D&D 5E (2014) Fixing the fighter (I know...)

[Monayuris]

I think your wizards get attacked a lot more than they do in the games I've played in.

I'd expect a wizard to take a couple attacks in an encounter of 20 rounds. But yes it happens.

 

[FrogReaver]

I'd expect a wizard to take a couple attacks in an encounter of 20 rounds. But yes it happens.

I have 4 level 1 spells and 2 level 2 spells remaining. That covers up to 6 rounds of combat.

 

[Sacrosanct]

There are no flaws in my math. Check the freakin numbers!

When you’re omitting several values in your equation, that means your math is flawed. Pretty simple.

I don’t know why you said my “objections don’t even make sense”. I mean, those are real factors that need to be considered. Your selection of level and rounds seems completely arbitrary. And you don’t factor in two weapon vs weapon and shield differences. Or what types of opponents are attacking back.

As I mentioned earlier, I do testing for a living. And if you’re only looking at one very specific and arbitrary scenario to try to prove your point, that is god awful analysis.

 

[Monayuris]

I have an opportunity to play in a game soon (as opposed to DM'ing).

With all these threads going on about how much fighter suck. I'm going to roll up a fighter and I'm going to try to be awesome.

Maybe I'll report my experiences. Maybe y'all are right and fighters do suck... or maybe y'all wrong and I'm awesome.

 

[Mistwell]

Your definition of rock needs some serious reflection

It really doesn't. My dwarf battlemaster has dominated for 9 levels now. Large party too, with lots of spellcasters.

Maybe you just suck at running fighters, or whoever in your group that's playing the fighter sucks?

 

[Mistwell]

Then do the freakin math instead of personal attacks!

A level 11 fighter that doesn't use ASI's for combat will do about 18 damage per turn and have 3 action surges. Over 20 rounds of combat that's 414 damage.

A level 11 Wizard will do about 413.7 damage per 20 rounds using fireball and firebolt - only looking at the single target impact.

Objectively that makes this no combat ASI fighter much worse than the wizard at combat - and that's just in the damage realm.

How is it a personal attack when your very response proves his point? It's not a personal attack - he accurately described your position, which you just verified. Apparently you don't like that aspect of what you've been saying so much you take it personally when someone mentions it?

Also nobody said you can't use some ASIs for combat - just that you have the freedom to use one for non-combat. You can be an incredibly effective fighter as just a battlemaster with polearm mastery and sentinel and a third feat for non-combat like Actor or Ritual Caster. You don't need to use ALLLLLL the feats for combat to be highly effective, and you don't need to use them all for non-combat to add a lot to non-combat.

And my guess is you will respond with something which, once again, proves the point he was making about your perspective on the game. That using one of those feats for non-combat is not optimized and therefore not effective.

 

[GreyLord]

Personally, I'd take a book from what they already have, but make it more permanent. Instead of getting an additional bonus to hit or damage part of the time if they spend dice, I'd do what I've always suggested and double their proficiency bonus. It effectively does the same thing, but is more permanent, simpler (you don't have to know how many dice you have left or calculate a new number each time you roll) and accomplishes the basic same idea. Basically expertise, but with fighting. (and fighters do NOT hit every single attack they make, in fact, they MISS quite a bit. This makes it so they miss just a little less than they normally do).

If one feels that is too powerful, have them double it with just one weapon (like weapon specialization, call back to nostalgia and the past).

This makes it so that the fighter basically hits reliably, even against enemies with a higher AC. Part of the difficulty is that the fighter stands a good chance of missing some of their attacks. Make their attack more reliable.

If that isn't powerful enough go ahead and give them their choice of another save, and perhaps a choice of one other skill to be trained in or ONE (and only one) skill to have expertise in.

Just my initial reaction after reading the first page of the thread.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I have an opportunity to play in a game soon (as opposed to DM'ing).

With all these threads going on about how much fighter suck. I'm going to roll up a fighter and I'm going to try to be awesome.

Maybe I'll report my experiences. Maybe y'all are right and fighters do suck... or maybe y'all wrong and I'm awesome.

