D&D 5E Martials should just get free feats

[James Gasik]

may i ask why you fundamentally think that the fighter, the iconic champion of martial combat, should not have exclusive martial abilities that surpass the capabilities of other classes? the wizard has high level magics only they can use so why isn't the fighter allowed the same grace in their own area of expertise?, everybody has their own niche, the thing only they can do or excel at beyond everyone else and that's just balance in another form.

I think I can field this. From the very beginnings of the game, Wizards were supposed to be better. For some people, this is just a D&Dism that they have no issue with. Linear Fighters and Quadratic Wizards is not a bug, but a feature; it's how the game is meant to be.

Corollary to this is that the Wizard's power cannot be easily quantifiable on a spreadsheet like a Fighters. A Fighter only needs to get into melee (or not, if they are a ranged build), you can calculate their chance to hit a creature of CR X, and the damage they do turn after turn.

There are minor things like "how many Superiority Dice do they have, is Action Surge up", but the base Fighter's numbers can be dropped into a program and you can have data to look at.

A Wizard that does DAMAGE can be judged by the same merits.

But there are some things that you can't account for in a white room. For example, if a Battlemaster frightens an enemy, how many actions are lost by that enemy? How much damage was prevented? Do they drag other enemies into the fight? Are they never seen again? Do they provoke opportunity attacks that lead to them dying quicker?

Now look at casters, who have whole reams of spells that might be game changers. Or they might be duds. Did the enemy save? How many enemies were affected? Was terrain a factor? Were there immunities or abilities that trivialized the spell's effect? Or made it worse, like casting Web on icy ground?

Utility spells are even harder to judge; was casting Fly really the way to overcome a gorge? Would the time saved matter? Was there another way to do it that wouldn't cost a spell slot?

For every tale of a spellcaster ending a fight by casting Slow or Evard's Black Tentacles, you have a story where the Wizard cast forcecage and the enemy just dispels it or teleports. For every encounter where you turn a dragon into a turnip, there's an encounter where the Wizard was petrified on round 1 and couldn't even be restored until the enemy was dead.

Because of this, you have this disparity where you can't accurately judge a class, as I said; imagine the following scenarios:

*In campaign A, set piece battles are designed by the DM assuming full party resources, short rests are rarely taken.

*In campaign B, players are slowly going through a dungeon crawl, with as many as 10-15 mini encounters (which could turn into real encounters if the players aren't careful) between long rests, and its impossible to take short rests without the enemies finding the party and preparing an ambush.

*In campaign C, the DM makes casters meticulously track spell components, so that no matter how many rests they gain, they will run out of spells.

*In campaign D, the DM doesn't track components at all, and only asks that you deduct money every time you cast an expensive spell.

*In campaign E, the game world has random zones of dead and wild magic.

*In campaign F, it's a long-term campaign with lots of downtime between encounters.

*In campaign G, the players exist in ancient Netheril, which is a magocracy, and everyone has to have some kind of magic or be seen as a second-class citizen.

*In campaign H, NPC spellcasters of high level are common.

*In campaign I, the PC's are the only high level spellcasters in the world.

I could go on, but the experience of being a Wizard, even the disparity betwixt Wizard and anyone else, can vary wildly. It's not unreasonable for people to simply not see problems with casters at all in some of these scenarios.

The only point of contention I've ever had is when someone says "never seen, it, can't possibly happen", lol, because they seemingly fail to acknowledge that other ways to play the game exist.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Ummm, no? Gygax had all sorts of rules and stuff in place to balance classes?

Different leveling rates so that Fighters and Rouges would level faster.
Magic item rewards were designed to boost Fighters with powerful magic weapons.
D4 hit dice for Wizards to make them glass cannons.
Many spells had expensive component costs and drawbacks to curtail their use.
Weren't many high level spells not actually meant for PC use and were NPC tools?
Wizards were meant to be weak in the early game to balance out late game powerfulness.
Didn't high level Fighters get their own armies then?
Edit: And I can't forget Dungeon crawls and long adventuring days were meant to force Wizards to carefully manage their magic use!

