D&D 5E (2014) So what's exactly wrong with the fighter?

[tyrlaan]

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.

While this makes me chuckle because this sounds a lot like threats Americans like to drop "I'll move to Canada", I'm really curious why this bothers you so much? You know there are perfectly functional games with less than 20 levels, right? 13th Age has 10. Earthdawn started with ONLY EIGHT and later went up to 13. I've yet to play any 13th Age, but I ran the crap out of Earthdawn back in the day and, you know what, it was a damn good time.

But more on point for the thread. I wrote the following earlier...

There's a very lengthy thread on this very forum that goes into this debate. In fact, you were an active participant. So I'm really not sure why you need this new thread. Or, perhaps you have started this thread for a different purpose?

And I notice you haven't really addressed this. Is it fair to assume the point of this thread is that you wanted to pick a fight? Please inform me if I'm mistaken.

People need to understand The 4e Warlord just isn't going to happen in 5e. And that is because the Warlord would twist the action economy and bounded accuracy of 5e around it's pinky finger and break the entire system worse than wishing for more wishes can.

I don't really know why you are so convinced. Really I see three possibilities:

1. WotC puts one out and action economy suffers as you predict it would
2. WotC puts one out but re-imagines the class to support the constraints and tenets of 5e. In other words, a warlord can still be a warlord without being an exact replica of it's 4e incarnation.
3. The OGL finally happens (heh) and someone else puts out a warlord

[MENTION=336]D'karr[/MENTION], this may come as a shock to you, but your sig is awesome.

 

[fuindordm]

Minor anecdote: In my current 5E game, 3/7 players are fighters (2H champion, archer battlemaster, and a very warlordy battlemaster). They all feel very different from each other, and they're all great at staying upright and dishing out damage. The Action Surge is HUGE--not just for DPR but also for finishing off an opponent and then doing another action that is desperately needed to help the party, like stabilizing a comrade or cutting a bridge. The Second Wind power is also hugely important.

In contrast, the other characters do contribute in combat but are significantly softer targets and their damage decreases swiftly after the first round or two. When the session has several fights, or one long fight, the fighters are the ones who stay on their feet and keep the party alive. The only exception so far has been when all the fighters got hypnotized by a hypnotic pattern, and it was the rogue who saved the day.

I can't speak for barbarians--haven't seen them in play yet. But I don't feel like the 5E fighter is falling behind in any way.

 

[Mephista]

You know, I really just have one thing to say.

I've successfully played a "warlord" style Battlemaster (dragonborn w/ entertainer/gladiator background). I had high Charisma, because I had abilities were CHA-based. I ended up playing the party face, with constant advantage from a party member playing wingman and using Help action.

You know what? Anyone who says that I can't be a warlord in 5e, or that CHA is worthless for a Fighter, or that there's no options for a social or exploration fighter? You're wrong. I did it. I had fun. If you don't like the way its executed in the new system, that's fine. But don't say its not there, as if its fact. It is.

 

[The_Gneech]

You know, I really just have one thing to say.

I've successfully played a "warlord" style Battlemaster (dragonborn w/ entertainer/gladiator background). I had high Charisma, because I had abilities were CHA-based. I ended up playing the party face, with constant advantage from a party member playing wingman and using Help action.

You know what? Anyone who says that I can't be a warlord in 5e, or that CHA is worthless for a Fighter, or that there's no options for a social or exploration fighter? You're wrong. I did it. I had fun. If you don't like the way its executed in the new system, that's fine. But don't say its not there, as if its fact. It is.

That sounds like a hella fun character, actually. Why am I imagining Patrick Warburton doing the voice?

-The Gneech

 

[Minigiant]

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.

This isn't an issue.
The fighter is WAY better than every other class in combat if you play how the game is designed.

The issue is some group actively don't play as designed, make no adjustment, and say fighters are broke.

If you play Game of Thrones Intrigue style with one encounter a week and a war scene every month, fighters will suck and caster will be overpowered.

If you play Hack & Slash Diablo style with just battle after battle with waves and waves, fighters are great if the potions flow.

If you run an old school paper/video style where times for rest are unknown and far between and the flow of zubats and geodudes never ends, fighter might be the best class.

If you play Action Mystery Potter/Dresden style with lots of talking, investigation, and planning then a long series of killer action scenes the fighter is maybe helpful tiny bit during planning the the hero once the kill switch is flipped.

The question is if your style matches the assumptions on average.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

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.

In the more freewheeling style of play, EVERYONE can think up stuff. The difference is, the other classes have abilities baked into their class that don't rely on DM approval/mercy/fiat whatever. Effectively the fighter asks ""Mother May I?", the casters get the same, but they also get X number of "Mother I DO!" per day.

I've been toying with the idea of letting non-casters have narrative chips they can cash in each adventure to add plot elements. Anyone can chat up a barmaid for information, the fighter/rogue gets to decide her ex was a tower guard and we improv from there. Maybe she might know about a secret passage they snuck in for a quickie.

