D&D 5E Fixing the Fighter

[FireLance]

This is one area where 4e's role labels don't really do the class justice.

IMO, in much the same way that DNA is not destiny, class role does not necessarily define what a 4e character is going to be.

The flexibility of the 4e AEDU powers system means that if you wanted a ranged fighter or a more strikery fighter, all you had to do was to come up with ranged fighter powers or take the more strikery fighter powers (and if you don't think the existing fighter powers are strikery enough, as with the ranged fighter case, you can just come up with more strikery powers yourself).

 

[Neonchameleon]

In AD&D, rangers were equal to fighters in archery (good attack bonus) and that was it. In UA, they both got weapon specialization (which rangers could only use in archery, IIRC). In 2e, only fighters got weapon specialization (whereas rangers got two-weapon fighting) and stayed that way til 3.5.

Exactly. Classes change over time - especially the ranger. In 4e the fighter gained flavour rather than remaining truly generic it became able to be the person most people wanted it to be. The guy leading from the front who no one would dare turn their back on because they knew that the fighter would mess them up.

The problem is spells are 100% effective when they bleed. Knock doesn't just give a wizard a chance to open lock, it automatically wins against DC 1,000 locks! You want to fix Codzilla and Batman mages? Nerf the dang spells!

You have watched the edition wars? 4e did nerf the damn spells. And IMO rightfully so. People for whatever reason hated that. They claim it makes magic no longer special.

Here's the rub.

In Pathfinder, I could build a Slayer-like PC by taking Power attack, weapon focus/specialization, et all, and have a warrior good at killing foes in melee and at reach.

I could also build a fighter who is a knight-like defender with Stand Still, Step Up, Bodyguard, shield feats, etc.

PHB Fighters are amongst the most damaging PCs if you take the high damage (or even better the multi attack) powers. And they are still pretty good at defence. They aren't quite as high damage as optimised Slayers, raging barbarians, sneak-attack-all-the-time rogues, or cuisineart or air-black-with-arrows rangers. But greatweapon or tempest (two weapon) fighters built for damage can keep up with almost any other striker. And they do that while being more defendery than any pathfinder fighter - Stand Still takes the threat away from a fighter making its AoO do no damage, Step Up does no damage, Bodyguard also takes an AoO (once more taking away stickiness).

But in Pathfinder, I can take feats from each and do both massive damage AND defense.

In 4e, I can't. I must pick between the two.

A Pathfinder Fighter is a Striker who can take a few feats to do a little defendering - but then so can a Slayer. I can give my Slayer a Defender Aura with the Cavalier Multiclass feat (he gets no significant punishment to go with it but this more than matches Bodyguard), the Glowering Threat utility power at level 2 that draws everyone's attention (IIRC it's -5 for everyone in 15 ft to attack anyone except my slayer) - and no one in their senses risks an opportunity attack from a slayer. In short if I want a defendery Slayer I have one working by level 2 that is still a Slayer and still hits like one, but is more defendery than a Pathfinder fighter is likely to get (remember Bodyguard and Stand Still both use your limited AoOs and In Harm's Way, Step Up, and Saving Shield all use up your single immediate action per round whereas my Slayer's Defender Aura is like everyone adjacent having the Bodyguard bonus without me having to roll and once per fight I can stack a bonus on top of that that for everyone that's higher than Bodyguard and Saving Shield combined). And still my slayer is nothing like the defender a PHB fighter is.

Going back to what I've said previously, I might be inclined to agree that it may have been one edition which 'nerfed the ability of the class to use a bow.' You're right, that does more it the outlier. However, it's also the outlier in that it's the only edition in which I felt I could choose fighter as my class and not feel completely useless beyond a certain level of the game.

Seriously? The 2e fighter rocked. Weapon Specialisation kicked ass and took names and when the fighter felt as if it was really falling behind you got an army.

Is the current state of the fighter the real problem or are there other areas of the game which need to be looked at? I still argue that other things need to be fixed and that the fighter will improve (as will many other classes) by those other areas of the game receiving better design efforts.

D&D next needs a vision. A lot is going to fall into place when that happens.

The 4e fighter was actually quite a versatile class imo.

Indeed. About the only thing it isn't good at was archery or healing. It also has the fewest skills of any class. (And fighters, contrary to some implications in this thread, can use a bow. But decidedly as a backup weapon).

The natural solution is to give the fighter player more metagame power than the wizard player, who has ingame power via spells. This is what 4e powers do (and they're not particularly mangled).

