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

[Ashkelon]

Well I fault some DMs for this problem

Athletics and Acrobatics are not the same. Outside of combat action, they cover completely different thing.

There are tool proficiencies as well.

Lore skills aren't rarely used unless the DM rarely calls for them or creates situations for them.

This is a MAJOR problem I have with some DMs. They don't actively put situations for these skills in their games and allow for some PCs to never have exploration and social roles. A DM should make every skill the PCs have be important.

If the party fighter never talk but has the only proficiency in History, add an important scene or NPC where that skill grants a powerful boon on success or allows a comeback after failure.

A cold icy noble woman could be a secret history buff and give money to her new war nerd friend. A fey allows a shortcut to someone who can answer a riddle about nature. A magic bomb could have an arcane defusing mechanism which bypasses the need to carry it away.

If a DM is going to make or allow a skill to be useless or rare, it is unfair not to state this at PC creation.

See, all the examples you described don't show those skills contributing to the success of a non combat encounter though. Sure, you are rewarding players who chose less useful skills, but your examples are proving my earlier point, that those skills are not necessary for the resolution of a social or exploration encounter. Unlike some other skills, a party can get by just fine without anyone taking those skills. That is fine, not all skills can be created equal. And it is good if a DM rewards players for taking less useful skills. But the core issue with those skills remains. The DM could have thrown all the History nerds into his game that I could handle, and my characters proficiency in history still wouldn't have done a whole lot to progress the story.

Also, due to bounded accuracy, skill proficiency has a much smaller impact for those skills. Unless the DM says only the person with proficiency gets to roll, my 10 Int fighter with proficiency in History isn't really going to be all that much better than the 14 Int elven Druid in our party. For example, at level 8, I am +1 better at history checks than the Druid.

 

[Minigiant]

You have to put such situations into the game. Though I almost wish they had left lore, history, and such up to the character background.

Well, that's your job as a DM. Either tell the player don't take Arcana or set up the arcane bomb.

An easy old shortcut was language. Pick a language only the fighter spoke and make an NPC only speak that language.

Just having lore wouldn't work as it forces all mages to be sages to understand magic, all clerics and paladins to be priests, etc...

 

[Quajek]

Let's use math!!!

Ok we are level 8, and I have 18 STR (can't have 20 and Lucky at 8 sadly) and I am trained in athletics. The Bard has 16 strength but has expertise in Athletics. The challenge we are faced with is a 50 foot wall with a DC of only 15. To get passed this wall, you need to succeed at 4 athletics checks (half move per check is 15 feet per success). If you fail by 5 or more, you fall.

The fighter has +7 to Athletics checks. The bard has +9. The fighter has a 15% chance to fall per roll, the bard has a 5% chance to fall per roll. The bard has a 81% chance to climb to the top without falling. The fighter has a 52% chance to climb to the top without falling before using luck dice. Each time a lick die is used, it would only have a 70% chance of actually helping the fighter as well, meaning the fighter could quite easily use multiple luck dice to attempt to climb this single wall. This isn't even taking into account the other exploration challenges the group may find itself facing. If the fighters moment to shine is against 1wall per day, then you can hardly say he is "good" at physical related tasks.

Oh, and since using shield master to knock people prone is kind of the Bards "thing", he usually has Bears strength cast upon himself (1 hour long buff that doubles his carrying capacity and gives advantage to Strength checks), making him significantly better than the fighter at Athletic related challenges. Of course, the Druid could have flown to the top of the wall and let down a rope, the warlock could have used at-will levitation to get past the wall, both without needing to roll.

Question: Did you talk to your fellow players before making this character? If you knew that the Bard was going to be Strength-focused and the Druid was going to be Shapeshifting into everything under the Sun, it doesn't sound like your particular party grouping needed a Fighter at all.

This is a problem of party composition.

It's not the Fighter's fault that you put him into a group that had no use for him.

In a party of Wizard, Warlock, Rogue... a Fighter would be a HUGE help.

Ranger, Rogue, Cleric? A Fighter would be mega-important.

Strength-focused Bard, Wildshaping Moon Druid who can apparently Wildshape all the time into all kinds of different animals with no limit, Utility Wizard? You don't need a Fighter. You could have used a Rogue, though.

