D&D General Payn's Ponderings: The Fighter's identity; or, what's left after the combat pillar?

[FrogReaver]

I agree, and I also like Quickleaf's point that "This class needs more stuff," if treated purely in terms of mechanics and without any overarching concept of what defines that class, decays into bells and whistles divorced from what so-and-so's character is supposed to be all about.

Like you said at the start of the thread, it's a tough nut to crack.

Outside spells and skills most classes get next to nothing for out of combat. Class abilities outside skill enhances and spells are just nearly non-existent for non-combat pillars. Even the ones fighters look at in envy of are never rated as anything more than ribbon abilities. Bells and Whistles as you refer to such abilities above.

So I propose - Give the Fighter a ribbon ability or two. Something related with threat assessment could be thematic and then give them something to bring them in line with skills. Grant them expertise to a couple of skills. In fact, just make expertise a design principle for all non-magical PC's.

Doing anything more than this really turns into a discussion of martial vs caster. Which IMO seems more like a proxy war for either making fighters mythic or nerfing wizards than actually helping fighters close the gap within the existing game.

 

[Guest 7034872]

Instead of asking "What's left for the fighter after the combat pillar?", we might ask...

• What's a story you fondly remember of a fighter engaging socially with a NPC? Or even more specifically, turning the tables on a NPC without ever lifting their sword?
• Who is your favorite fighter archetype from a book/movie/game that approach exploring or searching a scene with a fresh perspective? Or even more specifically, how did they discover what everyone else failed to recognize?

That, I say, is the money shot right there. Absolutely--more time with Joseph Campbell and his sources and less time with stat blocks and Feats lists. Amen.

What's a story you fondly remember of a fighter engaging socially with a NPC?

Beowulf. Anytime I think "Bad-@$$ Warrior Who Lives for Virtue," it's Beowulf. Well--and Túrin Turambar. And...and Beren, son of Barahir. So, yeah--I guess there're actually a bunch of them now that you mention it.

Or even more specifically, turning the tables on a NPC without ever lifting their sword?

Gunnery Sergeant Hartman in Full Metal Jacket. What he does to Gomer through the rest of the unit is horrible, but it also totally fits.

Who is your favorite fighter archetype from a book/movie/game that approach exploring or searching a scene with a fresh perspective? Or even more specifically, how did they discover what everyone else failed to recognize?

Again, this is Beowulf for me. He goes where everyone else fears to go and he goes there feeling that same fear, but somehow mastering it.

I guess this is what I think of most when I think of a really good Fighter: someone who feels all the same fears, self-doubt, and squeamishness everyone else suffers, but somehow has learned to master himself/herself. That's what I think of when I think of a really good Fighter.

Like, did you ever watch that old Clooney movie about the first Iraq War? It's called Three Kings and in it Clooney's character delivers a line that has always stuck with me: "You do the thing you're scared s&^less of, and you get the courage after you do it, not before you do it." Archie Gates had that one on the money, I think.

 

[Redwizard007]

I think people are undervaluing all those ASIs. Fighters are glorious bastards, especially at higher levels. Sure Str or Dex always come first, but there are plenty left over for the mental stat of your choice. If you use feats, and you should, then they even get access to more skills AND spells.

Oooo, skills. Yay, ability scores. Right. I can hear you groaning already. Seriously, though. One of the great things about the bog standard fighter is that all his stuff works at will. No spell slots, no sorcery points, no ki. Everything, all day, all the time, on demand. That has value.

On top of that, the fighter isn't alienating people every time he uses his features. If a wizard mind rapes me, I will hate him forever. A rogue infiltrated my castle? Obviously a criminal. Warlock exists? Burn him. Artificer or gunslinger sits down at my table? Uninvite the player. Fighter bangs a few heads together? Please marry my daughter.

So, I guess what I want to chime in is this; don't be afraid to add something outside the combat pillar, but be aware of the tools already available to fighters. They aren't powerful, but they are always present to those who choose to use them. I wouldn't mind more solid mechanics to support social or exploratory options, but I also don't see an overwhelming need for them.

 

[Quickleaf]

On top of that, the fighter isn't alienating people every time he uses his features. If a wizard casts detect thoughts on me, I will hate him forever. A rogue infiltrated my castle? Obviously a criminal. Warlock exists? Burn him. Artificer or gunslinger sits down at my table? Uninvite the player. Fighter bangs a few heads together? Please marry my daughter.

That gave me a good chuckle.