I’ve played many fighters, and enjoy them. However, incidentally, I recently started a campaign where I’m playing a gnome wizard. By some responses, I should be dominating. I was actually quite useless lol. Spell slots are few and far between, so when you cast a spell that requires an attack roll and miss? That sucks. Sucks even worse when you hit only to find out said enemy is resistant and you had no other prepared spells that would do anything . Also, a lot of assumptions here that require the happy path at all times. For example, I spent a spell slot to cast protection on the fighter because he was normally up in melee. Turns out he never ended up fighting the undead anyway, so that spell slot was essentially a waste. These things happen in games. I’m sure I’ll have my place to shine later, but last Sunday wasn’t it lol. Dice were not kind and things just kept getting stymied. But I still had fun. And survived.

Technically I could do a lot of out of combat utility with spells, like alarm, crest water, purify food and drink, etc. but to prepare those spells, I wouldn’t have any real combat efficiency outside of a fire bolt. Which of course is less damage than the fighter or rogue were doing. But that’s ok. It’s about roles.

 

[Li Shenron]

• *The game is designed for all common play styles, so there must be a mechanically simpler class like the fighter

So, knowing all of the above are objectively true...

[sarcasm]Knowing this is objectively BS...[/sarcasm]

Sorry Sacrosant but you can't go around saying like that. I actually agree with almost everything else in your post, but you can't claim it is an "objective true". For instance, that "there must be a mechanically simpler class" is objectively false.

If the game must support the common play style of simplicity, it needs one or more mechanically simpler character option, not certainly a whole class. In fact in 5e you can play a simple Wizard (even if you can't lower the simplicity down to the same minimum level of the lower-complexity Fighter), and you can play a complex Fighter too.

Anyway, to your actual questions...

I also don't think the Fighter needs a boost (because let's face it, those who house rule classes 99% of the times they don't do fixes but always boosts) in terms of mechanics.

If a Fighter's player is not having fun, it's probably because the DM isn't giving enough challenges that cater the Fighter. Have more combats during a single day but also plenty of short rests: this will show how the Fighter can have better physical resilience and stamina compared to classes that have more daily-based resources. Of course this won't only benefit the Fighter but also other classes with similar resources such as the Warlock.

Otherwise if someone has decided for a boost anyway, I think your suggestions are certainly all ok since they are passive and increase the Fighter's stats without making it more complex.

 

[Salthorae]

Then do the freakin math instead of personal attacks!

A level 11 fighter that doesn't use ASI's for combat will do about 18 damage per turn and have 3 action surges. Over 20 rounds of combat that's 414 damage.

A level 11 Wizard will do about 413.7 damage per 20 rounds using fireball and firebolt - only looking at the single target impact.

Objectively that makes this no combat ASI fighter much worse than the wizard at combat - and that's just in the damage realm.

I did check your math and it looks off to me.

Assume no ASI’s go to Str/Dex/Int or combat feats and standard array so max stat of 16/17.

Wizard: 3x 3rd level + 3x 4th level + 2x 5th level + 1x 6th level slots for fireball = 287 avg damage.

Assume +2 Dex mod and no proficiency on avg for monsters so they will fail 65% of saves and take half on 35% = 236.775 damage from fireball.

Firebolt for the next 11 rounds will yield 117.975 damage
16.5 x .6 hit prob + 16.5 x .05 crit prob x 11 rounds = 117.975

Total for our wizard = 354.75 damage.

Champion fighter... 3 attacks per round but only 1 action surge per short rest. Using a great sword for best basic weapon damage of 7 avg.

(7+3 Str) x 3 = 30 x .6 hit prob + 21 (ability mods don’t multiply) x .1 crit prob = 18+2.1 = 20.1 per attack action. With action surge + 20 rounds you get a total of 422.1 damage

So the fighter over 20 rds will do 67.35 damage more to a single target than the wizard fireballing them 9 times and firebolting them 11.

So the fighter is better at combat and that is very in-tuned or optimized in any way.

Even if you went another fighter and didn’t get the boost to vets from champion you’re still at 400.5, which puts the fighter on average 45.3 damage over the wizard over 20 rounds.

Though I’ve never had a combat go that long which is why it feels like wizard do more damage in a combat even to single targets.