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

[Tony Vargas]

Say what...

There are no 'levels' of BM maneuvers, they're all essentially "3rd level" abilities.

Of course, everything that includes proficiency 'scales' with level, cantrip DCs, spell DCs, attack rolls, etc...

Cantrips, for instance, have damage that scales with level, while spell scale with slot level, and, very obviously, higher level spells do more than lower level ones. There's an expectation built into the class/level system that an ability you get at higher level is somehow better than one you get at higher level. Maneuvers aren't like that, they're the opposite: you generally pick up the best ones first (and it's not like the best maneuvers are over-powered for 3rd level abilities).

EDIT: I also notice your argument has once again resorted to sliding goalposts... first we were debating the 3.x fighter but now all of a sudden the 4e fighter has been brought into it as well. I'm not speaking to the 4e fighter I was talking about 3.x

It's a long thread, to me it looks like /you're/ shifting goalposts. You went from a comparison of fighter bonus feats to a comparison of leader-style maneuvers.

You are trying to base your argument on the assumption that everyone else has already taken everything else and that anything you choose is just overlap.

It's not assuming anything about what anyone /will/ take, only acknowledging what they could take. Anything that's not unique to a class does less to differentiate that class than a unique feature would. Similarly, an ability that doesn't "rise above" in any sense is a lot less defining. Not only do lackluster abilities fail to define a class, they can't do much to balance it, either.

So, after reading the whole thread, I'm seeing that what this boils down to is that most of the complaints about the 5e fighter are that its not the 4e fighter.

Is that correct?

It's also not the 3.x fighter.

But, sure, it's the 2e fighter, and arguably shines compared to the even earlier incarnations of the class (though, some of us may miss the incredible saves high-level fighters tended to have in AD&D). It's not that far off the Essentials Slayer and even Knight, either - hardly surprising.


Also, I think "what's wrong with the fighter" and "how do you fix the fighter" are two very different questions. There's obviously a lot you could do in 3e or 4e that you can't do in 5e, and the fighter is the class that is closest to trying to do those kinds of concepts. You might say that's more properly something wrong with 5e for lacking some additional martial class or classes...

But, it does do 2e fighters, Essentials Slayers, archers, and even the long-problematic 'light fighter' perfectly well, and part of that is the 5e Fighter's mutli-attack-driven DPR, which makes 'fixing' it problematic. You can't just give the fighter 5 more bonus feats to make it (proportionately) "like the 3.5 fighter," for instance, because that'd break it pretty conclusively.

IMHO, the 'fix' would be a new martial class or two, not a major overhaul of the fighter.

 

[Enkhidu]

The warblade is nothing like the 4e fighter though. They are about as similar as the 5e fighter is to the 5e wizard. They had radically different mechanics. The 4e fighter was all about battlefield control and AEDU. The warblade was designed based around a list of constantly refreshing. maneuvers. These classes had radically different playstyles and compatabilities.

The 13th Age fighter is also completely different. It doesn't have AEDU powers at all. Instead it has maneuvers that are entirely dependent upon the result of your attack roll.

The savage worlds character is nothing like any of the others and doesn't have powers at all, instead relying on the systems built in stunts and tricks.

As I read it, you were the one who linked them together in the martial character bucket. The mechanics idea was an attempt by me to understand why you did so; my assumption was that is was since the common design theme with all of them is that their martial abilities were mechanically similar to spells-sourced abilities. I even asked you to correct me if my assumption that those classes met with your approval was incorrect (which then brings us to...)

Furthermore, many of the complaints about the 5e fighter could also be levied against the 4e fighter...

So does that mean that you actually have the same complaints, or just that you could see someone making them?

...So if you had actually read the complaints or knew what you were talking about (which obviously you don't) you would see that I don't want a rehash of any particular editions fighter at all. I want a martial warrior with a diversity of options and capabilities, both in and out of combat. That is it. I don't want a 4e fighter anymore than I want a 2e fighter. I want something different. I want a 5e martial warrior that is mechanically interesting and complex without relying on spell slots.

But...nice try.

