D&D 5E [Poll] How Satisfied Are You With the Fighter Class?

[Sacrosanct]

The problem I have with feats is that too often players choose feats that make them even better at what they do (usually combat), rather than adding extra abilities (especially non-combat). We have two GM's. I don't allow feats, but the other GM does. The type of feat selection I mentioned above has been the pattern in his games. Even checking the boards here, I've lost count of the number of posts where it's assumed a character took Great Weapon Master, Polearm Master, Sharpshooter, and Crossbow Expert. Except for fighters, most characters don't get a lot of feats, so it's natural for players to choose feats with the most "oomph", but that (to me) just makes things more "samey".

What I'd like to see (and may come up with for my own table) are feats that are less combat-focused and more concept-focused. If I do it right, they should still be useful, but more in the way of expanding a character's options as opposed to just reinforcing what the character already does. I'd especially like to see feats that allow one to partially take on another class's role without requiring multiclassing, such as my Outdoorsman feat above.

A lot of people tend to gravitate to the optimization choices. I think in order to do what you want, you'd have to put a limitation to something like, "With the extra feats at level 6 and whatever, you can use an ASI or any feat except these ones..." or "only from this list". I know some players might not like that. I guess it depends on what you want vs what the players want. Many players (like myself and it sounds like you), have no problems with choosing non combat feats to flesh out a role or theme that we want. I have a fighter right now who has dungeon delver and skulker feats (he was ported over from my halfling f/t in AD&D to just straight fighter in 5e).

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

You show me the player who thinks thier fighter only needs 1 ability score. I'll teach them why they should be excited to get more bonuses than anyone else gets.

Sure, it looks really cool to have a 20/+5 in your strength (or dex).
But that's not where you need another +....

You tell me which is more interesting: a Combat Medic Fighter with Int 13, Wis 8, and the Healer feat; a Strong-willed Fighter with Int 13, Wis 9, and Resilient (Wis); or a Less Foolish fighter with Int 13 and Wis 10.

To me the Combat Medic is clearly the most interesting; the Strong-willed one is kind of boring but mechanically nice if, as you hint, there is lots of mind-bending in the campaign; and the Less Foolish one is both boring and weak.

+2 to a secondary or tertiary stat is sometimes okay, but never awesome. Featless fighters will never have as much awesome as fighters with feats.

 

[Quickleaf]

While I always have fun when I run D&D, and love those rare chances I get to play, I voted "dissatisfied" with the fighter. My criticisms are very detailed and I'm exploring them elsewhere, but the short version amounts to:

(1) The fighter is too conservatively designed, both in terms of power and scope.

(2) Its subclasses are almost purely mechanistically differentiated.

The only classes I'd describe myself as dissatisfied with their design are the Fighter and the Sorcerer. Do they work? Sure, they're sufficient. But do I want to do a sufficient job? Do I want to answer, when someone asks "how's your relationship going?" "Oh, you know, sufficient." Do I want to have a sufficiently good time, or a great time?

Also, [MENTION=15700]Sacrosanct[/MENTION], if you really intend to steward these polls for longevity purposes, I highly recommend linking to each other poll in your OP, or something like that, so when someone, say, votes for fighter, they can then click to vote in others. That will increase the parity of your poll, I think is the term.

And definitely I recommend posing your questions elsewhere besides ENWorld too. Maybe Reddit would catch a broader spectrum of D&Ders?

 

[SmokingSkull]

I voted mostly satisfied with a few tweaks, I've been playing Fighters since 3rd so I don't have nearly the tenure of some people on these boards. That being said for me the Fighter does what it's supposed to, however in high level play as I've experienced it's pretty clear to see just what I can and cannot do as a Fighter. Although for me the solution is simple: make more interesting subclasses to really flesh out possible concepts. By interesting I mean make the subclass not only mechanically satisfying but narratively engaging. For example, in a new group I joined I just hit level 3 and took Monster Hunter as my subclass.

To be honest the Monster Hunter solved a lot of my irks as a Fighter player: I never liked the BM in how maneuvers were resolved, however while the MH has Superiority Die at the same time they are used to add to rolls, not force saving throws. At the same time it also comes with two extra skills chosen from a select list, Detect Magic as a ritual with a 1/long rest use of Protection from Evil and Good, and to top it off grants me a language from a choice of Abyssal, Infernal and Celestial. I have seven skills at my disposal (I'm playing a race that comes auto proficient in a skill), three languages, two tools from BG and I have what I need to be better in combat and my SD can be used in a noncombat situation depending on if said skills were relevant. The caveat being of course not everyone allows and or uses UA, however that is my situation and I'm looking forward to playing my MH.

My point is if there were more subclasses like Monster Hunter which is potent mechanically but comes with useful out of combat options that helped to flesh out the near infinite possibilities of a Fighter I'd think it'd be a step in the right direction, personal opinion of course.

 

[Hrothgar Rannúlfr]

Overall, I like the fighter; especially the champion. I like the Battle Master the least of the core sub-classes.

I do wish the Player's Handbook would've included more sub-classes. For instance, a fighter sub-class that functions as an outdoor specialist or spell-less ranger...

I'd've liked it to have a couple more skills, too.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Also, [MENTION=15700]Sacrosanct[/MENTION], if you really intend to steward these polls for longevity purposes, I highly recommend linking to each other poll in your OP, or something like that, so when someone, say, votes for fighter, they can then click to vote in others. That will increase the parity of your poll, I think is the term.

Excellent suggestion, and I will be doing that going forward.

 

[Gladius Legis]

"Mostly satisfied" is closest to my answer. It plays just fine overall and does what it needs to do (Battle Master and Eldritch Knight at least do). I'd have preferred the simple/complex choice be baked into the base class itself though. Like Superiority Dice being the overlying mechanic for the class, but a "simple" Fighter could pick stances that are activated with such dice and give constant benefits. That's just one model out of what I'm sure are many plausible ones.

And then with that accomplished, make the subclasses based on actual flavor archetypes (e.g. knight, samurai, mercenary, duelist, warlord, etc.).

 

[Ancalagon]

Testing a conjecture: do your players create PCs with point buy? Fighters are very SAD and good for when you roll only one good stat. I predict that point buy tables will therefore see fewer fighters.

Edit: no, wait, should have finished reading your post before posting.




No wonder you don't see any fighters at your table. I wouldn't play a fighter at a featless table either. You're already SAD so you don't need extra ASIs, except as feats. At a featless table extra ASIs become lackluster instead of awesome.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using EN World mobile app

In my game, the only way to get a feat is if you get an *extra* feat - this gives the fighters a certain appeal

I haven't done this, but I am seriously considering giving them 3 skills instead of 2 to increase their out of combat utility.

 

[Immoralkickass]

I only have one small problem with Fighters: For a class that is all about martial training with weapons, they can't even do a very basic and important fighting technique - the ability to parry as a reaction.

 

[Raith5]

Tweaks required. I find the fighters quite uninteresting and bland at my table. Consistently outshone by the other martials but without the distinct archetype and backstory of a paladin or Barbarian (only the EK having any archetype sense or feel). IMO, I think the subclasses should be more focused around fighting styles: if you fight and only fight, your weapons need to define you.

I also think class level needs to a prerequisite for maneuvers - to give a sense of progression to the battlemaster and enable more powerful higher level effects.

I like the idea I have seen in these boards of changing the second wind to a parry ability - that would be more thematic (EDIT: including the previous post of this thread!). Going deeper with regards to a warlord subclass would also be interesting.