D&D 5E So what's exactly wrong with the fighter?

[Uchawi]

Haters are going to hate, lovers are going to love, and neutral positions will be ambivalent, but overall it makes no sense to me that casters have a flexible choice mechanism in spells, but there is no equivalent for the martial side of things; unless you are a paladin, ranger, or similar hybrid (with spells).

4E was the closest to equaling the playing field for classes, but it had a host of the problems with the main complaint being the unified system (like AEDU) went to far. I can see merit in the argument, but then 5E totally abandoned that idea, except for the Battlemaster which is limited in its choices, and there is no reason why the a subclass like the champion would not have access to those choices.

 

[DMCF]

Fighters get two extra feats.
Lucky = advantage 3/day on any d20
Ritual Caster = Spellz':!&!:

Right there you have two feats that let you still push your fighter to obscene limits of specialization yet kick ass outside of combat.

The difference with other classes is you can specialize in a type of combat or not. A fighter lets you specialize two types of combat or just one + awesome-sauce.

Fighters are probably as underrated as the thief subclass in my opinion.

 

[bert1000]

Setting aside that you're completely ignoring how every class ends up just making ability checks because resources like spells aren't unlimited (even if you had the right spell or ability available), when you start throwing around terms like "mother may I", I immediately stop listening. Every time discussions start throwing around terms like that, it never ends well, because the person using it typically bases their argument on the assumption that DMs are these power hungry bad people who love to lord their power over the players--like a child asking permission of a parent to do anything (hence the phrase), and therefore unless a PC has a specific power/spell/ability to overrule the DM with a hard rule, they might as well not even attempt it. I can't tell you strongly enough how messed up that premise is. If that's the typical DM you play with, I truly am sorry for you. But the overwhelming number of DMs I've played with over the past 35 years have been pretty reasonable and understand the game is there for everyone's fun, and "mother may I" doesn't even exist.

Agreed but I see both sides putting up these horrible extreme strawmen. In the social skills vs. free form you often get:

Pro social skills emphasis: It's all 'mother may I' and only how well you can persuade the DM (or sleep with them)

Pro free form emphasis: It's all "I diplomacize the guards". Roll Dice.

I have never played in either game and never will.

Monkeez

You have hit something here that I would like to further comment on. What you describe is how I run my games and I believe it is basically the design goal of 5th edition. I think the problem that some people have, well Tony Vargas said it in his post, is resolution mechanics. I think these people are used to a bit of hand holding when it comes to situations. I think they are more used to everything being about the numbers in an almost robotic sense. Any situation that arises calls for everyone to start looking at their list of powers to see if there is a power that can be used in order to resolve the situation. You have a list of DC's followed by a list of situations that try and fit into almost everything, where then the DC is chosen and the person with the highest score rolls.

Here's a great example. I'm not saying freeform led doesn't work -- it can. But mechanics led can also actually ENHANCE role playing at the table.

So when people are asking for more mechanical pull for the Fighter in non-combat situations I'm not automatically looking at it as a crutch. It doesn't have to be. And I'm intrigued by what it might look like. I might not like it in the end, but I'm certainly not going to dismiss it outright.

Play lots of different rpgs and with lots of different groups if you can. My experience is that both freeform and mechanics led can both work and provide robust role-playing.

 

[DaveDash]

Ive played a dex based EK Fighter that was the party scout and trap monkey. They can do things out of combat fine, the champion also does get to add half their proficiency bonus to all str/dex/con checks, making them reasonably good at anything physical out of combat.

When it comes to combat, damage is the primary way of killing things in 5e. There's very little save or die or other similar effects, and Fighters do the most damage. There's no way other classes compare by "bringing more to the table" in this regard. Every class has a weakness, even the Paladin which is a great all round class which brings A LOT to the table suffers greatly in ranged combat.

There is nothing wrong with the Fighter. It's a great "shock troop" class at its core, and the different archtypes bring a lot of variety of how they can be played. Bounded accuracy means they're fine out of combat as well.

 

[Raith5]

The problem is, the fighter isn't better at combat than others. The paladin and barbarian both deal better damage per round from levels 1-16 while also having more survivability, better saving throws, more utility, and meaningful non-combat capabilities.

For me the fighter and rouge are powerful and effective in combat in terms of damage, but I dont like the flavour of the fighter (for want of a better term) and dont find them as interesting compared to the other martial characters such as the ranger and paladin. In fact the fighter and rouge just seem to chuck damage around (except the rouge has the added bonus of really well defined exploration/social skills).