To piggyback on your point, Action Surge actually has solid potential in non-combat scenes that involve time-pressure and initiative counts. Chase scenes, Raising a portcullis while villagers flee a horde, Escaping a collapsing mine, etc.

The problem is that 5e doesn't give much guidance or effective mechanics for these sorts of high stakes action-driven non-combat scenes, and subsequently we don't see them featured in games as often as combat.

When I think about how I'd like to change fighter class, it's not in isolation, but rather it's in comparison to the other game elements in 5e and to D&D's history. It also means, just like you're saying, looking at what's already there and how it might be better supported by the game.

 

[FrogReaver]

I think people are undervaluing all those ASIs. Fighters are glorious bastards, especially at higher levels. Sure Str or Dex always come first, but there are plenty left over for the mental stat of your choice. If you use feats, and you should, then they even get access to more skills AND spells.

The argument is that

• At best Fighters get 2 ASI's more than other classes. That's a +2 mod bonus to int/wis/cha skills and saves over what other classes can get.
• Fighters need more than max Str or Dex to fulfill their role of being good at combat. As such their comparative number of usable ASI's for non combat purposes is closer to 1.

That's not undervaluing extra ASI's. That's being realistic about their value.

Oooo, skills. Yay, ability scores. Right. I can hear you groaning already. Seriously, though. One of the great things about the bog standard fighter is that all his stuff works at will. No spell slots, no sorcery points, no ki. Everything, all day, all the time, on demand. That has value.

Agreed. There's some kind of value there. I'd suggest the value there gets vastly overestimated. Especially since cantrips also work all the day, all the time, on demand as well.

On top of that, the fighter isn't alienating people every time he uses his features. If a wizard mind rapes me, I will hate him forever. A rogue infiltrated my castle? Obviously a criminal. Warlock exists? Burn him. Artificer or gunslinger sits down at my table? Uninvite the player. Fighter bangs a few heads together? Please marry my daughter.

All of this is setting and situation dependent.

So, I guess what I want to chime in is this; don't be afraid to add something outside the combat pillar, but be aware of the tools already available to fighters. They aren't powerful, but they are always present to those who choose to use them. I wouldn't mind more solid mechanics to support social or exploratory options, but I also don't see an overwhelming need for them.

I think part of it is that early on the Fighter does feel the best at fighting. I mean level 1-2 with high AC, solid damage, 2nd wind, and action surge. And even level 3 depending on subclass he's super strong. By level 5 other classes are really starting to catch up with him at combat unless he was built as some very specific feat heavy builds (often with variant human's extra feat). The later the game goes, the more pronounced his lack of social and exploratory abilities are.

 

[tetrasodium]

The argument is that

• At best Fighters get 2 ASI's more than other classes. That's a +2 mod bonus to int/wis/cha skills and saves over what other classes can get.
• Fighters need more than max Str or Dex to fulfill their role of being good at combat. As such their comparative number of usable ASI's for non combat purposes is closer to 1.

That's not undervaluing extra ASI's. That's being realistic about their value.



Agreed. There's some kind of value there. I'd suggest the value there gets vastly overestimated. Especially since cantrips also work all the day, all the time, on demand as well.


All of this is setting and situation dependent.


I think part of it is that early on the Fighter does feel the best at fighting. I mean level 1-2 with high AC, solid damage, 2nd wind, and action surge. And even level 3 depending on subclass he's super strong. By level 5 other classes are really starting to catch up with him at combat unless he was built as some very specific feat heavy builds (often with variant human's extra feat). The later the game goes, the more pronounced his lack of social and exploratory abilities are.

No you are undervaluing ASI's dramatically by framing the discussion in a way that excludes the strength of how they get them. The average PC will start with a 14 15 or 16 in their primary stat with a stat cap of 20 and whatever class they are playing probably has one or two feats that make a gigantic difference in their combat power within the niche they have chosen for themselves. All of that will happen in a game that is likely to wrap up around 8-12 give or take a couple levels . While most classes get an ASI at 8/12/16/19, fighter gets them at 6/8/12/14/16/19. That extra one at 6th ensures that a fighter can choose one of these before the game is wrapping up & spend the bulk of the levels with a good chunk of it.

• 20 in their prime stat plus an absurdly good feat like gwm or sharpshooter
• 18 in their prime stat plus an incredible two feat combo that synergizes like PAM/Sentinel, sharpshooter/crossbow expert, PAM/GWM, etc
• Something like 20 in their prime stat plus a feat & 16 or 18 in a second stat for versatility or a wider toolbox.