 

[Minigiant]

See, all the examples you described don't show those skills contributing to the success of a non combat encounter though. Sure, you are rewarding players who chose less useful skills, but your examples are proving my earlier point, that those skills are not necessary for the resolution of a social or exploration encounter. Unlike some other skills, a party can get by just fine without anyone taking those skills. That is fine, not all skills can be created equal. And it is good if a DM rewards players for taking less useful skills. But the core issue with those skills remains. The DM could have thrown all the History nerds into his game that I could handle, and my characters proficiency in history still wouldn't have done a whole lot to progress the story.

Also, due to bounded accuracy, skill proficiency has a much smaller impact for those skills. Unless the DM says only the person with proficiency gets to roll, my 10 Int fighter with proficiency in History isn't really going to be all that much better than the 14 Int elven Druid in our party. For example, at level 8, I am +1 better at history checks than the Druid.

Its up to the DM to make a skill important.

In my setting, there is a country club for nobles where they talk politics. Its a history club and everything is coded in historic terms to confuse the common help and possible spies. You need proficiency in History in order to make the checks to invites and to understand which deals aren't trap.

And imagine a Westeros campaign. You know history or prepare to be a pawn in someone's schemes.

 

[Imaro]

See, all the examples you described don't show those skills contributing to the success of a non combat encounter though. Sure, you are rewarding players who chose less useful skills, but your examples are proving my earlier point, that those skills are not necessary for the resolution of a social or exploration encounter. Unlike some other skills, a party can get by just fine without anyone taking those skills. That is fine, not all skills can be created equal. And it is good if a DM rewards players for taking less useful skills. But the core issue with those skills remains. The DM could have thrown all the History nerds into his game that I could handle, and my characters proficiency in history still wouldn't have done a whole lot to progress the story.

I think you're missing the point here... any one skill in the game is exactly as important as the DM chooses to make it. I agree with the others who have stated that your issue seems to be encounter design. Your experiences are so far left field of my own in running my campaign that honestly I'm kind of at a loss...

Animal handling in my campaign has been used to circumvent combat with animals in the Far North numerous times, it's been used to assess different mounts for their capabilities in the snow covered lands, it's been used to teach the party's half-wolf cubs how to guard and alert them to intruders in their camp...

History in my campaign is a sort of catch all skill where the PC using it has a chance to know about history in general but also about certain things that would be covered in Religion or Arcana but at a higher DC since it would be a broader knowledge base using history. the Far North is dotted with the remains of past civilizations and is being colonized by the empire as an ad hoc prison colony... so it's actually a pretty valuable skill in my game.

Performance is used mostly in scenarios where espionage (especially around the machinations of the noble houses of the empire and the warlords of the Far North who have carved out city states). It allows PC's to play roles, especially with aid from disguiing themselves in order to infiltrate certain echelons of society they wouldn't be allowed to be a part of as criminals sentenced to the Far North...

I also am curious about something you keep stressing... what exactly does "necessary to advance the adventure mean in this context. I run a sandbox, so I don't really run into the issue of a skill being "necessary" to advance anything but I am curious as to what happens if a necessary skill is failed?

Also, due to bounded accuracy, skill proficiency has a much smaller impact for those skills. Unless the DM says only the person with proficiency gets to roll, my 10 Int fighter with proficiency in History isn't really going to be all that much better than the 14 Int elven Druid in our party. For example, at level 8, I am +1 better at history checks than the Druid.

Doesn't this work both ways though? I mean I'm getting a little lost on what exactly your complaint is. One minute it seems to be... "I'm not the best so my contribution doesn't really count", but here you seem to be saying "Because of bounded accuracy, being the best doesn't really matter..." So which one is it?

 

[Ashkelon]

I think you're missing the point here... any one skill in the game is exactly as important as the DM chooses to make it. I agree with the others who have stated that your issue seems to be encounter design. Your experiences are so far left field of my own in running my campaign that honestly I'm kind of at a loss...

Animal handling in my campaign has been used to circumvent combat with animals in the Far North numerous times, it's been used to assess different mounts for their capabilities in the snow covered lands, it's been used to teach the party's half-wolf cubs how to guard and alert them to intruders in their camp...

