D&D 5E Fixing the Fighter: The Zouave

[Oofta]

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.



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!

I think basic logic should clue us in on whether the fighter is meeting it's design goals.

• The reason people play D&D is to have fun.
• If a class is well designed it means that people enjoy playing that class.
• People will only play classes they enjoy.
• The fighter is the most popular class in the game according to DndBeyond.
• The D&D Illuminati do not exist, nor are they forcing people to play fighters.

Therefore the fighter is well designed.

 

[Undrave]

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

Probably not on the damage dealing front, but on the stickiness front it could really be better if its intended to hold the line.

I think basic logic should clue us in on whether the fighter is meeting it's design goals.

• The reason people play D&D is to have fun.
• If a class is well designed it means that people enjoy playing that class.
• People will only play classes they enjoy.
• The fighter is the most popular class in the game according to DndBeyond.
• The D&D Illuminati do not exist, nor are they forcing people to play fighters.

Therefore the fighter is well designed.

The DnDBeyond stats don't include details such as multi classing dips and subclass picks so it's hard to just accept them as a blanket 'everything is fine'.

The Fighter doesn't need to be well designed to be popular, just designed well enough for people who don't delve deeper into questions of game designs, and don't bother digging deeper into their efficiency. Heck, I think it could be better and I'll still play Fighters so I'd say that yeah, it's not BADLY designed, but I would argue there is room to improve.

Secondly, I'm not sure adding a few more non-combat features to the Fighter would reduce its popularity so I don't know why you and others are always against the idea. What are you afraid of?!

 

[Oofta]

Probably not on the damage dealing front, but on the stickiness front it could really be better if its intended to hold the line.



The DnDBeyond stats don't include details such as multi classing dips and subclass picks so it's hard to just accept them as a blanket 'everything is fine'.

The Fighter doesn't need to be well designed to be popular, just designed well enough for people who don't delve deeper into questions of game designs, and don't bother digging deeper into their efficiency. Heck, I think it could be better and I'll still play Fighters so I'd say that yeah, it's not BADLY designed, but I would argue there is room to improve.

Secondly, I'm not sure adding a few more non-combat features to the Fighter would reduce its popularity so I don't know why you and others are always against the idea. What are you afraid of?!

I think the fighter is fine as is. As far as multi-classing, that goes for all classes as well. I wouldn't be surprised if sorcerer and warlock wouldn't drop in the rankings if they were counted without multi-classing into the other.

You say you want a revolution suggestion to make the fighter better outside of combat. The prodigy feat does that. You could even make it limited to fighters, and the only feat that they can take.

But that's not an option because fighters have to get extra out of combat flexibility for free (apparently having bonus feats doesn't count). I haven't seen much else other than complaining that the fighter since it's inception has never been good enough.

But this is getting back into the "tastes great" vs "less filling" debate. Have a good one.

 

[Undrave]

But that's not an option because fighters have to get extra out of combat flexibility for free

"For free" again the "you can't be good at both IN COMBAT and OUT OF COMBAT thing", which classes like the Bard, the Rogue, the Wizard, the Druid etc all do very well.

 

[Garthanos]

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.

I think everyone having reactions based on their multi-attack would also work but...

 

[Oofta]

"For free" again the "you can't be good at both IN COMBAT and OUT OF COMBAT thing", which classes like the Bard, the Rogue, the Wizard, the Druid etc all do very well.

A fighter is more focused on combat by design. Spend one of your extra feats on prodigy if it's a problem.

 

[Garthanos]

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

We are everywhere bwahahahahah, no I have read the goals of the Bavarian's from the era of the us revolution I am totally on board.

 

[Arnwolf666]

are your fighters sitting around and just waiting for combat to start. Mine are searching for clues, interviewing people for investigations, building alliances, and many other things. I am cool with giving them something else. But gee whiz.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Secondly, I'm not sure adding a few more non-combat features to the Fighter would reduce its popularity

It might run the risk of increasing the fighter's popularity?

so I don't know why you and others are always against the idea. What are you afraid of?!

But that's not an option because fighters have to get extra out of combat flexibility for free (apparently having bonus feats doesn't count)..

But, again, why is such an improvement to the fighter class so intolerable?

Most other classes have a great deal of flexibility when it comes to being able to contribute in all the pillars (I say 'most' because, while the Rogue is capable in all the pillars, a given rogue's not that flexible in how it contributes in each of them, and because the Barbarian, especially the Berserker, is prettymuch in the same boat as the Fighter).

 

[Arnwolf666]

What kind of things do people want to give the fighter to do outside combat?