That second one at 14 allows a fighter in longer lived campaigns like most of mine to pickup a second choice from the bullet points above to really step up in the late game. Other classes usually need to decide between a 20 in a primary stat or an 18 & a feat but can only actually accomplish that if the game lasts long enough.


Fighters don't simply get two extra feats, they get the usual four plus one extra at a level nearly every campaign will hit fairly early plus a second extra at a level that longer lived campaigns have a good chance of reaching.

 

[FrogReaver]

No you are undervaluing ASI's dramatically by framing the discussion in a way that excludes the strength of how they get them. The average PC will start with a 14 15 or 16 in their primary stat with a stat cap of 20 and whatever class they are playing probably has one or two feats that make a gigantic difference in their combat power within the niche they have chosen for themselves.

I don't disagree with any of those assumptions.

All of that will happen in a game that is likely to wrap up around 8-12 give or take a couple levels . While most classes get an ASI at 8/12/16/19, fighter gets them at 6/8/12/14/16/19. That extra one at 6th ensures that a fighter can choose one of these before the game is wrapping up & spend the bulk of the levels with a good chunk of it.

Yes. I'm not seeing the difference in this long drawn out explanation and saying they get 2 extra ASI's, 1 of which gets used on a combat feat in order for them to keep up at combat.

• 20 in their prime stat plus an absurdly good feat like gwm or sharpshooter
• 18 in their prime stat plus an incredible two feat combo that synergizes like PAM/Sentinel, sharpshooter/crossbow expert, PAM/GWM, etc
• Something like 20 in their prime stat plus a feat & 16 or 18 in a second stat for versatility or a wider toolbox.

That second one at 14 allows a fighter in longer lived campaigns like most of mine to pickup a second choice from the bullet points above to really step up in the late game. Other classes usually need to decide between a 20 in a primary stat or an 18 & a feat but can only actually accomplish that if the game lasts long enough.

Your Bullet point 3 makes them bad at combat. They need one of the combat feats to stay good at combat.
Your bullet points 1 & 2 give them 1 ASI for out of combat. That's a simple +1 bonus to a few skills and a saving throw over any other class.

It's why I've started summarizing my position as 'you can choose to have a fighter be good at combat and bad at out of combat, or you can choose to have a fighter be bad at combat and slightly less bad out of combat'. That's the real choice those extra ASI's are giving you.

Fighters don't simply get two extra feats, they get the usual four plus one extra at a level nearly every campaign will hit fairly early plus a second extra at a level that longer lived campaigns have a good chance of reaching.

It sounds like the distinction you are making is that Fighter's get extra ASI's early enough to matter. I fully agree. But saying they get 2 extra ASI's doesn't contradict that. I've not claimed (nor anyone else here) that Fighters get their extra ASI's to late to matter.

Honestly, I thought that they got those ASI's early enough to matter was something so obvious it didn't need stated for anyone here.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Forgive me if this was mentioned before, I skimmed a lot here -

I feel that part of the reason it's hard to give the Fighter class stuff to do outside of combat is that the core class is, in fact, all about combat. They're fighters. They fight, and that's all the really have in common.

When you look at most of the subclasses, you get a story to tell, at which point it's a lot easier to imagine what they do when not fighting:

Samurai write poems, engage in courtly politics, manage land/government, and are generally working aristocrats, even if they weren't born into the role.

Cavaliers are working with their mount, their retainers, etc. If they have access to exotic mounts (ie a griffon) then they can do a lot of different things.

Rune knights are discount artificers - or at least they should be. The runes do give a bunch of non-combat bonuses that can make a big difference in the right game. (I'm not sure this was handled as well as it could have been) Gunslingers are similar if coming at it from a totally different direction.

Eldritch Knights have magic - they should probably get spellbooks and ritual casting (without a feat) to open them up a bit here. (Sorcerous and pact-based gish-fighters would have their own things going on.)

Psi Warriors do psi stuff, which can easily include a host of mind-affecting effects.

Echo knights... I'm not familiar with.

It's really just the first two, Battlemaster and Champion, that are kind of stuck. And Battlemaster is easy enough to unstick if you offer more ways to use superiority dice (honestly, "add a superiority die to category of ability check" has huge potential with no more specific outcome than 'you pass the check' -- since it can both make you really good at something or make you more well-rounded.)