History in my campaign is a sort of catch all skill where the PC using it has a chance to know about history in general but also about certain things that would be covered in Religion or Arcana but at a higher DC since it would be a broader knowledge base using history. the Far North is dotted with the remains of past civilizations and is being colonized by the empire as an ad hoc prison colony... so it's actually a pretty valuable skill in my game.

Performance is used mostly in scenarios where espionage (especially around the machinations of the noble houses of the empire and the warlords of the Far North who have carved out city states). It allows PC's to play roles, especially with aid from disguiing themselves in order to infiltrate certain echelons of society they wouldn't be allowed to be a part of as criminals sentenced to the Far North...

I also am curious about something you keep stressing... what exactly does "necessary to advance the adventure mean in this context. I run a sandbox, so I don't really run into the issue of a skill being "necessary" to advance anything but I am curious as to what happens if a necessary skill is failed?



Doesn't this work both ways though? I mean I'm getting a little lost on what exactly your complaint is. One minute it seems to be... "I'm not the best so my contribution doesn't really count", but here you seem to be saying "Because of bounded accuracy, being the best doesn't really matter..." So which one is it?

Everything you said with animal handling was primarily RP related and wouldn't have been bad for the party if they had no-one with that skill. Besides, we had a Druid, handling animals was not a problem without anyone having that skill.

Everything you said with history also seems to be covered by a straight Int check, and also doesn't seem to be needed for the advancing the story.

Everything you described with performance is better covered by persuasion and deception...

As for skills that advance the story, I'm talking about obstacles that need to be overcome or create a setback for failure. A massive Boulder in the path that would cause significant delay if you had to take another path. A 30 foot chasm. A duke who you must negotiate with. Survival in an alien environment. Sneaking past a group of guards to steal something. Skills that if nobody can do them (or no one has spells or class abilities to replicate the skill) then your group will suffer a major setback. In play, I have found skills like Perception, Stealth, Persuasion, Deception, Survival, and Insight to have the greatest impact or be the most frequently used.

P.S. You are right about bounded accuracy cutting both ways, but if you had been paying attention (which you clearly have not), you would notice that I never said my lack of skill meant I could not contribute to a situation. I could contribute just fine, but no more. If I beat someone else at the table at a particular task, it was because my roll was exceptionally good, not because of any feature of the fighter. There was never really any spotlight balance. There was never a time where the party was like "wow, I'm sure glad we have a fighter along to help us overcome this noncombat challenge". Sure, I was capable, but I there was always some party member better than me at any particular skill (except history). I never felt exceptional nor like a paragon of physical capability that you would expect the fighter to be. I also said I had fun RPing the character and trying to be the party face even though the bard and warlock both had much better bonuses to their social skills than I did. It merely would have been nice if there was a particular area that was the fighters...expertise

 

[Imaro]

Everything you said with animal handling was primarily RP related and wouldn't have been bad for the party if they had no-one with that skill. Besides, we had a Druid, handling animals was not a problem without anyone having that skill.

What do you mean role playing related? Having a mount that couldn't survive the harsh environment of the Far North could mean the party gets stranded or worse... Calming animals, reading them, etc. isn't just role playing and avoids depletion of resources... The half-wolf cubs are effectively an Alarm spell that doesn't have a duration which has prevented more than one assassination and theft attempt in the PC's camp inside the Empire's outpost (think Deadwood for inspiration). So how is all of this role play related? It had tangibvle effects on the success and failure of the PC's in adventuring

Everything you said with history also seems to be covered by a straight Int check, and also doesn't seem to be needed for the advancing the story.

Huh? History is an Int check... the difference is that it has the bonus for proficiency if you're trained because it relates to historic events... and what story? Because if you're trying to find a particular stronghold of an ancient giant clan to gain information on the omens that are starting to appear in the Far North (this actually happened in my campaign) and you're not even sure where to begin your search... history very much advances your goals. Not sure about "story" I don't do railroads.

Everything you described with performance is better covered by persuasion and deception...

No it's not... neither Persuasion nor Deception allow you to carry yourself as a passable noble or appear to easily fit in with the culture of a warlords servants. I was speaking to infiltration which is based upon how good one can pull off a role...