Aside from the delivery on this one (and please - some politeness here would be appreciated) I absolutely agree with the bolded sentence. There's even a pre-existing method to dole those abilities out at level appropriate times (the monk's way of four elements). All that would be required is a few more battlemaster abilities to choose from (and, due to the larger pool, the ability - akin to the stances already mentioned above - the ability to prepare a different set after a long rest).

If you want to talk specifically about out of combat, I'll ask this two part question: Is the fighter actually the best at defeating enemies in combat, and if so is the amount they they are better than other classes equal to the out-of-combat gap between fighters and other classes? I'd say that if the fighter is indeed better at fighting, then its OK for the fighter to play 2nd fiddle in non-combat situations, as long as the gaps line up.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The warblade is nothing like the 4e fighter though. They are about as similar as the 5e fighter is to the 5e wizard. They had radically different mechanics. The 4e fighter was all about battlefield control and AEDU. The warblade was designed based around a list of constantly refreshing. maneuvers. These classes had radically different playstyles and compatabilities.

As mechanically different as the were, they did have a little of the same feel when it came to tactical depth (3.x actually had a fair amount of tactical depth, iif, it didn't degenerate into rocket tag, that is).

The 13th Age fighter is also completely different. It doesn't have AEDU powers at all. Instead it has maneuvers that are entirely dependent upon the result of your attack roll.

I was deeply disappointed with the 13A fighter. The only thing it has going for it is that you don't really even need to be awake to play it. It can just sorta run on autopilot. It's the perfect class for players who don't really want to be playing the game, at all.

Furthermore, many of the complaints about the 5e fighter could also be levied against the 4e fighter. For all the interesting mechanics it brought to combat, the 4e fighter was still wildly inferior outside of combat.

It really was. 4e needed roles for the other two pillars, really. The saving grace was the Skill Challenge, which kept everyone participating in out-of-combat encounters, even if the fighter's sad, traditional, skill list kept him from making more meaningful or dramatic contributions in most of them. (And, particularly annoying: the only 'interaction' skill they gave the poor fighter was Intimidate, yet several of the sample 'negotiation' Challenges made that skill an auto-failure, so the fighter being worse than useless outside a fight was just as big a stereotype as every.)

It also does a very poor job of modeling the "mythic" heroes that 2e describes as fighters such as Beowulf, CuCuchlain, Hercules, and Gilgamesh.

Exploits could do some fairly remarkable stuff, though the mythic heroism was by no means limited to the fighter, and, between Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies (like 'Demi-God,' right there in the PH1), they were at least trying for such archetypes.

I want something different. I want a 5e martial warrior that is mechanically interesting and complex without relying on spell slots.

That probably means a new class, not a 'fixed' fighter.

There's even a pre-existing method to dole those abilities out at level appropriate times (the monk's way of four elements).
All that would be required is a few more battlemaster abilities to choose from (and, due to the larger pool, the ability - akin to the stances already mentioned above - the ability to prepare a different set after a long rest).

It'd require a lot more than that. We're not talking the fighter being /just shy/ of being "a martial warrior that is mechanically interesting and complex without relying on {supernatural abilities}." The fighter is a solid multi-attacking, high-DPR 'striker,' it works fine for that, and it would take more than a new or merely tweaked sub-class to break it out of that function.

Is the fighter actually the best at defeating enemies in combat

Only in the advertising-claim sense of 'best.' You can claim your product is 'best' without being sued for false advertising, if you can demonstrate that none of the available competing products are /better/ than it. The fighter is moderately tough, and gives consistent, high DPR, with a spike or two between short rests. Most other classes can match that spike DPR, situationally, and some can rival that consistent high DPR at some levels.

Similarly, you can support the fighter's 'best at fighting' claim (that was the goal 5e set itself, not 'best at defeating enemies), if you assume it's 'consistently best at fighting with weapons, without using spells or other special abilities.' Which makes it a pretty safe title.

and if so is the amount they they are better than other classes equal to the out-of-combat gap between fighters and other classes?

No.

I'd say that if the fighter is indeed better at fighting, then its OK for the fighter to play 2nd fiddle in non-combat situations, as long as the gaps line up.

You could give the fighter all the non-combat abilities of the Rogue (just about everything but Sneak Attack), and you wouldn't have a 'broken' class.

Giving the fighter any depth or variety in combat, though, would be problematic, because his DPR is already so high, and so consistent.