The Champion is the only one that suffers because they really do have nothing more to them than :they fight." The roleplaying potential of the Champion comes form their ability to lean in on their race or background harder since they don't have a lot of class fluff to brush aside. But it also means anything that anything to be added to the core fighter needs to fit within that (lack of) story.

 

[Quickleaf]

I feel that part of the reason it's hard to give the Fighter class stuff to do outside of combat is that the core class is, in fact, all about combat. They're fighters. They fight, and that's all the really have in common.

When you look at most of the subclasses, you get a story to tell, at which point it's a lot easier to imagine what they do when not fighting:

...

It's really just the first two, Battlemaster and Champion, that are kind of stuck.

Absolutely. I think your point about class vs. subclass touches on something important.

There's actually a hidden question when the topic of embedding more exploration/social gameplay elements into the fighter arises:

Do you (generally speaking) want to engage with exploration/social pillars using the game's existing methods for doing so? Or do you want new/unique ways to engage with those pillars?

Something like the samurai's "Elegant Courtier" (+WIS to Persuasion, and prof in WIS saves) engages with existing aspects of the game. You're rolling better than you were. You're not doing something new or unique that other characters are not already doing.

Whereas something like the rogue's "Thieves' Cant" is providing you with a whole new lens through which to interact with the social/exploration pillar.

Usually the "fighter has plenty of options for engaging the social/exploration pillars already" argument is referring to examples of the 1st type. But I do think some of the misunderstanding or disagreement stems from when proponents of "give the fighter more ways to engage the social/exploration pillars" are actually referring to the 2nd type.

 

[Redwizard007]

Slightly different take after kicking this around with a few other DMs and players over the last couple days.

The problem isn't that fighters aren't good outside of combat. It's that they don't have a specific mechanical ability that makes them particularly good. They do have the extra ASIs. They do have the campaign dependent "everyman" trope working for them. They even have enough HP and AC to make taking risks a viable option. What they are missing is the "win" button.

We kicked it around and could think of very few examples of awesomeness from fighters outside of combat that couldn't have been done regardless of class. Now, I'm not sure that is a problem with fighters as much as with the incredibly poor rules for exploration and role play in the last couple editions, but if it can be addressed then that is probably a good thing.

 

[Azzy]

Looking back at fighters from previous editions, I've had a few thoughts.

Proficiencies. Unlike previous editions, in 5e PCs don't gain additional nonweapon proficiencies/skills/languages, etc. as they increase in level. I think gaining a few skills/languages/tool proficiencies as you level would help the fighter some. I've houseruled that PCs gain one additional language, skill, OR tool proficiency every four levels. Sure, it's not a fighter-only feature, but it would still allow the fighter to gain some additional noncombat ability with little impact on the rules.

This list of skills and tool proficiency is a bit too narrow, IMO. No, I wouldn't like to see the return of the glut of NWP of 1e/2e or the messy skill list of 3e, but 5e could do with a few more skills. Also. Tool proficiencies are messy and should just be wrapped back under the skill umbrella.

Followers & Leadership. The AD&D fighter was a leader (at least in higher levels). Gaining followers is a pretty obvious boon in many ways. However, they can be a burden for players and DMs (especially if you have AD&D number of followers), so there are drawbacks.

Additionally, a fighter, should have some inherent leadership ability—from more "maneuvers" (which should be a basic fighter thing, not just a battlemaster thing) that lean into this (like the much denigrated warlord) to swaying the masses through inspiration or intimidation.

Feats of Strength. Fighters should have some inherent bouses to breaking down doors, lifting heavy objects, jumping long distances, etc. above and beyond what other martial class can do with their natural strength.

Feats. Feats really need to be decoupled from ASIs and either be non-optional or give fighters something equivalent to choose from. Right now non-combat feats and non-main stat ASIs are competing withing each other and with their combat-centered counterparts.

Spell Resilient. In TSR-era A/D&D, fighters had some of the best saves. Having a bonus to saves against spells (or, at least, mind-affecting ones) should be a class feature for the fighter even at lower levels.

 

[Guest 7034872]

Looking back at fighters from previous editions, I've had a few thoughts.

[...]

Spell Resilient. In TSR-era A/D&D, fighters had some of the best saves. This should be a class feature for the fighter to be able to rebuff many spells (especially mind-affecting ones).

I especially like this last point. Hardiness is supposed to be one of the fighter's defining traits, isn't it?

 

[Seramus]

Experiment: Be a fighter. Take only exploration or social pillar feats. Go to adventure league games. Count how many heads explode.

