind of borked, and a simple fix won't address the underlying problem. The simple fix is just to turn Indomitable into a Legendary save.

As for toughness... maybe add Strength modifier as DR against physical attacks? It would go a small way toward making them feel less frail (in comparison to the barbarian), but it's something.

 

[Garthanos]

As simple as a caster can be.

Yeh lets call that a NO, with the caveat that you insist casters be more complex.

 

[Salthorae]

I think that’s more of a problem with warlock being overpowered, than bad design on the fighters part.

There are things I think are overpowered about the Warkock but spending an invocation and concentration spell to do what is essentially a good starting point for damage consideration isn’t generally one of them to me. But that’s a side point.


A champion can get a bit above that baseline with some work. though without some elemental damage or some other rider dmg (Magic Initiate warlock for hex?) they lag behind still at the top levels.

 

[Mistwell]

Personally I don’t think it needs to be changed or fixed. But a lot of people do

Do they? Do "a lot" of people feel that way. I've seen no evidence of that. Indeed I think it's one of the most popular classes as it is right now and an overwhelming majority do not think it needs to be fixed or improved or changed in any meaningful way. Is there evidence suggesting I am incorrect?

 

[Krachek]

The champion can easily get a 14 in either wis or charisma.
Combine with the Skilled feat at level 4 or 6, he can have a honest set of skill for social or exploration.

Remarquable athlete is a bit odd. Micro bonus is not in line with this archetype.
Simply give advantage on dex, con and star check. Period. That is remarquable.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Yeh lets call that a NO, with the caveat that you insist casters be more complex.

I don’t know what your problem is between the other thread and this one, and why you insist arguing dishonestly, but at this point I no longer care. I’m not going to waste my time any longer.

 

[Garthanos]

I don’t know what your problem is between the other thread and this one, and why you insist arguing dishonestly, but at this point I no longer care. I’m not going to waste my time any longer.

"As simple as a caster can be" very much implies exactly the answer "there is an implied complexity from it being a caster"

It is bias

 

[Leatherhead]

The Brute was a glorious thing.

 

[Mistwell]

"As simple as a caster can be" very much implies exactly the answer "there is an implied complexity from it being a caster"

It is bias

You're attributing bias to factual description. Being a spellcaster IS more complex in this game, on average. It's such a known issue that many, MANY people have tried to find ways to speed up the turn of spellcasters because the data they have to analyze on their turn is that much greater than non-casters. Heck, the reason those spell cards exist and sell so well is due to some of the complexity of the options spellcasters face. Routine advice from experts in the field is that new players are taking on more complexity burden if they choose a caster as their first class. This is a well known issue. It's prima facia.

There is an implied complexity to being a caster. If you disagree, then extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So, where is ANY evidence, much less extraordinary evidence, that spellcasters do not come with an implied level of complexity from being a caster?