Or if we want to avoid metagame power (some people really hate it), take the Gygaxian approach. Give them an army.

The flexibility of the 4e AEDU powers system means that if you wanted a ranged fighter or a more strikery fighter, all you had to do was to come up with ranged fighter powers or take the more strikery fighter powers (and if you don't think the existing fighter powers are strikery enough, as with the ranged fighter case, you can just come up with more strikery powers yourself).

More strikery, yes. Ranged? I'm calling Oberoni fallacy here I'm afraid (unless you're being a Slayer in which case your ranged capabilities are lethal.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Actually, the pathfinder defender tangent is a very good point. A 4e defender isn't just about getting in the way, they are about threatening and punishment. Take your eyes off a 4e fighter whether to attack someone else or get a five foot step and he gets a free swing - they are that alert to any gaps in someone's guard. This is a different article from simply making someone harder to hit (PF fighters trying to play defender only get the making allies harder to hit part). Should fighters simply be there, doing what they do, or should they provide a positive incentive to not attack anyone else?

 

[Ahnehnois]

The natural solution is to give the fighter player more metagame power than the wizard player, who has ingame power via spells. This is what 4e powers do (and they're not particularly mangled).

I don't see how giving a character metagame power is natural.

I definitely don't see how conflating in-game and metagame concepts is natural.

If it's really about giving the player power, there's no reason to present the mechanics as being the property of a character.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

My main gripe with the fighter in all recent iterations is the emphasis on round-by-round resources. I understand that the traditional fighter, in many people's minds, was someone who could keep swinging his sword all day, and in many cases was simple enough to play in a way that meant you only swung your sword all day. I think that insisting on round-by-round resources *does* limit the effectiveness of any special attacks that might be optioned - in particular as the current system has you trading damage in for doing anything else. Rare is the occasion that bringing an enemy closer to death is not as useful as something else. But we can't just have the Fighter dishing out status effects like candy, and I remember at some point there was some awful tradeoff system, like called shots, to exchange to-hit for effects. This still isn't satisfying. I would desperately like to see Fighters, and the physical combat system, move to an encounter-based fatigue system. Points to be spent on fancy effects, which might just include more damage, but that should primarily come from just being good at fighting. Combat is brutal - you tire fast, but a short rest and you'll be ready for another.

On the matter of 'defender' powers and abilities, well, I thought marking was a bit of an ugly way to control target selection. It had the weird effect of putting Fighters off of having too great an AC and felt a bit too easy to achieve, especially if you picked up some area powers from other classes (that guy is fireballing us, but he's somehow intimidating me in a way that wizard doesn't!). Plus you could only intercept once, so things got weird when several marked enemies still suffered a penalty after you demonstrate you can't reaction-attack the second guy who goes for the Wizard. So, I'm more in the camp of not letting the enemies reach your back lines, rather than penalising them if they choose to go there. I'd like to see an aura effect, which can work without a grid - something simple like all enemies who are in melee with you, or your allies in the same melee (a connectedness effect that incentivises a character that needs defending to get to the fighter) do reduced damage, or have a harder time hitting - I think the parry/shield maneuver could be made a simple flat number that always applies as DR, and if you opt for the sword and board it also helps your nearby allies.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I don't see how giving a character metagame power is natural.

I definitely don't see how conflating in-game and metagame concepts is natural.

If it's really about giving the player power, there's no reason to present the mechanics as being the property of a character.

It's about making sure the player has power. Casters have the power to rewrite reality on their character sheet so they don't need metagame power.

On the matter of 'defender' powers and abilities, well, I thought marking was a bit of an ugly way to control target selection. It had the weird effect of putting Fighters off of having too great an AC and felt a bit too easy to achieve, especially if you picked up some area powers from other classes (that guy is fireballing us, but he's somehow intimidating me in a way that wizard doesn't!).

It's not that the fighter's intimidating in a way that the wizard isn't because of the damage. The wizard does not get Combat Challenge. If you attack someone who isn't the fighter then the fighter will get a free swing. And that level of alertness is intimidating right now - take your eyes off the fighter and the fighter will cut you right now. The wizard, meanwhile needs a few seconds to prepare another spell. If you don't have this then the smart move is, of course, to make the person wearing robes into a red smear - but not if the fighter's going to do that to you first. This, incidently, is why the Pathfinder fighter attempts at being a defender fail - there's no free swing involved and you aren't risking life and limb to attack the squishy and not the fighter.