I think I can field this. From the very beginnings of the game, Wizards were supposed to be better. For some people, this is just a D&Dism that they have no issue with. Linear Fighters and Quadratic Wizards is not a bug, but a feature; it's how the game is meant to be.

Corollary to this is that the Wizard's power cannot be easily quantifiable on a spreadsheet like a Fighters. A Fighter only needs to get into melee (or not, if they are a ranged build), you can calculate their chance to hit a creature of CR X, and the damage they do turn after turn.

There are minor things like "how many Superiority Dice do they have, is Action Surge up", but the base Fighter's numbers can be dropped into a program and you can have data to look at.

A Wizard that does DAMAGE can be judged by the same merits.

But there are some things that you can't account for in a white room. For example, if a Battlemaster frightens an enemy, how many actions are lost by that enemy? How much damage was prevented? Do they drag other enemies into the fight? Are they never seen again? Do they provoke opportunity attacks that lead to them dying quicker?

Now look at casters, who have whole reams of spells that might be game changers. Or they might be duds. Did the enemy save? How many enemies were affected? Was terrain a factor? Were there immunities or abilities that trivialized the spell's effect? Or made it worse, like casting Web on icy ground?

Utility spells are even harder to judge; was casting Fly really the way to overcome a gorge? Would the time saved matter? Was there another way to do it that wouldn't cost a spell slot?

For every tale of a spellcaster ending a fight by casting Slow or Evard's Black Tentacles, you have a story where the Wizard cast forcecage and the enemy just dispels it or teleports. For every encounter where you turn a dragon into a turnip, there's an encounter where the Wizard was petrified on round 1 and couldn't even be restored until the enemy was dead.

Because of this, you have this disparity where you can't accurately judge a class, as I said; imagine the following scenarios:

*In campaign A, set piece battles are designed by the DM assuming full party resources, short rests are rarely taken.

*In campaign B, players are slowly going through a dungeon crawl, with as many as 10-15 mini encounters (which could turn into real encounters if the players aren't careful) between long rests, and its impossible to take short rests without the enemies finding the party and preparing an ambush.

*In campaign C, the DM makes casters meticulously track spell components, so that no matter how many rests they gain, they will run out of spells.

*In campaign D, the DM doesn't track components at all, and only asks that you deduct money every time you cast an expensive spell.

*In campaign E, the game world has random zones of dead and wild magic.

*In campaign F, it's a long-term campaign with lots of downtime between encounters.

*In campaign G, the players exist in ancient Netheril, which is a magocracy, and everyone has to have some kind of magic or be seen as a second-class citizen.

*In campaign H, NPC spellcasters of high level are common.

*In campaign I, the PC's are the only high level spellcasters in the world.

I could go on, but the experience of being a Wizard, even the disparity betwixt Wizard and anyone else, can vary wildly. It's not unreasonable for people to simply not see problems with casters at all in some of these scenarios.

The only point of contention I've ever had is when someone says "never seen, it, can't possibly happen", lol, because they seemingly fail to acknowledge that other ways to play the game exist.

 

[James Gasik]

Ummm, no? Gygax had all sorts of rules and stuff in place to balance classes?

Different leveling rates so that Fighters and Rouges would level faster.
Magic item rewards were designed to boost Fighters with powerful magic weapons.
D4 hit dice for Wizards to make them glass cannons.
Many spells had expensive component costs and drawbacks to curtail their use.
Weren't many high level spells not actually meant for PC use and were NPC tools?
Wizards were meant to be weak in the early game to balance out late game powerfulness.
Didn't high level Fighters get their own armies then?
Edit: And I can't forget Dungeon crawls and long adventuring days were meant to force Wizards to carefully manage their magic use!