While there are things 'wrong with the fighter,' they're not things that can be fixed, but they might be addressed with an entirely new class...

 

[I'm A Banana]

You could use extra attacks as the currency. AD&D called shots traded THAC0 penalties for effects like crippling because fighters had the best THAC0. In 5E, fighters have the most attacks so you could trade those in, which is already how grappling and disarming work: fighters are good at disarming because they have more attacks than anyone else. You could create a "Crack the Shell" analogue that costs two attacks, does normal damage on a hit, and gives everyone advantage to hit them next turn. Fighters would be the best at it due to having more attacks. Any maneuvers which cost three or more attacks would be the exclusive province of fighters.

Yeah, that idea totally has legs.

If I wanted to straight mimic crack the shell in terms of both daily-ness and effect, I might have something like...

Crack the Shell: When you take the Attack action, you can spend your Action Surge to turn it into a Crack the Shell maneuver. This maneuver requires you to make one melee weapon attack. If you hit with the attack, double your weapon damage. Additionally, the creature hit by this maneuver takes 5 damage at the start of each of their turns, and has a -2 penalty to AC. At the end of their turn, a creature with this lingering effect can roll 1d20 - on a 10 or better, the effect ends. If you spend your Action Surge on this, you do not recover it on a short rest.

...it's a little awkward, and I'm not entirely sure what's happening in the fiction when a character is damaged or recovers ("oh, my broken armor is suddenly not broken anymore I guess even though I have done nothing to it!"), but the goal was mimicry, not coherence. The fighter who burns this still has extra attacks and subclass abilities and whatnot to rely on - it just turns one of their encounter abilities into a daily ability. Though I'm not entirely convinced it's worth the cost (double damage in 5e isn't the nova it used to be. ), even there, and it's a LOT less flexible and efficient than just being a battlemaster and using trip attack with alchemist's fire four times in a round.

Which is really just to point out that a 5e fighter is different, but not lower performing. A direct port of Crack the Shell is kind of weak in 5e's context, despite being the most powerful thing a 5th-level 4e fighter is capable of.

If you wanted an analogue of Crack the Shell in 5e that felt more native to 5e's assumptions, you'd have to do things like....

• Because a fighter has multiple attacks and fights are faster overall, ongoing damage is less effective. Drop it. It's redundant at best and fiddly little tracking shenanigans at worst.
• -2 AC is irrelevant 90% of the time. Combined with the above point, we're better off using something like advantage. Because advantage is a spike in power, we should probably drop the duration somehow.
• The saving throw serves a different purpose in 4e than in 5e. If we take the above point into consideration, we can offer advantage, say, until the creature's next turn.
• The extra damage either needs to be spiked higher so that it is WORTH spending a daily resource on, or we need to make it fit the short-reset or at-will nature of the existing resources. If we match it to existing resources, it probably won't quite be double, but it could be some bit of extra damage, done more often.
• Comparing our new Crack the Shell to existing effects in 5e, we see that an attack that deals extra damage and grants advantage on attacks is most similar to the existing Battlemaster maneuver Distracting Strike or possibly Trip Attack, maybe with a few fairly fiddly differences.

...but then that's clearly not satisfying for someone who wants 5eFighterDailies akin to all of 4e's glory, or we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

....just curious to see the break-down here and find out where the psychology is firing different.

 

[Ashkelon]

As I read it, you were the one who linked them together in the martial character bucket. The mechanics idea was an attempt by me to understand why you did so; my assumption was that is was since the common design theme with all of them is that their martial abilities were mechanically similar to spells-sourced abilities. I even asked you to correct me if my assumption that those classes met with your approval was incorrect (which then brings us to...)

I grouped those classes together because I found the variety of options and tactical decisions they provided to be far more enjoyable than the basic attack spam of the 5e fighter. Those classes were all radically different in both role and mechanics, but were all fun and interesting martial characters. This shows me that there are a number of ways to make interesting martial mechanics with a variety of depth and interaction.

