D&D 5E Fixing the Fighter: The Zouave

[Oofta]

"Can't be perfect" doesn't mean "can't be better." Because, y'know, of it couldn't get better, wouldn't it, by definition, be perfect?

Most people don't play D&D (heck, most of the 40 million people who have played D&D, ever, aren't playing it anymore), so the ad populum you're suggesting actually says that the whole game is irredeemable garbage.
Good thing ad populum is a fallacy, and things can be worthwhile even if unpopular, or have significant room for improvement, even if popular.

Good grief. Obviously I was talking about people that play the game. Give me a break.

Yes.

Of course, it's not like each edition hasn't tried something to improve the fighter's lot, it's just rarely been enough, and/or not been in the right areas, and/or been accompanied by other classes being even more wildly OP, and/or been quickly given out to everyone, and/or been promptly taken away again.

5e, as befits a compromise edition, has all the problems - and vestiges of most of the attempted solutions - of the fighter in past editions.

But, ultimately, even the editions that came closest to balancing the fighter and/or giving it a meaningful role in the party failed to give it much to do outside of combat, and that does take us back to '75, Greyhawk, and the Thief:'

The Thief established that you couldn't be good at combat, and good at non-combat - in essence, what we'd today call the Exploration Pillar. The Thief established that, and the fighter has abided by it ever since. But no other class has. Starting in 3e, the Thief, now rehabilitated as the Rogue, became more and more effective in combat, unitl, in 5e, it can prettymuch count on sneak attacking every round in every combat, and is fully-contributing in combat, mainly through DPR. Similarly, casters, who once under-performed in combat and had to assiduously avoid melee have seen their combat abilities improve (starting with concentration and crossbows in 3e) until, in 5e, they have the same proficiency bonus to hit with weapons & cantrips as fighters, and are fully-contributing in combat, even melee in a pinch. And, all the classes have various non-combat things to do - not just skills (under BA proficient or not hardly matters until the highest levels), but skills enhanced with Expertise, spells, no-slot-cost rituals, and special abilities of all sorts.

But, the fighter is still stuck in the can't-be-good-both-in-and-out-of-combat paradigm of 1975.

Anyway, there's a simple way to bring balance. Allow fighters the proficiency feat - even if that's the only feat you allow in the game.

As far as rogues being "just a good" in combat, damage isn't everything. Fighters have better AC, HP, second wind and action surge. They can be built to lean towards damage, protection or durability. If there isn't a front line combatant the rogue won't be effective.

 

[Arnwolf666]

What Tony said!

Oh please. They can be stealthy, they can be healers, they can be good at people skills in this edition. It would be cool if they added something but maybe that aren’t good at anything because they are only being built to be good in combat. I played a cool barbarian with a 16 charisma that had no problem still being good at combat and was good at diplomacy too.

 

[Tony Vargas]

B-b-b-b-But! Backgrounds!

Well, sure, if Social or Exploration had just been off-loaded from class to Background, that'd be a point. It might've been a pretty solid design choice, actually, to have character built in three parts, A Class defining combat-pillar ability, an Origin (Race & social-class) defining status/contribution in the Interaction Pillar, and, a Background/Profession or Theme or something for Exploration. Heck, you'd hardly need Rangers or Barbarians or Paladins in such a paradigm.

Good grief. Obviously I was talking about people that play the game. Give me a break.

Doesn't matter which populace you're fallaciously appealing to. Just illustrating the point with a painfully obvious example.

Anyway, there's a simple way to bring balance.

Balancing the classes was no simple undertaking, and, there was a tremendous backlash against it, known as the edition war. We have to accept that the fighter must be inferior over a range of play, because a sufficiently strident & determined fraction of the fanbase uncompromisingly demands it.
The hope, at this point, is to make the range of play in which the fighter might occasionally contribute in a balanced way more practical to achieve.

Allow fighters the proficiency feat - even if that's the only feat you allow in the game.

Prodigy would probably be a better idea. But, it's not like the issue is entirely insoluble, just that there is a great deal of resistance to solving - or even acknowledging - it.

As far as rogues being "just a good" in combat, damage isn't everything.

In a no-death-spiral, hit-point system, it's the only thing - it's like winning, that way.
Seriously, though, there is a lot to be done in combat beyond DPR. But, fighters, rogues & barbarians, mainly contribute through single-target DPR. Healing, condition-mitigation, multi-target DPR, buffing/de-buffing, control, battlefield manipulation, summoning, etc, are the combat-pillar provinces of other classes.

Fighters have better AC, HP, second wind and action surge.

Sure, and Rogues have better mobility, Cunning Action, Uncanny Dodge, and Evasion.
Fighters, Rogues - all classes really - are different in combat, but all are fairly high-contributing, one way or another (or, even several others, depending on the spells you have prepped that day). Non-magic-using sub-classes, though, are all mainly single-target DPR, be it tanky like the Fighter & Barbarian or sneaky, like the Rogue.