About that leveling faster though, taking a quick look at the xp charts notices some funny business going on- for example when Wizards hit level 12 at the same time Fighters are level 11 and Rogues are only one level ahead but don't have a 6th level spell.

I know, you mentioned late game power, but that's a funny balance point when you are used to being a lot better than a finger wiggler and suddenly he's a level above you!

As for whether or not high level spells were for NPC's, they were put in the PHB and nowhere did it say "oh don't let PC's cast this ever".

That standing army isn't really very large*; it's gained at what most people would consider "late level", and from what I keep hearing, the army wasn't even used that much, since people still wanted to go dungeon crawling.

*Let's take a closer look:

So ironically, this table works a bit backwards, you get more troops with a low roll, 100 infantry and 20 light cavalry. You could end up with all infantry, or 60 crossbowmen, or all cavalry, none of which are really ideal for an army.

In fact, this isn't an army at all! Let's look at actual medieval warfare: starting from the hundred years war, France called up to 50 000 – 60 000 soldiers, even though they weren't stationed in one place. There was a single unit with around 25 000 soldiers. England had around 30,000 soldiers.

The big prize is your level ~6 lieutenant, the rest of these 0-level chumps are meaningless when the Monster Manual says Orcs can be encountered in lots of up to 300!

 

[MichaelSomething]

Are we arguing intent or effectiveness?

 

[James Gasik]

Are we arguing intent or effectiveness?

No idea, lol. I think you were talking about intent, and I got hung up on effectiveness. Although with Gary, it's hard to tell, he would often say one thing and do another. In the end, it comes down to the fact that not all of those attempts at balance were very popular, and I personally don't think making a class annoying to play is a good way to balance it.

I'd rather just power down the spells than go back to AD&D casting rules. But a lot of people seem to want the genie from Aladdin in their spell slingers; phenomenal cosmic power, teeny tiny living space.

Anyways, I don't really want to be in an argument at all; I think there's room for multiple interpretations but in the end it comes down to whether WotC will finally pick a side or just continue with this wishy washy Wizard For All Seasons.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Once again mentioning I think alot of the current balancing issues with the wizard would be fixed if they were basically utility and support casters, take away their damage spells, leave warlock and sorcerer to be the magic blasters, but the wizard has the capacity to dominate in all three pillars of play loosing half their capacity in one of them isn’t going to ruin the class because honestly they’re still going to be great at controlling the battlefield even if they can’t blast fireballs

Like the idea of the wizard is that theyve mastered all these intricate fancy magic tricks right? Make that actually the core of their class identity being the one with all the magic solutions to problems so long as it isn’t a troll charging them down they’ll have something up their sleeve to deal with your obstacles, and even then if they can’t kill a troll they’ve still probably got a dozen ways to disable it from being effective.

 

[James Gasik]

Once again mentioning I think alot of the current balancing issues with the wizard would be fixed if they were basically utility and support casters, take away their damage spells, leave warlock and sorcerer to be the magic blasters, but the wizard has the capacity to dominate in all three pillars of play loosing half their capacity in one of them isn’t going to ruin the class because honestly they’re still going to be great at controlling the battlefield even if they can’t blast fireballs

Like the idea of the wizard is that theyve mastered all these intricate fancy magic tricks right? Make that actually the core of their class identity being the one with all the magic solutions to problems so long as it isn’t a troll charging them down they’ll have something up their sleeve to deal with your obstacles, and even then if they can’t kill a troll they’ve still probably got a dozen ways to disable it from being effective.

I'm of two minds about this; on the one hand, you're right, the Wizard loses very little if you take away their damage; it's the least efficient thing they could be doing. On the other hand, everyone does damage as their primary means to end a combat.

When the rest of the team does 100 damage to an enemy and the Wizard turns them into a halibut, it feels like the damage didn't matter at all. So having the Wizard deal damage (or at least, use spells where damage dealing does matter, like Sleep or Power Words) is really what I'd rather they be doing, so it still feels like a team effort.