That brings me to another thing you seem to have a very incorrect idea of. I don't want martial maneuvers to be similar to spells. I want them to be distinct and unique. Even in 4e, in which martial maneuvers were the most mechanically similar to spells due to a shared AEDU structure, martial maneuvers and spells were wildly more different than they are even in 5e. For example, the effect of pretty much every single battlemaster maneuver can be replicated by a spell in 5e. In 4e, the same is not true of fighter abilities. In 4e fighter maneuvers could allow you to spend a healing surge, mark your enemies, allow you to move across the battlefield, perform a whirlwind attack, and much more. In 4e spells could create areas or zones of elemental energy, immobilize groups of enemies at range, reshape the battlefield with AoE forced movement, and many other effects the 4e fighter could never hope to replicate. Spells and maneuvers felt truly different because their effects were wildly different.

So does that mean that you actually have the same complaints, or just that you could see someone making them?

I have made that complain numerous times about the 4e fighter. While it is certainly somewhat better off than its 5e counterpart when it comes to noncombat capabilities, it is still nowhere near the level of most other classes.

Aside from the delivery on this one (and please - some politeness here would be appreciated) I absolutely agree with the bolded sentence. There's even a pre-existing method to dole those abilities out at level appropriate times (the monk's way of four elements). All that would be required is a few more battlemaster abilities to choose from (and, due to the larger pool, the ability - akin to the stances already mentioned above - the ability to prepare a different set after a long rest).

The way of 4 elements monk is often regarded as lackluster. That is due to a number of problems with ki points and scaling of abilities. It is hard to give a resource that is encounter based and also provide scaling abilities. I really dislike the design. It encourages spamming of the most optimal ability with the highest output per ki point ratio. This leads to boring and repetitive game play. I would rather have the resource be more dynamic and the maneuvers more interesting. Nothing currently in 5e is a good model for martial maneuvers in a way that is "fun" or "enjoyable" to me. We would need a completely new system.

If you want to talk specifically about out of combat, I'll ask this two part question: Is the fighter actually the best at defeating enemies in combat, and if so is the amount they they are better than other classes equal to the out-of-combat gap between fighters and other classes?

What is the fighter the best at. Well, at level 20, it is the best at dealing single target damage with a weapon. From levels 1-16, the paladin and barbarian are just as good at that (actually if you run the numbers they are better), but can also take more punishment than the fighter and provide more utility in combat. The wizard who permanently turns himself into a dragon with true polymorph actually is a better combatant than the level 20 fighter though, so even then the fighter can't claim the title of "best at combat".

Of course limiting ourselves to talking about just damage done and received when talking about combat is silly. The spelllcasters can paralyze foes with hold person/monster. They can wipe out groups of enemies with AoE spells. They can reshape the battlefield with walls and zones. Those can all be far more important to the outcome of a battle than mere damage. The fighter cannot come close to achieving that level of battlefield control. So "best at combat" is somewhat of a meaningless term.

Of course, even if we said DPR and only DPR are what matters when determine if the fighter is in fact the best, you run into the problem where he is only doing about 10% more than the thief rogue, or the quicken eldritch blast sorcerer/warlock, and basically the same or less than the paladin and barbarian.

I'd say that if the fighter is indeed better at fighting, then its OK for the fighter to play 2nd fiddle in non-combat situations, as long as the gaps line up.

Well it's not really second fiddle in the fighters case. He is dead last when it comes to non-combat utility. Even if you have the fighter proficiency in STR and CON checks and expertise in Athletics, the fighter still would be nowhere near the utility of the top non-combat utility classes. In fact, he would still be near the bottom, but at least then the fighter would actually have some non-combat features tied to class.

 

[Manbearcat]

Sooooooomebody's been playing some Dungeon World! Not that I can blame you. And there are far worse places to go for finding out-of-combat Fighter features. As I mentioned in someone else's "Warlording the Fighter" thread, there's a Dungeon World...uh...supplement? Third-party product. Called "Grim World." Has a "Battlemaster" class with some thematically appropriate features for a more "intellectual" Fighter type--history, reading others' motivations, education, etc.

Well, my current game doesn't have a Fighter so I haven't GMed the class for about 2 years. However, in the game in which I did (1-7), the Dwarf Fighter had both Heirloom and Through Death's Eyes. They were both awesome in that game and I guarantee that folks like [MENTION=6774887]Ashkelon[/MENTION], [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], yourself and others (who are or would be inclined to play a PC in 5e) would truly enjoy a 5e analogue for the Fighter.