While I think the problem is one of the fighter being interesting rather than effective, the think the problem is not in the class itself. Rather I think weapons in 5e are really boring and wish there was some way to make a fighter with sword a radically different feel to a fighter with a spear.

I also think the comparison point for many is the previous edition. 4e set a really high bar for what martial PCs can do. All in all, while 4e had a range of problems for lots of people, interesting martial characters was not one of them IME.

 

[aramis erak]

Fighters tend to suck up enemy attacks.

Given that the average encounter is over in 3-4 turns (not at my tables, but that's because I actually tend to stack 2-3 encounters with no visible break; reinforcements show up as the last few hits are happening, etc)...

that fighters suck up attacks with (usually) high AC's - 16-20 - and can often make themselves insanely tough by level 10 if focusing on soaking rather than damaging. (By level 10, a fighter can be Con 20, 134 HP... if he goes for maximum HP. Starts at Con 16, takes +2 con each at 4th & 6th, Tough at 8th... so at 8th, 8(6+4+2)+4=(8*12)+4=100HP at 8th level... but he's still, at 8th, using a weapon that does d8+2 or d10+2, and rolling to hit with a +7 or +5 and some other benefit (fighting style).

 

[Mephista]

Fighters are probably as underrated as the thief subclass in my opinion.

The one thing I think the Thief really needs to shine is more throwable objects. Like, we caltrops that scale effectively, setting up tripwires in combat, etc. Stuff like that should be open to the Thief with their Cunning Action. A walking Trap Master!


That said... what exactly is missing from the Fighter when it comes to social that no one else gets? Obviously, there's Expertise. But, putting aside that, what is there that, say, a sorcerer or paladin would get in the social arena that no one else would? Even Charm Person is just good for getting advantage, which is easy to get via Help action. Disguise self is fairly redundant in the face of a disguise kit - the former may be faster, but also uses up a spell slot (or invocation slot). There aren't a lot of spells that easily replace an Insight check. Magic really doesn't seem to be a dominant force in the social arena.


So, other than Expertise, what exactly is stopping a Fighter from being just as good a socialite as anyone else?

 

[Aribar]

Personally, I think there's two things that make Fighters lackluster. First, they are mechanically boring and don't seem to do anything over classes can't do just as well, better, or in addition to other things. Champion is one of the worst subclasses in the game, Battlemasters get their best maneuvers up front and worse ones as time goes on, and Eldritch Knights are a poor man's Bladelock, Battlemaster Fighter/Abjurer Wizard, or Bard. I'm not positive on this, but HP damage may still become "not as important" compared to save-or-dies or other combat negating effects as levels increase.

Second, I have no idea where their narrative place is. Other classes have lots of flavor. Heck, look at the progression of the Magic-User class over the editions. Starts with just the catch-all Magic User in Basic. Morphs out to several other classes in AD&D and intervening publications. In 3E it explodes into Wizard, Sorcerer, Bards, Warlock, Beguiler, Duskblade, Truenamer, and Warmage, among others. Lots of fluff, lots of different flavors just to say "I cast magic". Fighters used to become lords of the land and have other various things attributed to them. Those were parceled out to other classes, but unlike the Wizard, they didn't get anything in return or have a strong identity to call their own. When I'm thinking up characters these days, I find it easier to fit them in the other classes because they have better mechanics to support a street-savvy brawler, or a noble polearm-wielding knight, or an archery, etc. than "Fighter 20".

It'd be nice if we had a system like this or something to give Fighters entertaining and creative options to choose between.

 

[MoonSong]

Personally, I think there's two things that make Fighters lackluster. First, they are mechanically boring and don't seem to do anything over classes can't do just as well, better, or in addition to other things. Champion is one of the worst subclasses in the game, Battlemasters get their best maneuvers up front and worse ones as time goes on, and Eldritch Knights are a poor man's Bladelock, Battlemaster Fighter/Abjurer Wizard, or Bard. I'm not positive on this, but HP damage may still become "not as important" compared to save-or-dies or other combat negating effects as levels increase.

