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

[Quickleaf]

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?

Evidence points toward the fighter being very popular.

DNDBeyond has the only large sample data that I'm aware of. The problem with the DNDBeyond data on classes is that "Characters with multiple classes count once for each class." In other words, it doesn't differentiate between a fighter 1/wizard 9, a fighter 2/ranger 8, a fighter 10, and a wizard 10 – those would be tallied as fighter = 3 active characters; wizard = 2 active characters; ranger = 1 active character. So when they say that 13,906 active characters are fighters, we don't know if that means they have a two-level dip in fighter to get Action Surge as part of a build (for example) or if they're dyed-in-the-wool single-class fighters. So, yes, you can say "fighters are the most popular class" and technically that's true, but there's the outside chance that it's obfuscating what is really going on.

I recall a D&D Survey in April 2016 which asked (paraphrasing) "which areas of D&D do you think need expansion?" Supporting the DNDBeyond data, they found that the fighter was the top class in terms of use in play. Don't know how many respondents were involved, but people wanted firstly more feats, and secondly more character classes. The classes that players wanted to see expansion for the most were (1) ranger, (2) sorcerer and druid, (3) fighter and warlock, (4) barbarian, bard, monk, paladin, rogue, and (5) very few wanted expansions for cleric or wizard.

There's also small polls (hundreds of respondents, not thousands) on various sites, which, obviously, we should take with a grain of salt. DNDBeyond has one with 363 respondents, where they asked for favorite two classes, and fighter was middle of the pack. I also presented a poll on ENWorld in July 2016 (site crash wiped data), asking "Does the 5e fighter accommodate your play style?" Out of 505 respondents, 63.2% answered "Yes, the 5e fighter accommodates my play style nicely. I like it alot." 18.6% answered "Not really - my preferred fighter is in 4e (or 13th Age)." 12.7% answered "Kinda sorta, but it's not a big deal. Good enough." And very small percentages selected "Other" or "AD&D fighter" or "BD&D fighter" or "3e fighter."

People like myself who'd be interested in seeing the fighter redesigned definitely do not represent gamers as a whole in this regard.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Did you try playing by the recommendation of the eight encounter adventuring day, like 5th was designed for? With so many encounters, spell casters must conserve their spells and rely on the Fighter to solve some of the problems...

 

[ccs]

Do they have a simple decision free blaster caster?

Yes. It's called pick a spellcaster & pick a damage causing cantrip.
I hear Warlock + Eldritch Blast is popular....

 

[Sacrosanct]

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?

There seems to be enough squeaky wheels to at least look at the issue and consider it. Setting aside the very obvious question of "Why would you play a class that doesn't appeal to you or do what you want?" for a moment, if there's an opportunity to get some common ground, why wouldn't we? For those that like a mundane and/or less mechanically complex class, it still exists, but also has some improvements for out of combat agency. I think that's attainable. I was just tossing out examples; not married to any of them, but hopefully you get the point. Mostly passive things that could give an even bigger step up. I like the basic fighter, and even I think remarkable athlete can use some improvement. For how often skills are used that the PC isn't already proficient in? Pretty small class feature gain, that one, compared to other classes.

 

[5ekyu]

Did you try playing by the recommendation of the eight encounter adventuring day, like 5th was designed for? With so many encounters, spell casters must conserve their spells and rely on the Fighter to solve some of the problems...

Recommended by whom?

It is a reference in the cr section about how many encounters a group could by seeing depletion of resources or expected to handle or something else at a certain difficulty.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

As long a there is no multiclassing dips allowed, granting the Champion its full critical range improvement at level 3 isn't excessive, and feels good.
Proficiency in more saves is also a good idea at later levels maybe not to the extent of the suggestions in the OP though.

However the main issue with the Fighter is not its combat performance, it is its out of combat performance. Being slightly better at physical skill checks and having more ASIs does not do much to enable the fighter to compete in mechanical options and problem-solving capability with most casters.

Even comparing the Champion with its apparently equivalently simple caster class, the Warlock: - the Warlock has close to equivalent combat performance even without using its spell slots. Those spell slots can grant social and exploration options that the Champion cannot match. - And this is with the Warlock spell list which doesn't have the most utility of the spell lists available.
Plus, the Warlock can apply its main combat ability to a lot of the social pillar of the game, whereas the Champion's main combat ability scores are of less use outside combat and some of the exploration pillar.

In the end, notwithstanding the conceits expressed in the OP, the Champion does not have much that caster classes cannot do, and the caster classes have a lot that the Champion cannot do. When most people talk about "fixing the Fighter", it is generally the out of combat options that need bring up to spec.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

One actual option to improve the Fighter from a practical standpoint, given the opinions in the OP:

The Fighter's grounding in common life grants them an extra background: - This gives more skills, tools, languages, and another option for interacting in the social pillar.
Its pretty mechanically simple, doesn't break immersion for those wanting the Fighter to stay mundane, and as with all Fighter options, is very customisable.

But ultimately, the main "fix" required for the fighter to be at the same level of effectiveness in most pillars of the game is keeping the adventuring day long enough that the casters can't afford to solve every problem with spells.
The DM can design encounters where spellcasting won't solve the issue, but that just puts the Champion on the same footing as the caster classes: - Unless the encounter is designed to allow the Champion to shine, there is no reason another class won't take the spotlight there as well. - Player ingenuity and character skill proficiencies are not limited to non-casters.

 

[Garthanos]

Yes. It's called pick a spellcaster & pick a damage causing cantrip.
I hear Warlock + Eldritch Blast is popular....

Does not sound like a blaster caster who has actual competency (at least comparable to the super simple fighter) and Does he magically also get zero things he can do outside of combat AND is he still as competent as people who actually make use of the complexity and assumed resources that class has even for combat. That is supposed to be the value of the simple class

To allow the I do not want to engage with the systems resources and decision making and still be capable.

 

[aco175]

Is there a level where the fighter needs to get something? If you frontload it, you get PCs who dip to get the good stuff and if you wait to level 17ish, you get most PCs never getting it. I would go around level 7 where most people have this as their main class and can gain some sort of boost if needed.

I always liked fighting style where you get to choose from a list. I feel that makes each PC a bit different and you should be able to add to the first style. Maybe take some of the powers from 4e to give the option of pulling an enemy closer to the fighter or allowing a close burst 1 attack on each bad guy. You can even call it something else and give non-fighting powers like something where you get +10 to a perception or investigation check 1/day or 1/rest.

 

[Mistwell]

There seems to be enough squeaky wheels

How many is "enough" squeaky wheels? It doesn't seem like enough of them to me. Even here at EnWorld when polls were taken concerning class satisfaction, the Fighter got OVERWHELMING support, with the biggest group of complaints falling into the "minor tweak at most" category.

I mean, it's fun to look into and consider almost any major class change so my point is not to discourage that. I am just not buying that there is some mass movement wanting this change in real life at their game table.