However, knowing the history and looking at the thread, its mere existence (even if it could be, as default, entirely excised from others' play experience) would cause controversy and possibly hyperventilating and hand-wringing accusations of "powers" and "supers" and all that rot. Whether externally located sponsorship of a Fighter allows him to maintain his "purely martial cred" (when said sponsorship is supernatural - eg spirits and Death) is possibly up for debate. I mean, does Lion-O's possession and usage of the Sword of Omens for "Sight Beyond Sight" spoil his martial cred? Further, it was implicit that divine sponsorship/plot protection was an inherent part of the "Saving Throw Goo" in AD&D. That didn't make Fighters (with the best saves which made them truly implacable foes...unlike in 5e) lose their martial cred in AD&D. In the same sense, it seems that distant sponsorship by whatever incarnation of Death (God, primordial force or other) exists in a campaign world for mortal avatars of Death (eg Fighters) would be sensible (from an internal consistency perspective...yeah, high fantasy heroic internal consistency...) and certainly genre appropriate.

The question then becomes how to iterate them on the 5e chassis and then how to schedule them. Likely another area of controversy (for people who don't have to include it in their games).

Beyond that, there is the question of "should a level 17 (for 5e) martial hero ascend beyond mere mortal trappings in the heroic fantasy genre?" In a game where a large number of canonical creatures break physical laws (the same laws that we stridently, and with ironic duplicity, bind our martial heroes by), seemingly on the back of sheer (impossible?) biology or inexplicable exceptions to atmospheric drag and gravity, it has always struck me as odd (and pretty much untenable) that answer to the question would be a stern "no" and the reasoning would be "proud nail". Especially so when they're somehow expected to physically tangle with and slay creatures so far beyond the realm of human possibility (for a legion of medieval men, let alone A, singular, man).

The fact that <this thing> or <that thing> is jarring but that somehow isn't jarring...well, it jars me.

 

[Corpsetaker]

Beyond that, there is the question of "should a level 17 (for 5e) martial hero ascend beyond mere mortal trappings in the heroic fantasy genre?" In a game where a large number of canonical creatures break physical laws (the same laws that we stridently, and with ironic duplicity, bind our martial heroes by), seemingly on the back of sheer (impossible?) biology or inexplicable exceptions to atmospheric drag and gravity, it has always struck me as odd (and pretty much untenable) that answer to the question would be a stern "no" and the reasoning would be "proud nail". Especially so when they're somehow expected to physically tangle with and slay creatures so far beyond the realm of human possibility (for a legion of medieval men, let alone A, singular, man).

The fact that <this thing> or <that thing> is jarring but that somehow isn't jarring...well, it jars me.

The fact that you are killing creatures such as dragons, giants, and other fantastic creatures with your sword isn't super heroic enough for you?

How come I need magical powers in order to kill legendary creatures to be known as super heroic?

 

[Manbearcat]

The fact that you are killing creatures such as dragons, giants, and other fantastic creatures with your sword isn't super heroic enough for you?

How come I need magical powers in order to kill legendary creatures to be known as super heroic?

Which me are you asking? I'll have a different answer depending on the guy:

1) D&D gamer nerd who has been running games since 1984 and has long, long, long since come to terms with the utter irrationality and inherent contradictions of D&D's heroic fantasy world physics/genre emulation mash-up such that trying to rationalize them is asking for an aneurism?

2) Random guy on the internet who is interested in a discussion about the premise:

"Ok, I can TOTALLY accept that as a mere man at the pinnacle of (demi)human capacity, you can face down and slay a creature who is TWO * the size, TEN * weight, ONE HUNDRED * the ferocity (this last figure is still being empirically tested, but we feel we're pretty close) of a TYRANNOSAURUS REX, is COVERED IN ARMORED PLATES THE EQUIVALENT OF A MODERN TANK, can FLY, can CAST POWERFUL SPELLS, BREATHES FREAKING GIANT CONES OF FIRE. That makes sense.