As for skills that advance the story, I'm talking about obstacles that need to be overcome or create a setback for failure. A massive Boulder in the path that would cause significant delay if you had to take another path. A 30 foot chasm. A duke who you must negotiate with. Survival in an alien environment. Sneaking past a group of guards to steal something. Skills that if nobody can do them (or no one has spells or class abilities to replicate the skill) then your group will suffer a major setback. In play, I have found skills like Perception, Stealth, Persuasion, Deception, Survival, and Insight to have the greatest impact or be the most frequently used.

Then I think you're the one who hasn't been paying attention because each use of the skills I stated above would have had major repercussions... depletion of resources in unnecessary combat, assasination/theft of the meager possessions of the PC's, discovery while spying, no starting point to find a lost ruin you are searching for, etc. I'm not sure what type of distinction you're making here...

P.S. You are right about bounded accuracy cutting both ways, but if you had been paying attention (which you clearly have not), you would notice that I never said my lack of skill meant I could not contribute to a situation. I could contribute just fine, but no more. If I beat someone else at the table at a particular task, it was because my roll was exceptionally good, not because of any feature of the fighter. There was never really any spotlight balance. There was never a time where the party was like "wow, I'm sure glad we have a fighter along to help us overcome this noncombat challenge". Sure, I was capable, but I there was always some party member better than me at any particular skill (except history). I never felt exceptional nor like a paragon of physical capability that you would expect the fighter to be. I also said I had fun RPing the character and trying to be the party face even though the bard and warlock both had much better bonuses to their social skills than I did. It merely would have been nice if there was a particular area that was the fighters...expertise

Oh, I've been paying attention quite closely it's why I was able to call out exactly what your issues were and why you didn't have a non-combat niche as the fighter... You went the extremely maxed out combat route with stats and feats (which in my mind says you didn't care about non-combat).. and didn't choose to carve out a niche for yourself outside of combat while also for some strange reason having horrible scores in everything except Strength...

In other words you purposefully built a character narrowly focused on combat and then wondered why you couldn't excel in anything outside of combat. It's a pretty simple cause and effect that I'm surprised you didn't realize while making your selections (which were ultimately the cause... not the fighter class itself). Maybe what you needed was for the game to reign you in and force you to take the array, put at least one decent score in something not related to combat as well as take away one of your feats and hard code it for non-combat use. Personally I don't want or need that type of hand holding but I guess some people do. If I'm missing something please fill me in...

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Let's use math!!!

Ok we are level 8, and I have 18 STR (can't have 20 and Lucky at 8 sadly) and I am trained in athletics. The Bard has 16 strength but has expertise in Athletics. The challenge we are faced with is a 50 foot wall with a DC of only 15. To get passed this wall, you need to succeed at 4 athletics checks (half move per check is 15 feet per success). If you fail by 5 or more, you fall.

The fighter has +7 to Athletics checks. The bard has +9. The fighter has a 15% chance to fall per roll, the bard has a 5% chance to fall per roll. The bard has a 81% chance to climb to the top without falling. The fighter has a 52% chance to climb to the top without falling before using luck dice. Each time a lick die is used, it would only have a 70% chance of actually helping the fighter as well, meaning the fighter could quite easily use multiple luck dice to attempt to climb this single wall. This isn't even taking into account the other exploration challenges the group may find itself facing. If the fighters moment to shine is against 1wall per day, then you can hardly say he is "good" at physical related tasks.

Oh, and since using shield master to knock people prone is kind of the Bards "thing", he usually has Bears strength cast upon himself (1 hour long buff that doubles his carrying capacity and gives advantage to Strength checks), making him significantly better than the fighter at Athletic related challenges. Of course, the Druid could have flown to the top of the wall and let down a rope, the warlock could have used at-will levitation to get past the wall, both without needing to roll.

1.) You can have 20 Str and Lucky at level 8, even from standard array. Check your math: +1 from race is 16, then you get feats at level 4, 6, and 8.

2.) In what way is the bard's 5% chance of falling "better" than the fighter's 2.25%? You can't exclude Luck dice because they're there to be used. As DCs climb and consequences for failure rise, Lucky's advantage increases further. When a single DC 20 check stands between you and avoiding 20d6 to someone you care about, would you rather have the bard's 50% success rate or the Lucky fighter's 84%?

3.) With an athletics-optimized shieldmaster bard in the party, no wonder you went GWM. That's a good team. Doesn't go so well with archers but is great with GWM halberdiers.

