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

[D'karr]

I've played in a lot of those games (being an AD&D player myself). And you know what? Most people that prefer that streamlined version of play (no feats or other big optional rules) don't get hung up on a fighter not being able to do anything out of combat because they don't have a specific power written on their character sheet that says they can. They do it like they've been doing for 40 years: Tell the DM what you want to do, and make a check. Done.

Sure, and he'll be just as plain average in the exploration and interaction pillars as has already been stated by others.

Saying the DM can fix it if he wants to, or optional components can cover this doesn't do much to change the criticism.

 

[Ashkelon]

Except in games that don't allow the optional component of feats.

Not to mention that feats really don't even give the fighter much of an edge. The most commonly touted feats for non-combat capabilities are Actor, Observant, and Skilled.

Actor gives you advantage on Persuasion and Deception, but only when you are attempting to impersonate someone else. I don't know about you, but most Persuasion and Deception checks I make aren't when I'm pretending to be somebody else. Besides, to really make good use of this feat you need a good charisma score or expertise in those skills. The fighter will usually have neither. Generally, even with this feat, the party warlock, paladin, or sorcerer will have a better chance to impersonate others than the 12 Cha fighter.

Observant suffers a similar problem to actor. Their are other party members who will typically be better at being "observant" than a fighter who takes this feat.

Skilled is great, but it is giving you your 5th, 6th, and 7th favorite skills as your number 1 to 4 choice is probably already taken by your free class skills and background. And again, you won't ever be better than someone in your party with the appropriate primary attribute and proficiency (or expertise).

Those feats definitely give you some breadth, but they don't allow you to actually be better than most of your party members who didn't even need to devote resources to their non combat utility. What is worse, those feats cannot hope to match most other classes non combat features.

Take a level 10 fighter for example. He has 1 more feat than everyone but a rogue. Is a feat as good as a bards Jack of all trades, inspiration, expertise and spells? Is 1 more feat as good as a Rangers spells and favored enemy/terrain? Is 1 more feat as good as a Paladins immunity to fear, aura thy protects allies, 50 HP lay on hands, divine sense, and spells? Is 1 more feat as good as warlock invocations like at-will Jump, levitate, or disguise self? Those classes can all do about as much, or more damage than the fighter, but also gain tons of utility. I'm really not seeing how Actor, Observant, or Skilled can come close to matching the non combat potential of most of those abilities.

 

[Psikerlord#]

There is nothing wrong with the fighter. He is the blank slate character you choose if you want lots of feats. If you aren't using feats, yeah, I agree the Fighter can seem more boring and have less options that other classes.

Barbarians are a kind of "fighter" (brutal rager), so are Paladins (Armour clad Holy/Oathbound), Rangers (Wilderness) and Rogues (Agility/Sneaky). So the main fighter type ideals are all covered. The Fighter class itself then is for .... customizing. The chasis has great armour, great weapons, the best overall endurance (free short rest heals) and great burst (action surge). You then apply feats .... and get all kinds of options.

The key to unlocking true Fighter awesome however is... custom making your own feats! The feats in PHB are just examples which you can use to make your own or modify. Want a fighter with a psionic edge? Make a feat. How about a Whip Master? Make a feat. Inspiring Warlord type? Make a feat.

As an aside, I would like more Battlemaster maneuvers in a UA. Then again, we can always make our own, using the examples provided.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Not to mention that feats really don't even give the fighter much of an edge. The most commonly touted feats for non-combat capabilities are Actor, Observant, and Skilled.

Actor gives you advantage on Persuasion and Deception, but only when you are attempting to impersonate someone else. I don't know about you, but most Persuasion and Deception checks I make aren't when I'm pretending to be somebody else. Besides, to really make good use of this feat you need a good charisma score or expertise in those skills. The fighter will usually have neither. Generally, even with this feat, the party warlock, paladin, or sorcerer will have a better chance to impersonate others than the 12 Cha fighter. .

I gotta say, at this point I don't think you're playing the same 5e game I have been playing with. My halfling fighter that I always bring up? He has the dungeon delver feat (and criminal background). He is NOT multiclassed into rogue and has been just as effective in the exploration pillar of the game and all the other rogues for the most part. I'm not talking about white room modifier analysis, I'm talking about how it plays in the game.

Additionally, you might play with CHA, INT, or WIS as the dump stat for all fighters, but lots of other people don't. This might be a giant shocker to you, but a lot of players don't create their PCs to optimize. They envision how their PC looks and acts, and builds their PCs around that. Yes, that means there are players who put in a high score in CHA for their fighter because they like to play him/her as a suave ladies/man's man, and that's how they have fun. Squeaking out an extra +1 here or there by optimizing doesn't even enter their mind.