The gripping hand, of course, is that you can't take toys away from the Wizard; many people, even people who don't even play or like Wizards, feel that their role is "all the magic"*, and changing that makes them "not feel like Wizards".

*Except for restoring hit points, for some reason. That's the only limitation a Wizard really has, and it's pretty inane; the more people who can keep the party high on hit points the better, so it's never just one person's responsibility.

 

[ECMO3]

may i ask why you fundamentally think that the fighter, the iconic champion of martial combat, should not have exclusive martial abilities that surpass the capabilities of other classes? the wizard has high level magics only they can use so why isn't the fighter allowed the same grace in their own area of expertise?,

Because it will detract from the game if other classes can't contribute in a meaningful fashion. If we give the fighter more exclusive martial abilities beyond those he already has it will weaken the martial contributions of other classes and thereby make the game less fun.

Fighters already have this niche in terms of armor proficiency, weapon proficiency, fighting styles and more attacks. Only the Paladin brings both heavy armor and martial weapons to the table and that class lacks the fighter extra attack and the breadth of martial-focused fighting styles.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The gripping hand, of course, is that you can't take toys away from the Wizard; many people, even people who don't even play or like Wizards, feel that their role is "all the magic"*, and changing that makes them "not feel like Wizards".

Worse, if you do give nice things to the non-Wizards, a vocal minority will complain. They demand that Wizards get the same benefits, or vehemently decry how you're making Fighters that can shoot lightning out of their unmentionables. Even if that's literally not at all what you're doing.

 

[ECMO3]

Ummm, no? Gygax had all sorts of rules and stuff in place to balance classes?

Different leveling rates so that Fighters and Rouges would level faster.
Magic item rewards were designed to boost Fighters with powerful magic weapons.
D4 hit dice for Wizards to make them glass cannons.
Many spells had expensive component costs and drawbacks to curtail their use.
Weren't many high level spells not actually meant for PC use and were NPC tools?
Wizards were meant to be weak in the early game to balance out late game powerfulness.
Didn't high level Fighters get their own armies then?
Edit: And I can't forget Dungeon crawls and long adventuring days were meant to force Wizards to carefully manage their magic use!

There was not much balance in AD&D. Once weapon specialization became an official part of the rules Fighters and Cavaliers (and their subclasses) were way ahead of everyone else, including Wizards. Casters faced a big problem in that at high levels they could not memorize all their spells because it took too long. They actually needed down time (not just a long rest) to memorize their spells back again and be "full". This was a severe cap on caster power, as they got to higher levels they got ground breaking spells but could only cast them once in a multi-day adventure. From memory I think it was 8 hours of uninterrupted sleep (screwed if a wandering monster came by) plus an additional 15 minutes of study or prayer per spell level for each spell they memorized. So memorizing all your spells took like 15 hours at 10th level and only went up from there. At low levels this was not a big problem, but at low levels they were really weak. Also cantrips were mostly useless.


Then there was the problem if you memorized the wrong spell.

 

[Micah Sweet]

There was not much balance in AD&D. Once weapon specialization became an official part of the rules Fighters and Cavaliers (and their subclasses) were way ahead of everyone else, including Wizards. Casters faced a big problem in that at high levels they could not memorize all their spells because it took too long. They actually needed down time (not just a long rest) to memorize their spells back again and be "full". This was a severe cap on caster power, as they got to higher levels they got ground breaking spells but could only cast them once in a multi-day adventure. From memory I think it was 8 hours of uninterrupted sleep (screwed if a wandering monster came by) plus an additional 15 minutes of study or prayer per spell level for each spell they memorized. So memorizing all your spells took like 15 hours at 10th level and only went up from there. At low levels this was not a big problem, but at low levels they were really weak. Also cantrips were mostly useless.


Then there was the problem if you memorized the wrong spell.

