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

[Sacrosanct]

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.

I think I need to put in my sig: "Two EXTRA feats", because that's important. Yes, every class gets access to feats. But fighters can add that extra versatility (and it's a lot) while still being able to do just as many ability bumps or feats as every other class.

I said this earlier and no one ever replied. If it was hard baked into the fighter class that at 6th level they get any two cantrips and a first level spell, and at 12th level they can cast any ritual spell as a ritual, would people still say the fighter class can't do anything outside of combat? Of course not.

It's like people are punishing the design team for giving the fighter more choice, and that seems really odd to me.

 

[Corpsetaker]

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.

The fighter doesn't need anything else. What you are trying to do is mash everything in 12 levels because maybe you don't plan on going to 20th level. Also, you can't cut Second Wind, Action Surge, and Fighting style short. Second Wind and Action Surge recharge each short rest. The Paladin's Smite uses up spell slots which require a full day to recharge and you have to decide if you are going to Smite or cast a spell.

 

[Corpsetaker]

It's like people are punishing the design team for giving the fighter more choice, and that seems really odd to me.

If someone doesn't like the fighter then that's fair enough, but the arguments so far about the class are very weak. We hear all about how the class lacks in this or that and yet we don't see any examples of someone trying to do something with the fighter and weren't able to do it.

I also think a lot of the people have actually never played the fighter. They just look at the class and just decide that the other martial are better without any real evidence.

 

[Obryn]

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.

I'd say in a world like D&D, knowing about magic is pretty common. Kobolds and orcs have their shamans, etc.

And there's still the 'lightly armored and frail-looking bit."

The ability to actively intercept enemies is critical at the skirmish level, IMO. Once I had it, I never wanted to look back.

 

[Aribar]

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.

It's a shame that people who do like that have no good alternative in 5E, though. And that it is very odd to make a class specifically for people who seemingly don't care about the game more than "I hit with sword".

I think I need to put in my sig: "Two EXTRA feats", because that's important. Yes, every class gets access to feats. But fighters can add that extra versatility (and it's a lot) while still being able to do just as many ability bumps or feats as every other class.

I said this earlier and no one ever replied. If it was hard baked into the fighter class that at 6th level they get any two cantrips and a first level spell, and at 12th level they can cast any ritual spell as a ritual, would people still say the fighter class can't do anything outside of combat? Of course not.

It's like people are punishing the design team for giving the fighter more choice, and that seems really odd to me.

People who say that the fighter can't do anything outside of combat are silly and either exaggerating or being dishonest. They don't have the same level of narrative control as any other class, but they're not worthless. As it stands now, the Fighter has less choice than it did in 4E (very small selection of maneuvers) and 3E (much smaller selection of feats). Maybe in 5-10 years when there's a decent amount of supplements out I'll be able to revisit the 5E fighter and see combinations that bring my ideas to life better and easier than just taking other classes.

 

[DaveDash]

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.

Out of those, only the Paladin is stronger than the Fighter.

Out of all those classes, The Rogue is probably the one that needs help. It becomes very disappointing later on.

I don't think people realise that Rogues skills become redundant as you get higher levels, as you only really need them for DC25+ tasks. A dex based champion can make a great all round class, and itself MUCH stronger to be a Fighter with a couple of levels of Rogue, than the other way around.
Fighter x/Rogue2 is a very strong class all through the game.

I have experience with all those classes listed from low to high levels, yes, I've even experimented in mock combats with an abjurer/fighter battlemaster.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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.

Or it assumes that the DM is being smart and having the monster attack the uber-tough fighter, to give said fighter some relevance to the party.

The fighter doesn't have a mechanical means for making himself a target, he can't be quite the AoO threat he could be 3.x, and doesn't mark like 4e. But, with the power granted by DM empowerment comes the responsibility to use that power to make the game experience better. That can mean using in-world situations to highlight the contributions of each character, regardless of the specifics of the rules governing their class.