Second, I have no idea where their narrative place is. Other classes have lots of flavor. Heck, look at the progression of the Magic-User class over the editions. Starts with just the catch-all Magic User in Basic. Morphs out to several other classes in AD&D and intervening publications. In 3E it explodes into Wizard, Sorcerer, Bards, Warlock, Beguiler, Duskblade, Truenamer, and Warmage, among others. Lots of fluff, lots of different flavors just to say "I cast magic". Fighters used to become lords of the land and have other various things attributed to them. Those were parceled out to other classes, but unlike the Wizard, they didn't get anything in return or have a strong identity to call their own. When I'm thinking up characters these days, I find it easier to fit them in the other classes because they have better mechanics to support a street-savvy brawler, or a noble polearm-wielding knight, or an archery, etc. than "Fighter 20".

It'd be nice if we had a system like this or something to give Fighters entertaining and creative options to choose between.

The Wizard/Magic-User/Mage never was this generic to begin with, it was always the very specific pours-over-old-dusty-tomes of our days. The designers were just passing them up as a catch-all for all non-divine spellcasters. Only in 3e when introducing the spontaneous spellcasting they were forced to come up with something else and admitted their so-called generic magic user was never generic to begin with and gave us the sorcerer in all its glory. This later opened the room for weirder spellcasters. The fighter on the other hand was always the generic warrior it is now. Barbarians, paladins, rangers, rogues, cavaliers, ninjas, samurai, warlords, marshals, knights... all of them are more specific warriors.

 

[Sacrosanct]

The one thing I think the Thief really needs to shine is more throwable objects. Like, we caltrops that scale effectively, setting up tripwires in combat, etc. Stuff like that should be open to the Thief with their Cunning Action. A walking Trap Master!

I would also like to see something like Trap Expertise, where the damage for traps is increased when deployed by a thief, or saving throws become harder to resist. A Save DC like a lot of the other classes get.

That said... what exactly is missing from the Fighter when it comes to social that no one else gets? Obviously, there's Expertise. But, putting aside that, what is there that, say, a sorcerer or paladin would get in the social arena that no one else would? Even Charm Person is just good for getting advantage, which is easy to get via Help action. Disguise self is fairly redundant in the face of a disguise kit - the former may be faster, but also uses up a spell slot (or invocation slot). There aren't a lot of spells that easily replace an Insight check. Magic really doesn't seem to be a dominant force in the social arena.


So, other than Expertise, what exactly is stopping a Fighter from being just as good a socialite as anyone else?

Well, the obvious answer that everyone seems to give is that spells are pretty much automatic. Of course, that ignores the fact that they aren't, in the broad spectrum of the game. Limited slots, having the right one prepared, concentration saves, etc all are important factors that need to be considered. D&D isn't hardly ever done in arena style where you're always at max resources at every battle.

Personally, I think there's two things that make Fighters lackluster. First, they are mechanically boring and don't seem to do anything over classes can't do just as well, better, or in addition to other things. Champion is one of the worst subclasses in the game, Battlemasters get their best maneuvers up front and worse ones as time goes on, and Eldritch Knights are a poor man's Bladelock, Battlemaster Fighter/Abjurer Wizard, or Bard. I'm not positive on this, but HP damage may still become "not as important" compared to save-or-dies or other combat negating effects as levels increase.

Just because something is designed to your personal desires doesn't make something "the worst". For a lot of people, it's the best.

Second, I have no idea where their narrative place is. Other classes have lots of flavor. Heck, look at the progression of the Magic-User class over the editions. Starts with just the catch-all Magic User in Basic. Morphs out to several other classes in AD&D and intervening publications. In 3E it explodes into Wizard, Sorcerer, Bards, Warlock, Beguiler, Duskblade, Truenamer, and Warmage, among others. Lots of fluff, lots of different flavors just to say "I cast magic". Fighters used to become lords of the land and have other various things attributed to them. Those were parceled out to other classes, but unlike the Wizard, they didn't get anything in return or have a strong identity to call their own. When I'm thinking up characters these days, I find it easier to fit them in the other classes because they have better mechanics to support a street-savvy brawler, or a noble polearm-wielding knight, or an archery, etc. than "Fighter 20".

It'd be nice if we had a system like this or something to give Fighters entertaining and creative options to choose between.

No strong identity? If you're talking about how a player handles the class, then I posit the PCs identity is how you play the PC. And fighters have just as much if not more (thanks to two extra feats) choices to build that identity. I have a halfling fighter with a criminal background and dungeon delver who is very similar to a fighter/thief in AD&D. My friend plays an archer fighter that is a close emulation of Legolas. Another friend has a fighter with magic initiate and ritual caster. And one of my other fighters has inspiring leader, mounted combat, heavy armor master and is your famous knight in shining armor.

If you're talking about literary identity to draw from, the fighter has more than any other class.