IMO the barbarian is too overshadowing the fighter. Since most games end around level 10, the higher number of attacks a fighter would get doesn't come into play and a raging barbarian with advantage on every attack roll and who is essentially not hit more often than the fighter (since being hit twice as often but for half damage only comes out the same) and has more hp (and more resistances) makes a fighter look pretty lame in combat.
D&D 5E So what's exactly wrong with the fighter?
Corpsetaker
First Post
Why exactly does the fighter need more built in abilities associated with doing stuff out of combat?
The fighter's purpose is to fight and if the player wants to change it around a bit, he has options of backgrounds, feats, and specific races that will enable someone to add something different.
I'm seeing a lot of people wanting the fighter to do what other classes can do which defeats the whole purpose of having other classes, even though they "can" do other things that other classes can do.
If you want more focus on out of combat then choose a race, feats, and background that will suit your needs. If you don't want to do that then choose a rogue if you want combat and more focus on out of combat. People talk about the Paladin having more stuff they can do, well go and choose the Paladin then. You can't give the Paladin abilities to the fighter because he then stops being a fighter.
There is no flaw to the fighter, it does exactly what it was built to do.
The fighter's purpose is to fight and if the player wants to change it around a bit, he has options of backgrounds, feats, and specific races that will enable someone to add something different.
I'm seeing a lot of people wanting the fighter to do what other classes can do which defeats the whole purpose of having other classes, even though they "can" do other things that other classes can do.
If you want more focus on out of combat then choose a race, feats, and background that will suit your needs. If you don't want to do that then choose a rogue if you want combat and more focus on out of combat. People talk about the Paladin having more stuff they can do, well go and choose the Paladin then. You can't give the Paladin abilities to the fighter because he then stops being a fighter.
There is no flaw to the fighter, it does exactly what it was built to do.
Corpsetaker
First Post
I'm sorry but if they starting creating classes from level 1 through 10 then I will quit this edition. Most peoples games "that actually took the survey" might suggest this but we have no numbers on how many people didn't take the survey and who's games go all the way to 20. If you are going to compare classes then you compare all levels.
It's not that just this edition. All edition (except 4e maybe) saw the cited ranges as the most played, with games ending lower or higher than that the exception. The 5e survey just confirmed it again
Corpsetaker
First Post
You still don't have the numbers of people who don't take the surveys so you can't assume anything. You are cherry picking levels in order to justify your argument. D&D is a 1 - 20th level game. If you only play 10 levels and your aren't happy with the fighter then play another class.
Jefe Bergenstein
Legend
They largely did away with "suck at level 1, rule at level 20" design. Other editions did focus on this, such as humans getting effectively NO benefit in 1st/2nd edition but the ability to reach high levels, when you werent even guaranteed to play that long. Or multiclassing, which only cost you (roughly) 1 level of experience because of the way the exp tables ramped up. So you could be a 5th level fighter. Or you could be a 4th level fighter/6th level cleric, with better saves, spells, and all but guaranteed to find a god whose beliefs corresponded with the personality type you were going to play anyways.
So a lot of players are rightly apprehensive about a class being balanced assuming a 4th attack at 17th level, because they dont get there. Classes are supposed to be (roughly) balanced across all play. Yeah, you get weird stuff like how durable the druid is at 2nd level, but that does zip by pretty fast. Getting to 11th or 17th on the other hand...
Plus, sure the Fighter gets his 3rd attack at 11. But the paladin is also adding d8 radiant damage on a hit, can nova pretty hardcore with smites, is sitting on a pool of 55 extra HP (or 11 condition removals) per day with lay on hands, plus adds party considerable party utility. The fighter gets considerably less in utility. IMO, they pay too much of a premium in breadth of abilities for their supposed mastery in combat. Most paladins are also rocking charisma secondary, which adds a lot in the social pillar of the game. A fighter CAN invest in charisma, they just get a lower rate of returns, since it doesnt also upgrade their combat game.
Blue
Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
The fighter is the only class who gets more feats. You can spend those feats on making a hyper-DPR combatant and many do. But Fighter holds up it's combat relevance without spending more feats on it than other classes do, so those feats can also be used for the utility/exploration needs that are often overlooked.
For example Actor opens up whole lines of play, and it's always on. No need to use up limited spell slot resources, or to have to deal with the backlash of the duration ending on Friends.
Let's get this out of the way - I'm not saying the fighter is "tier one" utility like the Wizard. Most classes aren't. But it stands in the same neighborhood as the pack and it's better then some.
Just like the sorcerer could only know fireball and other direct damage spells, the fighter could spend all of his feats on combat. And both would be very good at one thing. But the class gives you more options than that, you just need to take them.
(Okay, a fighter in a non-feat game will have fantastic stats, but will be gimped in exploration/utility.)
True of any primarily melee class. Paladins have little ranged attack spells, no innate fly, and smite only works on melee attacks. I'd have to say they are in a worse place then a melee fighter.
Plus you can do an archer archetype quite well with the Fighter. You definitely experienced a pain point for melee combatants, but (a) not restricted to the fighter and (b) only applicable to some fighter builds.
Start with all weapons and armors and good HPs. Not glamorous but important. Second Wind takes that further. The 1st level fighter is probably the toughest character, with similar effective HPs over a day then the barbarian (who can only rage twice vs. action surge 3 times with the suggested 2 short rests) and a much better AC. Barbarian will pass him, especially bear totem, but while they are getting defensive features like that he's getting offensive features:
2nd level give Action Surge, a powerful ability, enough so that many multiclass guides mention going into fighter just for this.
3rd level gives superiority dice, critical, or spells.
6th gives the first extra feat/ASI that others don't get.
I'd say it's on par. I'm sure someone could cherry pick a class that does really good 1-10, but if you look at them vs. all of the other classes I don't find them to be falling behind the pack at levels 1-10.
WotC has and they flat out state this to us. And not just since 5e, the rumored "sweet spot" where the majority of games take place was also stated by WotC as being true for for 3.X and being the part they wanted to extend longer for 4e so that 4e would see more high level games than the editions before.
WotC was pretty sure of these statistics long before the 5e surveys
MoutonRustique
Explorer
I'm not sure how to explain it better than those before me have done... but here's my attempt.
Ok. This is what people are saying (even you!) : the other classes can all do what the fighter does.
The other classes all have something more/besides/non-combat call it what you want.
That's it.
That's the whole of it.
People aren't saying the fighter is an abysmal failure of a class that can never, ever be fun to play. People are saying (voiced as if they were a fighter) : "Hummm... Why am I the only one w/o something besides combat? Huh... I look at what we're doing and you guys are all as good as I am at combat, but I'm not as good as any of you otherwise. What gives?
In the structure you used : the other classes all do what the fighter can do which defeats the whole purpose of having the fighter.
In this regard, people want a reason for the fighter.
Similar Threads