 

[Oofta]

B-b-b-b-But! Backgrounds!



Well, sure, if Social or Exploration had just been off-loaded from class to Background, that'd be a point. It might've been a pretty solid design choice, actually, to have character built in three parts, A Class defining combat-pillar ability, an Origin (Race & social-class) defining status/contribution in the Interaction Pillar, and, a Background/Profession or Theme or something for Exploration. Heck, you'd hardly need Rangers or Barbarians or Paladins in such a paradigm.



Doesn't matter which populace you're fallaciously appealing to. Just illustrating the point with a painfully obvious example.

Balancing the classes was no simple undertaking, and, there was a tremendous backlash against it, known as the edition war. We have to accept that the fighter must be inferior over a range of play, because a sufficiently strident & determined fraction of the fanbase uncompromisingly demands it.

So the fact that since the inception of D&D that this "problem" has existed and has never been resolved has no bearing?

When developing 5E they did one of the most extensive play testing cycles of any game ever. It was not some cabal of nerds in a closet. Maybe you're the strident and determined fraction of the fanbase.

Next you'll tell me 4E failed because of the Illuminati.

The hope, at this point, is to make the range of play in which the fighter might occasionally contribute in a balanced way more practical to achieve.

Prodigy would probably be a better idea. But, it's not like the issue is entirely insoluble, just that there is a great deal of resistance to solving - or even acknowledging - it.

I don't have my books in front of me but yes, I meant the prodigy feat. You could always allow skilled as well although I've never seen anyone take it or the prodigy feat. Quite possbibly because nobody I've ever actually played the game with has a problem running fighters as is.

Seems like a simple solution even for games that don't otherwise use feats. Which is what this thread was supposed to be about, right?

In a no-death-spiral, hit-point system, it's the only thing - it's like winning, that way.

Seriously, though, there is a lot to be done in combat beyond DPR. But, fighters, rogues & barbarians, mainly contribute through single-target DPR. Healing, condition-mitigation, multi-target DPR, buffing/de-buffing, control, battlefield manipulation, summoning, etc, are the combat-pillar provinces of other classes.

Sure, and Rogues have better mobility, Cunning Action, Uncanny Dodge, and Evasion.

Fighters, Rogues - all classes really - are different in combat, but all are fairly high-contributing, one way or another (or, even several others, depending on the spells you have prepped that day). Non-magic-using sub-classes, though, are all mainly single-target DPR, be it tanky like the Fighter & Barbarian or sneaky, like the Rogue.

I'm not going to get into this argument again. It's been my experience that parties without a front-line cannot handle anywhere near the same level of threat as those with. To a certain degree fighters are a support class in 5E depending on the build chosen. I don't see an issue with that.

 

[Arnwolf666]

I would like to see something else given to them. But to say the class hasn’t changed since 1974 or that there are no things that can be done out of combat with them is bulkshit. Take the healer feat. Take stealth. Take persuasion. A dex based fighter is an easy build. A fighter can still be effective with a good charisma. I know some can’t imagine putting their two highest ability scores in something other than strength and constitution or dexterity and construction. I would highly recommend trying it. And it’s easy with published adventures which are pretty easy.

 

[Tony Vargas]

So the fact that since the inception of D&D that this "problem" has existed and has never been resolved has no bearing?

the persistence of the problem has a lot of bearing, as have the past, non-trivial, attempts to help resolve it.

When developing 5E they did one of the most extensive play testing cycles of any game ever. It was not some cabal of nerds in a closet.

I mean, it was an entirely self-selecting process. You're going to get the people most interested in influencing the shape of the next edition. At my FLGS, for instance, out of 6 tables, one was running the playtest, and it had trouble making the minimum number of players each session.

I don't have my books in front of me but yes, I meant the prodigy feat.

Yep, it'd be a help if that and other feats were cast as fighter class features, rather than optional rules-supplements to an optional rule. Maybe in a 5.5 we'll see a tweak like that?

Which is what this thread was supposed to be about, right?

No, this thread is not supposed to be about whether there's a problem with the fighter, that's all you preaching denial. It was one idea for a sub-class. Apparently, in some other forum/entirely-different-game - IDK, the reference was unfamiliar to me - you can float that sort of idea without being attacked for it.

It's been my experience that parties without a front-line cannot handle anywhere near the same level of threat as those with. To a certain degree fighters are a support class in 5E depending on the build chosen. I don't see an issue with that.

"Front line" doesn't really mean too much in 5e, especially run in the nominal default 'TotM' style. Fighters don't have any support features to speak of - they can be de-facto expendable meatshields, if the DM deigns not to ignore them, which, from back in the day, feels like there's kinda an unwritten rule in that regard - though the BM has a couple maneuvers that hint in that direction, while the Paladin does have very solid support, and is easily the Fighter's equal on the front line (for that matter, there are full-caster sub-classes/builds that can stand up to the 'front line' responsibility if need be, which, again, TotM, need may or may not be that often, depending upon the DM's style) .