But you want to jump a 50 ft canyon, or all-out sprint for hours straight, or swim for hours in armor, or redirect a river by your mighty blows at the base of a riverbed, or demand an audience with a ruler and win it by the sheer force of your voice? HOLD THE FRIGGING PHONE AND BACKUP THE TRAIN HEADED STRAIGHT FOR CRAZYTOWN DUDE!

Oh, hang on a second. I have to roll this random encounter table. OH LOOK! 15 foot giant spiders attack you with their exoskeletons that make their mere existence, forget about locomotion and respiration, utterly impossible (thanks to the same physics that I use to deny you any sort of...err heroic fantasy (?)...out of combat capabilities above normal human capabilities)! AWESOME!

ROLL INITIATIVE!"

 

[Ashkelon]

So at least now we can say with certainty that Corpsetaker is a troll. He keeps stating that those of us who want "mythic" fighters want magical powers in an attempt to mischaracterize our desires even though we have refuted that claim numerous times. Clearly he has no desire for reasonable discourse and only wants an echo chamber for his own desires.

What is worse is the fact that he is trying to limit our options even though we are not doing the same to him. We are fine with the regular fighter being mundane as long as some other class can fulfil the role of the more complex "mythic" warrior, much like the 3e warblade did when compared to the regular 3e fighter.

 

[Hussar]

Yeah, that idea totally has legs.

If I wanted to straight mimic crack the shell in terms of both daily-ness and effect, I might have something like...

Crack the Shell: When you take the Attack action, you can spend your Action Surge to turn it into a Crack the Shell maneuver. This maneuver requires you to make one melee weapon attack. If you hit with the attack, double your weapon damage. Additionally, the creature hit by this maneuver takes 5 damage at the start of each of their turns, and has a -2 penalty to AC. At the end of their turn, a creature with this lingering effect can roll 1d20 - on a 10 or better, the effect ends. If you spend your Action Surge on this, you do not recover it on a short rest.

...it's a little awkward, and I'm not entirely sure what's happening in the fiction when a character is damaged or recovers ("oh, my broken armor is suddenly not broken anymore I guess even though I have done nothing to it!"), but the goal was mimicry, not coherence. The fighter who burns this still has extra attacks and subclass abilities and whatnot to rely on - it just turns one of their encounter abilities into a daily ability. Though I'm not entirely convinced it's worth the cost (double damage in 5e isn't the nova it used to be. ), even there, and it's a LOT less flexible and efficient than just being a battlemaster and using trip attack with alchemist's fire four times in a round.

Which is really just to point out that a 5e fighter is different, but not lower performing. A direct port of Crack the Shell is kind of weak in 5e's context, despite being the most powerful thing a 5th-level 4e fighter is capable of.

If you wanted an analogue of Crack the Shell in 5e that felt more native to 5e's assumptions, you'd have to do things like....

• Because a fighter has multiple attacks and fights are faster overall, ongoing damage is less effective. Drop it. It's redundant at best and fiddly little tracking shenanigans at worst.
• -2 AC is irrelevant 90% of the time. Combined with the above point, we're better off using something like advantage. Because advantage is a spike in power, we should probably drop the duration somehow.
• The saving throw serves a different purpose in 4e than in 5e. If we take the above point into consideration, we can offer advantage, say, until the creature's next turn.
• The extra damage either needs to be spiked higher so that it is WORTH spending a daily resource on, or we need to make it fit the short-reset or at-will nature of the existing resources. If we match it to existing resources, it probably won't quite be double, but it could be some bit of extra damage, done more often.
• Comparing our new Crack the Shell to existing effects in 5e, we see that an attack that deals extra damage and grants advantage on attacks is most similar to the existing Battlemaster maneuver Distracting Strike or possibly Trip Attack, maybe with a few fairly fiddly differences.

...but then that's clearly not satisfying for someone who wants 5eFighterDailies akin to all of 4e's glory, or we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

....just curious to see the break-down here and find out where the psychology is firing different.

That does seem like a pretty elegant solution to adding a way to allow fighters to inflict status effects in combat. Cool idea.

But, there is a bit of a problem. All we're doing in more stuff in combat. Which is cool and all and does resolve a lot of the issues with a fighter constantly spamming the same two or three actions over and over again. How can this be translated to non-combat elements? How can I trade out attacks in order to inspire someone to do something? How do I trade out attacks in order to use skills?