 

[Corpsetaker]

I'm still not seeing any tangible evidence as to the fighter being bad in anyway. When I stand back and look at the fighter, I see a class that was built exactly how the designers wanted it.

Something else that bothers me is how come the person with the highest numerical value in something has to be the one to attempt it? When you actually look at the math, there isn't much of a numbers difference between someone who has gone all out in a skill vs someone who spends less resource in it. Also depends on the situation as well. I would rather send in the elf who may not have scores as high when dealing with other elves. There are still some remnants of previous editions where the highest score means better interaction from NPCs.

I'm very happy this edition wasn't designed fully around my number vs your number, challenge solved.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I didn't expect the PHB to fit everything but it's not like there's nothing missing for the fighter. The class still works however.

The fighter does work OK as the simple DPR class it's traditionally been. If it were just the Champion, that'd be fine. It doesn't go far, but as far as it goes, it's fine. But, the EK making the fighter into a caster class was unexpected, and the Battlemaster failing to make it meaningfully more/other than the traditional simple DPR alternative, disappointing.

The class could do more out of combat, which'd help a little, but, as the Battlemaster design illustrates, it's hard to add much of anything directly to that tough, high-DPR baseline without becoming problematic (more problematic, multi-attacking has always been problematic to begin with).

No the best options are not all about dealing damage...

Sadly, with a class as hard-focused on DPR as the 5e fighter, they generally are. That's the biggest of the things 'wrong with the fighter' - it lacks the flexibility of the 3.5 fighter, and doesn't make a distinct enough contribution from the other non-magic-using sub-classes (also all DPR oriented in combat).

I disagree, maxing strength and taking GWM is not "necessary" for a fighter to be adept at dealing damage

Maxing DEX and taking Sharpshooter is an obvious alternative.

Ok you don't have to be the best to be effective and/or contribute. I can't believe all of your scores except Strength were so low that skill proficiency wouldn't have mattered for any of them... and even so skill proficiency would have at leats giving you a chance at the range of very easy to hard DC's.

To uniquely contribute you need to do something others can't, or do it better. Supposedly, the fighter's extra ASI at 6th gives him a shot at 'doing better.' In this case, though, it seems there was a diversity of high stats and proficiencies in the party, such that the fighter wasn't ever that competitive with them. It's always possible, of course, that a fighter's 14th level ASI put to some tertiary stat that no one else invested in would give the fighter a +1 edge with those stat checks, it just didn't happen in that instance.

Also I find it amusing that you feel a 3/day reroll is enough to make you competent outside of combat. Clearly haven't played the game very much.

3/day is nothing to sneeze at. It's the 1st-level wizard's claim to fame, for instance.

Ok we are level 8, we are faced with is a 50 foot wall with a DC of only 15. To get passed this wall, you need to succeed at 4 athletics checks (half move per check is 15 feet per success). If you fail by 5 or more, you fall.

Is that really much of a challenge for an 8th level party?

You are right about bounded accuracy cutting both ways, I could contribute just fine, but no more. If I beat someone else at the table at a particular task, it was because my roll was exceptionally good, not because of any feature of the fighter. There was never really any spotlight balance. There was never a time where the party was like "wow, I'm sure glad we have a fighter along to help us overcome this noncombat challenge". .... It merely would have been nice if there was a particular area that was the fighters...expertise

I saw what you did there.

If, for instance, Remarkable Athelete added whether you were proficient or not, instead of only non-proficient, it would be like Expertise, in that it'd make the Champion particularly good at certain tasks, even compared to someone with 'just' proficiency. Not as good as someone with expertise, but the fact that it helps with untrained rolls, as well, would help make up for that.
Minor help, for the champion, only, but a very easy change to make.

Something else that bothers me is how come the person with the highest numerical value in something has to be the one to attempt it?

Under Bounded Accuracy, he wouldn't be. The most sensible thing is for anyone who has a shot to make the check, if at all possible. That maximizes the chance of at least one success. It also trivializes any but a fairly dramatic superiority at that check, though. So if one character has a +5 and everyone else has around a +3, the one with a +5 isn't exactly differentiated or 'shining' or spotlight-balanced by that small edge. When you have a +17 and the next best has a +8 while everyone else is still around +3, then you're really standing out.