 

[Sacrosanct]

In the more freewheeling style of play, EVERYONE can think up stuff. The difference is, the other classes have abilities baked into their class that don't rely on DM approval/mercy/fiat whatever. Effectively the fighter asks ""Mother May I?", the casters get the same, but they also get X number of "Mother I DO!" per day.

.

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.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

And in my experience, the "Yes and" style of DM'ing is too rare. Player direction is seen as entitlement, and the players suggestion (in my example) that the barmaid knows a back way would be shut down. If your experience differs, that's great! That's why I started DM'ing, to let crazy ideas fly. Regardless, if you can't see how having concrete narrative overrides baked into a class is an better than having none when both classes have the same non-concrete options, I guess we'll just agree to disagree. Hopefully you can at least understand why I might want a martial "fighter" type class with more baked in exploration/social/narrative abilities. Anyways, take care.

 

[MonkeezOnFire]

I've always disagreed with the notion that the martial classes can't engage with the social pillar of the game. Each person values different attributes and are much more likely to respond positively to someone that they can relate to. So when you need information from the miners enjoying a drink at the tavern you don't send the bard with manicured nails and perfect skin. You send the dude who has battle scars and can down an entire mug of ale in one gulp. When you need to talk to the captain of a nearby military installation you send the guy who has experience in the military. The backgrounds encourage this by giving an ability that is more or less "you are good at interacting with this social group." These exist so that each character has a place in the social interaction pillar.

Also IME, the character that ends up doing the most in the interaction pillar is often the one played by the player that actively engages in it. I've played a fighter with a -1 charisma modifer who did most of the talking for our group just because the other players wouldn't step up. Yes, I failed most of the persuasion and deception rolls that came up but I wasn't dead in the water in every social interaction. A lot of NPC's didn't need to be manipulated in any way. If you're nice and polite most people are happy to tell you about the troubles they've been having, sell you that thing you wanted (at market price), or (if they are the adventuring type) accompany you as a hireling. I will admit that YMMV on this though, it requires a DM that is on the same page as you.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I've always disagreed with the notion that the martial classes can't engage with the social pillar of the game...

Also IME, the character that ends up doing the most in the interaction pillar is often the one played by the player that actively engages in it...I will admit that YMMV on this though, it requires a DM that is on the same page as you.

True. In classic D&D, where there was very little to the resolution mechanics in said pillar (typically just a reaction adj that got the ball rolling), CHA was very much a dump stat for that reason. It had little mechanical effect, and the one place it should matter, it didn't, only the ability of the player to persuade the DM mattered.

You could argue that we're back to that, with so much responsibility for resolution, balance, &c on the DM's shoulders, but, I think, as DM-dependent as the check system is, it gives CHA enough visibility that the DM will be reminded to keep that stat in mind.

But really, between the "fighters suck" threads and the "fighters are too OP" threads, I guess that just proves they did it right.

It shows the fighter's been balanced in a very extreme way. It's given high DPR via a mechanic - multiple attacks/round - that has proven problematic every time it's been implemented, even in the most carefully-balanced versions of the game, making it potentially broken in combat. (Excessively high DPR isn't a benign kind of broken, either, it makes combats short and boring, and pushes the DM into an arms race to try to make the one round his baddest monster gets to act have an impact. The fighter may not be there yet, as a matter of course, but every bonus that can be applied to all attacks in a round potentially pushes him in that direction.)

Then, they 'balance' the fighter by giving him virtually nothing else. So you have a PC that is boring to his player for most of the the game, and also self-limits the pillar at which he actually shines, by reducing the time spent in that pillar, and rendering it boring for everyone else (but, really, that's a win, too, ass fast combat was a major 5e goal). Now, that's still not just the fighter. Other classes use equally poor balancing strategies - but few as clearly bad as the fighter's.

You're hearing two valid complaints about the fighter, and they don't contradict eachother the way you think. The fighter can be broken in terms of DPR pretty easily. The wrong feat, the wrong magic weapon, and *boom* your Legendary BBEG campaign-capstone encounter is rolled over like it's nothing. So the OP charge isn't baseless (though it's really unlikely to happen much, and it's fairly easy for an aware DM to head it off, ironically, by limiting or not using feats & items). Similarly, the fighter is minimally-contributing everywhere else. Interaction, Exploration, even aspects of combat other than single-target DPR, give the fighter little opportunity to contribute meaningfully (contribute, sure, but mostly warm-body contributions that anyone, even classless individuals could have done), and virtually none at all to shine. So the 'SUX' charge is back, and not entirely without reason. Unlike the OP potential, the fighter /is/ likely to sux a lot. Often because any player willing to settle for a fighter is aware of that classes long-time stereotype, and wanted to avoid participating in the other two pillars, anyway (that's why he brought that mobile device to the game), or because non-participation goes unnoticed as long as one or two players are actively engaged, or, when the DM is alert, concerned and talented enough, because the DM tailors his adventure to keep everyone involved, regardless of class.

The saving grace of 5e is that it Empower DMs to fix issues like these as they come up. It's a sort of synergy of goals. DM Empowerment and Classic Feel were both clearly very important goals from the start, and, while classic feel requires that classes be imbalanced in familiar ways, DM Empowerment presents the tools to resolve those disparities within the context of the individual campaign.