That's not a value judgement. I think you could do quite well. But I'm genuinely curious over how much backlash you might face.

 

[Quickleaf]

Spell Resilient. In TSR-era A/D&D, fighters had some of the best saves. This should be a class feature for the fighter to be able to rebuff many spells (especially mind-affecting ones).

For AD&D 2e (as well as BD&D) at least, that's actually not accurate. In 2e the lower your save number the better, since it was the target number on a d20 you were trying to reach or beat. The "Warrior" saving throws actually start worse than other classes, and then eventually at very high levels get only marginally better ...maybe... depending on class... and really on against Breath Weapon.

For instance, saves were listed in order of Paralyzation, Poison, or Death Magic > Rod, Staff, or Wand > Petrification or Polymorph > Breath Weapon > Spells. Comparing a 1st level Priest, Rogue, Warrior, and Wizard...

Priest = 10 > 14 > 13 > 16 > 15
Rogue = 13 > 14 > 12 > 16 > 15
Warrior = 14 > 16 > 15 > 17 > 17
Wizard = 13 > 11 > 13 > 15 > 12

So... for AD&D2e...
Priests start with better saves vs. Paralyzation, Poison, or Death.
Rogues are pretty balanced, but slightly better saves. vs Petrification or Polymorph.
Wizards rock both their saves. vs. Rod, Staff, or Wand and their saves vs. Spells.
Warriors... just lag behind.

What about Basic D&D? I was curious so I checked my copy of the Rules Cyclopedia. Similar saving throw set up, only it goes Death Ray or Poison > Magic Wands > Paralysis or Petrification > Dragon Breath > Rod, Staff, or Spell...

Cleric/Druid = 11 > 12 > 14 > 16 > 15
Fighter/Mystic = 12 > 13 > 14 > 15 > 16
Magic-user = 13 > 14 > 13 > 16 > 15
Thief = 13 > 14 > 13 > 16 > 15
Dwarf = 8 > 9 > 10 > 13 > 12
Elf = 12 > 13 > 13 > 15 > 15
Halfling = 8 > 9 > 10 > 13 > 12

So, for BD&D...
If you want good saves, be a Dwarf or Halfling.
Fighters are more just middle of the pack along with other classes.

I can't recall for 1e, so maybe someone else with more experience can remind us?

 

[Azzy]

For AD&D 2e (as well as BD&D) at least, that's actually not accurate. In 2e the lower your save number the better, since it was the target number on a d20 you were trying to reach or beat. The "Warrior" saving throws actually start worse than other classes, and then eventually at very high levels get only marginally better ...maybe... depending on class... and really on against Breath Weapon.

For instance, saves were listed in order of Paralyzation, Poison, or Death Magic > Rod, Staff, or Wand > Petrification or Polymorph > Breath Weapon > Spells. Comparing a 1st level Priest, Rogue, Warrior, and Wizard...

Priest = 10 > 14 > 13 > 16 > 15
Rogue = 13 > 14 > 12 > 16 > 15
Warrior = 14 > 16 > 15 > 17 > 17
Wizard = 13 > 11 > 13 > 15 > 12

So... for AD&D2e...
Priests start with better saves vs. Paralyzation, Poison, or Death.
Rogues are pretty balanced, but slightly better saves. vs Petrification or Polymorph.
Wizards rock both their saves. vs. Rod, Staff, or Wand and their saves vs. Spells.
Warriors... just lag behind.

What about Basic D&D? I was curious so I checked my copy of the Rules Cyclopedia. Similar saving throw set up, only it goes Death Ray or Poison > Magic Wands > Paralysis or Petrification > Dragon Breath > Rod, Staff, or Spell...

Cleric/Druid = 11 > 12 > 14 > 16 > 15
Fighter/Mystic = 12 > 13 > 14 > 15 > 16
Magic-user = 13 > 14 > 13 > 16 > 15
Thief = 13 > 14 > 13 > 16 > 15
Dwarf = 8 > 9 > 10 > 13 > 12
Elf = 12 > 13 > 13 > 15 > 15
Halfling = 8 > 9 > 10 > 13 > 12

So, for BD&D...
If you want good saves, be a Dwarf or Halfling.
Fighters are more just middle of the pack along with other classes.

I can't recall for 1e, so maybe someone else with more experience can remind us?

1e should be more or less the same as 2e. I must be misremembering, but I thought that fighters (at least in BECMI) had better save tracks than they actually did. I guess it shows how long it's been since I played the old editions. Don't know what I'm smoking today.