So if the monsters walk around the fighter to kill the soft targets he's protecting, that's not the fighter being screwed up, or the player of the fighter screwing up (necessarily), but it could very well be the DM screwing up, by taking rules that are meant to provide fast, simple combat, and using them adversarially to 'win' the game against the players, rather than to run a good game his players will enjoyh.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Tony, that's insightful, have XP. But I still am going to take issue with one of your points:

Or it assumes that the DM is being smart and having the monster attack the uber-tough fighter, to give said fighter some relevance to the party.

The fighter doesn't have a mechanical means for making himself a target, he can't be quite the AoO threat he could be 3.x, and doesn't mark like 4e. But, with the power granted by DM empowerment comes the responsibility to use that power to make the game experience better. That can mean using in-world situations to highlight the contributions of each character, regardless of the specifics of the rules governing their class.

The fighter may not have mechanical means of making himself the target, but other classes have mechanical means of making themselves not be the target, which is better. In an extreme case, if all the other 30' move PCs do is Dash directly away from the enemies while the 30' move enemies Dash directly towards them and the fighter Dashes to catch up and then deliver opportunity attacks... the PCs win that fight, because the fighter is the only one attacking. In practice most classes have better ways to not be attacked than just Dashing away, whether it is hiding behind cover (vs. missile foes) or Cunning Action/Expeditious Retreat or Spike Growth or something else.

The fighter does not want to be the target. That's wrongheaded. He wants everybody else not to be the target. In some situations these are similar things, but at a fundamental level they are different.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

What's wrong with the Fighter?

Not enough inherent, declarative abilities with inarguable application to non-combat. Also, its few inherent, declarative, potentially-non-combat abilities applying FAR more profitably to combat, such that expending them anywhere else feels, and *may* even be mathematically, inferior to saving them for combat.

Also, RA being completely outclassed by a generic (not subclass-specific) Bard ability while RA is Champ only, and "Know Your Enemy" being completely combat oriented, doesn't help.

I would need to think carefully about what kinds if declarative abilities would be appropriate for the Fighter archetype, and would ideally want to come up with a range of options to mirror (if not link directly to) the range of fighting styles available. That way, the meaningful choice is "what *ways* do I participate in each if the arenas of play (explicitly chosen to be important by the designers)?" rather than "should I *opt into* participating in the important arenas of play beyond what any warm body PC can do, or make my combat skills better?"

To my mind, the former question is a good choice that fosters creative play and encourages players to view every character as potentially important to any scene. The latter is a recipe for traps and disappointment, and encourages players to view their chars in a siloed manner. (I also think it reinforces the "big dumb fighter/barb" perception, which is an execrable flaw in a class supposedly ideal for new players.)

 

[Tony Vargas]

The fighter may not have mechanical means of making himself the target, but other classes have mechanical means of making themselves not be the target, which is better.

Well, better for them, theoretically, I suppose, not so good for trying to create the appearance of relevance for the fighter, but still not insurmountable.

The fighter does not want to be the target. That's wrongheaded. He wants everybody else not to be the target. In some situations these are similar things, but at a fundamental level they are different.

Very true. Marking and, IIRC, threatening, were always optional, the fighter could choose to go defensive and not block for another character, when it was a good idea (or a valid RP choice for some reason). Two defenders 'trading off' that way could be particularly frustrating to their enemies, for instance.

Threatening could lock an enemy into battle with the fighter, for instance, a 3.5 Fighter with Improved Trip & Spring Attack & a Spiked Chain could move in close to an enemy, if the enemy tried to get away, there'd be an AoO that might spoil his movement. 4e Combat Superiority was similar and worked from 1st level. They made the fighter 'sticky.'

Marking was specifically about protecting allies. Marked enemies attacked allies at -2 and generally triggered some sort of 'punishment' for doing so - and avoided both by attacking the defender that marked them, instead. The point is not drawing attack for it's own sake, but degrading & discouraging attacks against allies.