I'm not going to get into this argument again.

Promises, promises.

 

[Oofta]

I would like to see something else given to them. But to say the class hasn’t changed since 1974 or that there are no things that can be done out of combat with them is bulkshit. Take the healer feat. Take stealth. Take persuasion. A dex based fighter is an easy build. A fighter can still be effective with a good charisma. I know some can’t imagine putting their two highest ability scores in something other than strength and constitution or dexterity and construction. I would highly recommend trying it. And it’s easy with published adventures which are pretty easy.

Shhh! Don't you know that considering backgrounds (or feats) as part of the total picture of a fighter doesn't count? Fighters have to have something unique to only fighters which make them better than anyone else or it doesn't count!

Everyone who doesn't agree will be called an apologist.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I would like to see something else given to them. But to say the class hasn’t changed since 1974 or that there are no things that can be done out of combat with them

The fighter has changed a LOT since '75, when the problem started. Just not in a way that's ever addressed that problem. The fighter got much more flexible to build with bonus Feats (c'mon, 11 bonus feats on top of the 7 everyone got over 20 levels!) in 3e, got to be the resource-equal of other classes, and a premier 'defender' in 4e (but, hey, where did all my bonus feats go), and, in 5e, has bowdlerized vestiges (2 bonus feats when everyone gets 5; a handful of maneuvers locked down in one sub-class) of both. But, everything D&D has tried to rehabilitate the fighter has stayed combat-focused. Even as the instigator of the whole snafu has steadily improved in-combat, to the point that it's been fully-contributing for two editions (over 10 years, now).

I guess it must just be the name. The Thief got a name-change and it (eventually, over, what, 10-20 years?) got to be good at combat...

...sheesh... that does not bode well.

 

[Undrave]

"Front line" doesn't really mean too much in 5e, especially run in the nominal default 'TotM' style. Fighters don't have any support features to speak of - they can be de-facto expendable meatshields, if the DM deigns not to ignore them, which, from back in the day, feels like there's kinda an unwritten rule in that regard - though the BM has a couple maneuvers that hint in that direction, while the Paladin does have very solid support, and is easily the Fighter's equal on the front line (for that matter, there are full-caster sub-classes/builds that can stand up to the 'front line' responsibility if need be, which, again, TotM, need may or may not be that often, depending upon the DM's style) .

The Fighter has the Protection Style, but that clashes with Opportunity Attack, and there's the secret class feature, Sentinel, which is like a Fighting style of its own that was shunted off to the Feats section so everybody else can cannibalize it.

Then you have the Cavalier build which has actual marking

The Fighter would have been way better at protection if it had been given extra reactions to use and probably Sentinel as a basic feature. Or allowed all Fighters to use the Battlemaster's Goading Attack, without the extra damage.

Shhh! Don't you know that considering backgrounds (or feats) as part of the total picture of a fighter doesn't count? Fighters have to have something unique to only fighters which make them better than anyone else or it doesn't count!

Everyone who doesn't agree will be called an apologist.

Why is it so hard to understand?!

Everybody gets 4 skills, everybody gets a Background and most get at least 1 tool as well. That's the BASELINE! You should judge a class on what it adds to the baseline! Even the Barbarian (who is also in need of help) adds a few Rituals to that baseline! The same way all classes put DEX to their AC and can use a dagger. You judge the combat prowess on what it ads to that baseline!

It's like when you do algebra and remove the same stuff from both side of an equation. I.e. "There's a 2x on both side of the equation so we can remove them from each side and not consider them in our further calculation" That '2x' is backgrounds!

 

[Tony Vargas]

The Fighter has the Protection Style, but that clashes with Opportunity Attack, and there's the secret class feature, Sentinel, which is like a Fighting style of its own that was shunted off to the Feats section so everybody else can cannibalize it.
Then you have the Cavalier build which has actual marking
The Fighter would have been way better at protection if it had been given extra reactions to use and probably Sentinel as a basic feature. Or allowed all Fighters to use the Battlemaster's Goading Attack, without the extra damage.

There's certainly room to improve the fighter in-combat, as well, sure.

Why is it so hard to understand?!
Everybody gets 4 skills, everybody gets a Background and most get at least 1 tool as well. That's the BASELINE! You should judge a class on what it adds to the baseline! Even the Barbarian (who is also in need of help) adds a few Rituals to that baseline!

Well, the Totem Barbarian. But, yeah, just about anything you can say for the Fighter - except 'screwed in a single-encounter day' thanks to rage - you can say at least as cogently about the Berserker. It did not make out in this edition. In 3e, it at least got 4 ranks and a better skill list.