Yeah, in a 1e game I was in once, the high level wizard literally cast wish to get back their entire spell repertoire (except wish).

 

[Shadowedeyes]

AD&D wasn't super concerned with balance from my experience playing it, what little I did. Wizards started off weak but had the most potential power. Fighters were pretty solid throughout, mostly because of the damage they could do and the lack of hit point inflation. Clerics were necessary because of how healing worked. And thieves mostly just sucked.

 

[James Gasik]

There was a problem with the idea that spell memorization balanced Wizards with Warriors; it fails to take into account natural healing times. Warriors have no innate way to regain their copious amounts of hit points faster than anyone else, and, in fact, might take longer to heal to full!

I know, you might say, but Clerics! But well....

Healing spells were bad. Cure Light is 1d8.
Cure Serious (a 4th level spell!) is 2d8+1. Cure Critical at 5th is 3d8+3. You need 6th level spells to actually deal with a Warrior sitting at like, 17 out of 80 hit points with any real efficiency- and that's not a guarantee either, because Priest of a Specific Mythoi, Druids, and Specialty Priests might not even have major access to Healing (and these were popular choices at some tables).

So even with a Cleric, it could take multiple days to heal a party back to full, giving Wizards plenty of time to memorize spells. And you shouldn't use time constraints/doom clocks to limit a Cleric's spellcasting, or nobody has hit points to do anything!

 

[MichaelSomething]

If old schools tools failed to create balance; let's use modern tools then!

Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG|Goodman Games

goodman-games.com

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Because it will detract from the game if other classes can't contribute in a meaningful fashion.

How would giving fighters "exclusive martial abilities that surpass the capabilities of other classes" prevent those other classes contributing in a meaningful fashion? Just because the Fighter is better at tripping, or manoeuvring through battle, or inflicting bleeding attacks, that doesn't prevent the other classes from using their abilities to contribute just as well as they can do so currently.
You claimed that you "don't want them having extraordinary martial powers other classes don't get", but this seems to be based on an unfounded assumption that you are making that any ability that Fighters get exclusively will be overpowered.
No one other than yourself is suggesting this, so why are you basing your arguments against it?

If we give the fighter more exclusive martial abilities beyond those he already has it will weaken the martial contributions of other classes and thereby make the game less fun.

Fun for whom?
If every member of an adventuring party is contributing an average of 28% towards the success of the team, but the fighter is only contributing 16%, then bring the fighter up to 25% contribution is going to weaken the contributions of the other members from 28% to 25%. I can't imagine any of the group being so selfish as to object to that however.

Fighters already have this niche in terms of armor proficiency, weapon proficiency, fighting styles and more attacks. Only the Paladin brings both heavy armor and martial weapons to the table and that class lacks the fighter extra attack and the breadth of martial-focused fighting styles.

Smites let Paladins keep up with fighters for damage in general, and the base Fighter doesn't get to use any more fighting styles than the Paladins do either.

 

[ECMO3]

How would giving fighters "exclusive martial abilities that surpass the capabilities of other classes" prevent those other classes contributing in a meaningful fashion? Just because the Fighter is better at tripping, or manoeuvring through battle, or inflicting bleeding attacks, that doesn't prevent the other classes from using their abilities to contribute just as well as they can do so currently.

Because you could not build other classes that could be as effective in battle. The melee Wizard or Warlock is going to feel left out if the fighter is running around tripping people and maneuvering through battle.

IF you need that stuff on the fighter to make the fighter "fun" then just give it to everyone and then the fighter can do it and other classes can do it too if they want to.

You claimed that you "don't want them having extraordinary martial powers other classes don't get", but this seems to be based on an unfounded assumption that you are making that any ability that Fighters get exclusively will be overpowered.

No, not at all. It is not the fact that it is overpowered, it is the fact that it is unavailable. I just think other classes should be able to do that stuff too.