 

[Helldritch]

I blame a few things.
1) Standard array or stat placement.
Because of the standard array and stat placement, we no longer see fighter with mid to high int, wis or cha. These stats are now the dump stats for a fighter (or any martial character that will not cast any spells). My first character was a fighter that became a wizard because I had relatively low strength (16) but rolled 18 intelligence (yes, on 3d6 the rest was average). As a young 10 year old boy, I saw that as a curse, but I switched to wizard at level 7. But if I had had, say... 15? My fighter would have stayed a fighter but with a high intelligence score. With the standard array and stat placement, all fighters will have high ST or Dex and High Con. St or Dex will become a dump stat along with the intel and or charisma.

2) The low amount of skills given by background and class.
Raising both of these by a single additional one make true wonders as the "essentials" are normally covered. Just two skills more helps martial (yes, even the rogues and bards are on the low side). It would also help differentiate a fighter from an other just by the skills chosen.

3) Languages are few and intelligence and race should give you more along with some background.
I miss the days when an elf would speak about six languages from the start, not counting his bonus intelligence. Ok, six might have been a wee bit too much but three would have been good. Common, Elf and Orc? Intelligence giving more languages on start would also help. Here only starting intelligence would count, but with a 16, it means 3 more.

4) Expertise
The goal of expertise is to make a character exceptional at one skill, doubling his proficiency bonus. The unfortunate side effect is that as soon as there is a character with one such skill in a knowledge or whatever, the other characters feel like useless (beside possibly giving advantage on an already high skill by helping the expert). This makes the DC system wonky as if you have a character with expertise in perception, traps are now almost irrelevant if a second character has it. At 8th level, a rogue might have expertise in both perception and lock picking, with advantage it means the equivalent +18 to a roll (+ 8 from double prof, +5 from dex and +5 from advantage with the help action). Even at +13, it means that as low as level 8, a DC or 25 will be beaten with a roll of 12 or better. With advantage, it means that this chance is the equivalent of 7 or more to succeed a DC 25. Heck! A 20th level rogue will have +17 all by himself! How can he fail with a bit of help? Expertise should have given a +2 at best. This way, even with help, success would not be so sure thus making a second character able to help quite important and not just icing on the cake.

5) Stat Required on the rolls.
This one, is a bit of a pet peeve of mine. Why would Religion require intelligence? Is it logical that your priest that takes religions knows less about religions than the rogue that took it and put expertise in it? Or the wizard? Some classes should give bonuses to some skills. A priest might have +2 to his skills in religion, a wizard +2 in arcane. Or a character might have +2 in one skill of its choice.

This would help a lot in giving versatility in pillars.

 

[ehren37]

I like the idea of fighters getting more combat maneuvers, but I foresee a problem that would basically require the rule-makers to stick to their guns. Namely, that once you give fighters (for the sake of example) a called shot ability, you have to steadfastly resist the arguments of people who say "why can't my paladin make a called shot? why can't I firebolt the dragon's eye? not fair!"

For the same reason they can't sneak attack.

Looking at fighters as just a mall cop with slightly higher numbers is why they have nothing special about them.

 

[Quickleaf]

1e should be more or less the same as 2e. I must be misremembering, but I thought that fighters (at least in BECMI) had better save tracks than they actually did. I guess it shows how long it's been since I played the old editions. Don't know what I'm smoking today.

I was in the same exact situation last year on the forums. It just seemed to be what I remembered and fit my idea of the "fighter", but I was surprised to discover almost the opposite was true. And the only thing I've been smoking is the news, so...

 

[ehren37]

IMO, Fighters should, at minimum, get an extra background, and just fold the champion into the base class. They are only debatably better at fighting in the level band people tend to play (1-12). Also give them a fighting style every odd level to help them actually be an A tier combatant.

1 extra AI doesn't make up for spells and generally terrible class features.

The other problem is D&D is aimed at a hack and slash playstyle that doesn't mesh with modern play expectations. 5E's fights are basically just an attrition of resources for the "real classes", rather than having any real element of danger. From what WOTC has said, most don't have 6-8 encounters per day. That many pointless fights is a MMO grind.

 

[Guest 7034872]

I was in the same exact situation last year on the forums. It just seemed to be what I remembered and fit my idea of the "fighter", but I was surprised to discover almost the opposite was true. And the only thing I've been smoking is the news, so...

These days that's a pretty heavy smoke.