Plus you could only intercept once, so things got weird when several marked enemies still suffered a penalty after you demonstrate you can't reaction-attack the second guy who goes for the Wizard.

This is just a stop-motion animation problem. It isn't that meaningful if a turn is a single OODA cycle for everyone that's handled sequentially for ease of calculation rather than that time freezes for people between turns. If every round is effectively simulataneous then you don't know when you start moving who the fighter is going to attack. It might be you or might be someone else.

I'd like to see an aura effect, which can work without a grid - something simple like all enemies who are in melee with you, or your allies in the same melee

For what it's worth the Essentials Defenders all do get aura effects - with a punishment attached that can be inflicted once per turn (i.e. once per enemy in the aura - or absolutely eviscerating certain solos who get to attack once per PC turn).

 

[B.T.]

The idea that the fighter can have as much narrative control as a spellcaster is foolish. Magic automatically offers more narrative control because it doesn't exist in the real world and is thus not limited by real-world constraints. Even in low magic settings, characters who have access to limited magic have more access to narrative control because the ability to do something that others cannot.

Arguing about this seems rather pointless. Asking why the fighter doesn't summon celestial badgers is like asking a fish why it doesn't ride a bicycle.

 

[Neonchameleon]

The idea that the fighter can have as much narrative control as a spellcaster is foolish. Magic automatically offers more narrative control because it doesn't exist in the real world and is thus not limited by real-world constraints. Even in low magic settings, characters who have access to limited magic have more access to narrative control because the ability to do something that others cannot.

Arguing about this seems rather pointless. Asking why the fighter doesn't summon celestial badgers is like asking a fish why it doesn't ride a bicycle.

On the other hand the idea that the game should be Casters and Sidekicks (which is what it is if only some people have narrative control) is OK ... if you are explicitely playing Ars Magica. If the game sells itself about being about the casters and their sidekicks who do not have narrative control and therefore can't alter the plot but are useful assistants.

Some of us think that choosing to play a fighter shouldn't mean choosing to be a second class PC. And that the heroes of fiction and myth are normally the fighters or the rogues - who generally show abilities far above those the D&D fighter has.

Should D&D be about Casters and Sidekicks? If yes, should it be branded as such and if not why not? If no, what should be done about it? More useful abilities for the non-casters? Metagame powers for the non-casters? Cinematic or even mythic abilities for the non-casters? Seriously nerfing the casters? Niche protection for the non-casters so that were they are strong the casters can barely compete?

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

It's not that the fighter's intimidating in a way that the wizard isn't because of the damage. The wizard does not get Combat Challenge. If you attack someone who isn't the fighter then the fighter will get a free swing. And that level of alertness is intimidating right now - take your eyes off the fighter and the fighter will cut you right now. The wizard, meanwhile needs a few seconds to prepare another spell. If you don't have this then the smart move is, of course, to make the person wearing robes into a red smear - but not if the fighter's going to do that to you first. This, incidently, is why the Pathfinder fighter attempts at being a defender fail - there's no free swing involved and you aren't risking life and limb to attack the squishy and not the fighter.

No - the problem there is that the Fighter won't cut you down, he's nowhere near you. He's fireballed you and your friends across a room, just as the Wizard can do, but you, with all your bows, feel intimidated by one use of magic and not the other. Really any non-melee marking doesn't work for the theme of the 4E Fighter, but it exists, unless I missed an errata.

 

[Neonchameleon]

No - the problem there is that the Fighter won't cut you down, he's nowhere near you. He's fireballed you and your friends across a room, just as the Wizard can do, but you, with all your bows, feel intimidated by one use of magic and not the other. Really any non-melee marking doesn't work for the theme of the 4E Fighter, but it exists, unless I missed an errata.

In this case you're talking about an edge case situation I have literally never seen come up in play. To fireball from across the room the fighter needs to spend a couple of feats and be working off the wrong stat. Yes you can make a character that will do this at a significant effectiveness cost to being a fighter - but this is a significantly more arcane question than "With the fabricate spell why is the world's economy going?" And I don't see anything terribly wrong with a fighter marking with a javelin if he's coming in to follow it up (which is the main ranged weapon 4e fighters use with the throwing axe in second place) as he wants to follow it in. This is a case of "Don't sweat the small stuff".

Should it be restricted to melee and close attacks? Perhaps. Is this an actual problem in any play I've seen? No. Is it something anyone can find a way to exploit? Not that I'm aware of.