I would not mind giving more out of combat stuff for the fighter, like advantage on intelligence or wisdom checks about weapons or armor, but the combat stuff should be available to everyone.

Fun for whom?

Me for starters, but a lot of other players too.

If every member of an adventuring party is contributing an average of 28% towards the success of the team, but the fighter is only contributing 16%, then bring the fighter up to 25% contribution is going to weaken the contributions of the other members from 28% to 25%.

I don't think most players are calculating how much percentage they are contributing, and if we are going to use real numbers, they actually need to be real numbers, not some made up metrics with no statistical basis. If your hypothesis is based on a numerical contribution then you need to come up with the methodology to measure that contribution.

In any case, the cornerstone of my argument is another class should be able to contribute almost equal to a fighter if engaged in martial combat with weapons, without using any spells.

To turn this argument around on you - if a fighter is contributing X amount without using any spells, another character from another class built for melee should be fairly close to X while also using no spells.

I can't imagine any of the group being so selfish as to object to that however.

then why all the objections to giving these abilities to every single class?

I am playing a fighter in two different campaigns right now and I object to rules changes which mean other classes can't hope to melee nearly as effectively with weapons as my fighter. That is not selfish IMO.

I think demanding rules changes to give one class more power while not allowing any other class to get those powers is more selfish than simply boosting every class in a similar fashion.

This is my main problem with this - the people demanding these changes are also demanding that no other class gets them. "I need to this to have fun with a fighter, but I don't want to let other classes do it" ..... If you need changes to make martial combat more fun, ok but just let everyone have it!

Smites let Paladins keep up with fighters for damage in general,

Sure, but the post was about the fighters "niche" and what is unique to the class.

and the base Fighter doesn't get to use any more fighting styles than the Paladins do either.

This is not true. The base fighter has 11 different fighting style options, including two that are unique to the fighter class (unarmed fighting, superior technique). The Paladin only gets get access to 6 of those fighting styles (and another spell casting style).

Further a fighter can change fighting styles 6 times over 20 levels, while a Paladin can only change 5 times.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Actual balance is fine for most groups.

To break magic, a player has to open the PHB, read the spells, and spend time considering their effects. How many players actually do that?

 

[ECMO3]

There was a problem with the idea that spell memorization balanced Wizards with Warriors; it fails to take into account natural healing times. Warriors have no innate way to regain their copious amounts of hit points faster than anyone else, and, in fact, might take longer to heal to full!

I know, you might say, but Clerics! But well....

Healing spells were bad. Cure Light is 1d8.
Cure Serious (a 4th level spell!) is 2d8+1. Cure Critical at 5th is 3d8+3. You need 6th level spells to actually deal with a Warrior sitting at like, 17 out of 80 hit points with any real efficiency- and that's not a guarantee either, because Priest of a Specific Mythoi, Druids, and Specialty Priests might not even have major access to Healing (and these were popular choices at some tables).

So even with a Cleric, it could take multiple days to heal a party back to full, giving Wizards plenty of time to memorize spells. And you shouldn't use time constraints/doom clocks to limit a Cleric's spellcasting, or nobody has hit points to do anything!

Healing spells were not great, but there were higher level spells available and the heal spell in particular healed everything. It was common to start your adventuring day without full hps, this was more common than having time to recharge spells. There were also magic items that offered regeneration and these were not that rare.

It could take multiple days to get back to full hps but fighters had full offensive power all the time and at high levels with the magic weapons available rhey could kill almost anything in a round or two. Unless you through hordes of monsters with more than 1 hit die they were dominant. Hordes less than 1 hit die didn't work because a 12th level fighter could make 12 attacks a round againt Goblins or Kobolds.

I remember playing the DLQ series and the party fighter and Paladin killed Lolth in one round before she even got a turn .... a freaking goddess!

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Because you could not build other classes that could be as effective in battle.