And you know what? These are perfectly effective characters.

I also think you're making a critical error because you're only comparing classes and abilities in a silo'd approach, and you're completely ignoring how all of these things interact with each other. My halfling fighter might not have the highest chance to disarm a trap compared to a rogue, but his other abilities that rogues don't have often more than make up the difference. The extra HP, the combat staying power for when things go to hell and you have no choice but to fight, the action surge, etc all partner well with his extra feats that make him more than effective at things other than combat.

If I were a betting man, I'd bet that you haven't even tried playing a fighter who was built to do other things besides maxing out DPR.

 

[Leatherhead]

Heh, but Summons, Animate Dead, Animate Object, Simulacrum, dont? Or are they only ok cuz magic? Or the paladin handing out a friggin +5 to saves. Or bless tossing bounded accuracy out the window.

It's a bit surreal to have someone use an argument I specifically dismissed in my signature when talking to me. But it honestly doesn't have anything to do with that magic VS mundanes, it's literally about the math.

Consider an effect that makes an ally do a charge attack. In 4e charge-attack powers were all over the place, so a Warlord granting one was typical fair, even a bit simple. In 5e a charge attack will eat your attack action, your move action, and even your bonus action, basically your entire turn. That's the difference in combat action scale between 4e and 5e.

This is the reason why people hate Commander's Strike, despite it being scaled for 5e combat. Someone comes in from 4e and expect to hand out free (well free to the recipient anyway) attacks every turn, and free turns at a small cost, and 5e with tightly regulated actions seems anemic. It's limited in use instead of at-will and, even more importantly, it eats up the Reaction of the recipient. Without a Reaction, a character is dead in the water in terms of using OA's, or defensive abilities, taking them out of the combat until their next turn.

I'd love to see them. In particular, the swordsage is what I wish the eldritch knight was. A warrior who does battle magic with a mechanic that is different than spells.

The Swordsage is more what the Elemental Monk should have been.

 

[aramis erak]

The 5E fighter is great at killing things, but it has nothing like the 4E fighter's ability to control the battlefield. If you liked the tactical aspect of playing a fighter in 4E, you'll not be satisfied with the 5E fighter.

Many of us think that a good thing.

 

[Minigiant]

After seeing the Mariner fighting style, I can see the combat half of a fighting style being restricted to boost exploration and social elements. Since the fighter gets them all. If Mariner works out, I can see many more.

Same with Warlordish, Warbladey, Swordsagey, and Dwarven Defender styles.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Sure, and he'll be just as plain average in the exploration and interaction pillars as has already been stated by others.

Saying the DM can fix it if he wants to, or optional components can cover this doesn't do much to change the criticism.

The first part of your statement is wrong. The average joe, a commoner, has 10 in all attributes and 0 skill proficiency, according to the MM. This leaves the fighter with 4 extra proficiencies compared to them. So how can you call that average.
And when you consider that a rogue with expertise easily surpass the wizard in Arcana and even more easily surpasses the cleric in religion, the fighter has a good standing.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Overall, the common list of complaints about the fighter have little to do with the fighter. I enjoy playing fighters and in the only 5E game that I get to play (rather than run), I am playing a fighter.

The underlying issue that will continue having the D&D community chase it's tail is that EVERY class is fairly competent, and effective in combat. If the fighter is to stand out and be regarded as an expert in that field then this simply CANNOT be the case. That is really all there is to it.

As long as overcoming encounters and primarily fighting is how XP is earned, then having some classes perform poorly in combat won't be an option. Treasure for XP had a purpose. Spell disruption in combat had a purpose. A thief class that was really weak in combat had a purpose.

Lets say there was a game with a Hacker class. This class was supposed to the all around best a hacking but couldn't do a whole lot else. Lets also say that hacking was a fairly important part of the game. Looking through the classes you see that all of them are about 80-90% as good at hacking as the Hacker class but they all got lots of other cool abilities too. Why play a Hacker?

If the fighter is to be truly the best in combat: (for starters)

- no more attack cantrips

- spell declaration and interruption

- rogues only get SA when unnoticed from behind. So basically once per typical combat.

- no more than a d6 hit die for non-fighter types. Wizards should get a d4.

 

[Capn Charlie]

Interestingly, I had this issue early on, and made my fighter variant far and away the best combat class in my sci-fi variant. To the point that no other class gets a second attack per round, except the fighter who can get up to three total attacks at the level cap of 10.

So far in a skill intensive setting, nobody denigrates the fighters and are always happy to have them around in combat, and the fighters are fine with mostly standing around being the plan B while the skill characters do their thing outside of it.