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

[UngeheuerLich]

You get a fraction (less than 90%, surely) of the fighter's Combat Challenge and Combat Superiority features. You're still down 5 builds and like 400 maneuvers.

As a beatstick and meatshield it's just fine, it does lots of damage, every round, and is reasonably durrable.
A worthy rendition of the 2e fighter.

It's a little less worthy of the 3.5 fighter. Not so elegant, only does a few of the many possible 'builds,' via combat styles, and a few more if optional feats are used.

And it's nothing at all like the 4e fighter which was both a functional defender (sometimes argued to be the 'best' in the game) and, well, balanced with the other classes out there, even the casters.

Take battlemaster and you don't need 400 maneuvers... which were really only 200 worthwhile and often 3 or 4 did the same but some level higher.
Yes the 4e fighter was really cool. But you are puking too much value in quantity than quality.
I don't know what the 3.5 fighter really brings him close to the 5e fighter... feats? Magic items maybe? Maybe non core feats...

Did you even play the fighter in 5e?

 

[Ashkelon]

Fighters tend to suck up enemy attacks.

Given that the average encounter is over in 3-4 turns (not at my tables, but that's because I actually tend to stack 2-3 encounters with no visible break; reinforcements show up as the last few hits are happening, etc)...

that fighters suck up attacks with (usually) high AC's - 16-20 - and can often make themselves insanely tough by level 10 if focusing on soaking rather than damaging. (By level 10, a fighter can be Con 20, 134 HP... if he goes for maximum HP. Starts at Con 16, takes +2 con each at 4th & 6th, Tough at 8th... so at 8th, 8(6+4+2)+4=(8*12)+4=100HP at 8th level... but he's still, at 8th, using a weapon that does d8+2 or d10+2, and rolling to hit with a +7 or +5 and some other benefit (fighting style).

That of course assumes your DM is an idiot and attacks the uber tough fighter instead of the paper thin wizard, warlock, monk, bard, sorcerer, etc.

The fighter really doesn't have a means of making himself a target. I've played in games where enemies straight up ignored me, ate an OA if needed, and proceeded to beat upon the party wizard. Once my single reaction was used up, the rest of the enemies could get by me without even worrying.

 

[Corpsetaker]

That of course assumes your DM is an idiot and attacks the uber tough fighter instead of the paper thin wizard, warlock, monk, bard, sorcerer, etc.

That is of course if you are assuming the DM is metagaming and knows who the wizard is.

 

[MoutonRustique]

That is of course if you are assuming the DM is metagaming and knows who the wizard is.

In this instance, a metagaming DM could be said to be required to attack the fighter - if you're modeling things that don't feel like dying right away, having them not challenge the walking-heavily-armoured-large-weapon-wielding-thing-obviously-in-front-and-ready-for-battle seems like a good idea, no?

Who attacks, whom, on what cues, etc are so table dependent that they can't really be discussed over the "state a preference" level.

In this regard, that the fighter doesn't have a lot of tools to "force the DM's hand" in a sense can be perceived as a weakness/flaw to be addressed.

That you, yourself, have found a way (probably through the "DM empowerment" line of options) to solve this in no way negates the veracity of the counter-opinion.

 

[Obryn]

That is of course if you are assuming the DM is metagaming and knows who the wizard is.

She's the one who's tossing spells around, obviously.

With the way initiative works in D&D - I go, you go, I go - defender style mechanics fill in a needed void. They allow a smoother, less staccato ability to interfere with enemies.

 

[Mephista]

Well, the obvious answer that everyone seems to give is that spells are pretty much automatic. Of course, that ignores the fact that they aren't, in the broad spectrum of the game. Limited slots, having the right one prepared, concentration saves, etc all are important factors that need to be considered. D&D isn't hardly ever done in arena style where you're always at max resources at every battle.

There was a lot of effort put in to make it so that spells can't replace skill checks. I mean, in theory, Telekinesis can replace STR checks, but that's a fairly high level Concetration spell... There's Guidance, but its a cleric spell that can be used on others to greater effect than one's self. So.... perception and overly generous GMs?

 

[Aribar]

Just because something is designed to your personal desires doesn't make something "the worst". For a lot of people, it's the best.

No strong identity? If you're talking about how a player handles the class, then I posit the PCs identity is how you play the PC. And fighters have just as much if not more (thanks to two extra feats) choices to build that identity. I have a halfling fighter with a criminal background and dungeon delver who is very similar to a fighter/thief in AD&D. My friend plays an archer fighter that is a close emulation of Legolas. Another friend has a fighter with magic initiate and ritual caster. And one of my other fighters has inspiring leader, mounted combat, heavy armor master and is your famous knight in shining armor.

If you're talking about literary identity to draw from, the fighter has more than any other class.

I thought that Champion was widely considered one of the weakest choices because crits aren't powerful and remarkable athlete is anything but. Maybe that's just D&D players in my area thinking that. As for the second point, I kinda mean the class itself. Anyone can take those feats, but personally all those concepts you've put forth I would feel happier playing as a Rogue, or a Ranger, or a Paladin, or a "mountain dwarf" abjurer wizard, with maybe a 1-3 level dip in Fighter if I really need Battlemaster features or something. Those would allow me to more effectively play the role since they have better mechanics to back up the fiction.

 

[Corpsetaker]

She's the one who's tossing spells around, obviously.

With the way initiative works in D&D - I go, you go, I go - defender style mechanics fill in a needed void. They allow a smoother, less staccato ability to interfere with enemies.

So all creatures know how magic works?

Also, most of the classes cast spells so feel free to play a bit of roulette and see which one you get.

 

[Quartz]

Some posters in this thread repeat the issue of two extra feats. Unfortunately, the first extra feat comes at 6th level, and the second at 14th level. And the fighter gets stiffed at very high levels by not getting feats at 18th and 20th levels - indeed, if you look at the Eldritch Knight you can see that the Martial Archetype feature was supposed to come in at 19th level, not the feat / ASI. At low levels, the fighter has no extra feats, and at mid and high levels, only one. That's not a significant difference. By rights there should be an extra feat at 10th level, but even putting that back in is a bit late. And IMHO the Battlemaster only really shines at 11th level when she can use her third attack to expend a BM manoeuvre.

If you look at other fighting classes (e.g. Paladin, Ranger) you'll note that they get two or more features at level 2 whereas the fighter gets only one. Might it be worth throwing a few skills or something the Fighter's way at level 2? A full feat seems too much.

 

[Corpsetaker]

I thought that Champion was widely considered one of the weakest choices because crits aren't powerful and remarkable athlete is anything but. Maybe that's just D&D players in my area thinking that. As for the second point, I kinda mean the class itself. Anyone can take those feats, but personally all those concepts you've put forth I would feel happier playing as a Rogue, or a Ranger, or a Paladin, or a "mountain dwarf" abjurer wizard, with maybe a 1-3 level dip in Fighter if I really need Battlemaster features or something. Those would allow me to more effectively play the role since they have better mechanics to back up the fiction.

The fighter champion was designed specifically for people who basically just want to swing a sword. There was overwhelming disappointment with the way the 4th edition fighter was handled.