?
Of course you could. Being good at tripping and other tactical maneuvres etc still isn't going to prevent the fighter being overshadowed in combat by the blademaster, his simulacrum, and both of their summons for example. Being able to rush around striking multiple opponents won't stop blade wind strike dealing more damage and ignoring barriers, or just dropping a fireball into the mob.

The melee Wizard or Warlock is going to feel left out if the fighter is running around tripping people and maneuvering through battle.

Why? Do they get jealous when they see clerics healing and feel left out because despite being spellcasters, they can't do the cleric's speciality as well as the cleric can?
I do not know your social group, but I very much doubt that many of my acquaintances and/or users of this forum are going to feel entitled to be able to do everything another class can do in addition to their own class abilities.

IF you need that stuff on the fighter to make the fighter "fun" then just give it to everyone and then the fighter can do it or other classes can do it too if they want to.

No, not at all. It is not the fact that it is overpowered, it is the fact that it is unavailable. I just think other classes should be able to do that stuff too.

Ah. Here we go. This is very telling. - I think that it is worth checking something about you that people haven't asked before:
Do you think that the Fighter should actually exist as a class? If you're insistent that the other classes should be masters of tactical martial combat as well as being supreme spellcasters, or the mortal embodiment of divine powers, then there isn't really room for a character that is just that martial master and nothing else.
If everyone who wants to melee can do anything that the fighter can, as well as their own, powerful class abilities, then why have a fighter at all?

If you do believe that the fighter does have a place as an equal in adventuring prowess to the other classes, what do you believe the mechanical expression of their class abilities should be?

I don't think most players are calculating how much percentage they are contributing, and if we are going to use real numbers, they actually need to be real numbers, not some made up metrics with no statistical basis.

Of course not: the numbers used were just used to try to help you understand how zero-sum changes as you talked about in your previous post aren't necessarily a bad thing even if contribution goes down for some people.

In any case, the cornerstone of my argument is another class should be able to contribute almost equal to a fighter if engaged in martial combat with weapons, without using any spells.

But it is not: above you outright object to the fighter getting any unique capability in combat, whether or not it would lead to a fighter contributing equal, or less than the other classes.

To turn this argument around on you - if a fighter is contributing X amount without using any spells, another character from another class built for melee should be fairly close to X while also using no spells.

Sure, but the post was about the fighters "niche" and what is unique to the class.

Yes, and I was pointing out that paladins already have an equivalent ability that lets them cover the same niche as well, just in a different mechanical manner.

This is not true. The base fighter has 11 different fighting style options, including two that are unique to the fighter class (unarmed fighting, superior technique). The Paladin only gets get access to 6 of those fighting styles (and another spell casting style).

Further a fighter can change fighting styles 6 times over 20 levels, while a Paladin can only change 5 times.

. . . and how many fighting styles does a fighter actually get to use compared to a Paladin?

 

[James Gasik]

Healing spells were not great, but there were higher level spells available and the heal spell in particular healed everything. It was common to start your adventuring day without full hps, this was more common than having time to recharge spells. There were also magic items that offered regeneration and these were not that rare.

It could take multiple days to get back to full hps but fighters had full offensive power all the time and at high levels with the magic weapons available rhey could kill almost anything in a round or two. Unless you through hordes of monsters with more than 1 hit die they were dominant. Hordes less than 1 hit die didn't work because a 12th level fighter could make 12 attacks a round againt Goblins or Kobolds.

I remember playing the DLQ series and the party fighter and Paladin killed Lolth in one round before she even got a turn .... a freaking goddess!

Well that wasn't my experience, people I played with didn't like adventuring low on hp, but I'm willing to admit that might not be universal. As for Lolth(Lloth?), she only had 66 hit points, right? So the real problem was all her goofy defensive abilities; if you had the right tools, yeah she'd drop quick.

I saw that happen to Acererak in Tomb of Horrors, but we were pretty lucky to have a Paladin with us; most groups don't have vorpal weapons!