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

[Quajek]

[MENTION=6774887]Ashkelon[/MENTION]: You completely ignored my post about party composition. How did you feel about my point that it's not a problem with the Fighter, but rather a problem with you picking a class that your party didn't actually have any unique use for?

If you have a party that already has a Life Cleric focused solely on healing, you shouldn't bother playing as a Bard that is focused solely on Healing, or you'll feel overshadowed. That role is covered.

Your party already has a Wildshaping Druid with absolutely no restrictions on what type of animal he can be or for how long or how many times per day, and a Bard who is also the strongest man in the world. Your Fighter is irrelevant in that party.

But there are plenty of parties where Fighters are important and have lots to do.

 

[Imaro]

Sadly, with a class as hard-focused on DPR as the 5e fighter, they generally are. That's the biggest of the things 'wrong with the fighter' - it lacks the flexibility of the 3.5 fighter, and doesn't make a distinct enough contribution from the other non-magic-using sub-classes (also all DPR oriented in combat).

What is this assertion about the 5e fighter based on (I've noticed in numerous discussions you have a habit of popping in, objectively declaring something and not providing any evidence whatsoever to back it up)? I find it interesting you acknowledge the flexibility of the 3e fighter when the reality was the same as the 5e fighter... if you wanted him to be flexible he could be, but if you wanted him to be extremely optimized... well then it was better to make him a tripping one-trick pony... At the end of the day the 5e fighter is a very customizable class, that puts part of the onus on making him more than a DPR generator on the choices a particular player makes... the same as it was in 3.5.

Maxing DEX and taking Sharpshooter is an obvious alternative.

Adept: very skilled or proficient at something....

So is your argument that a fighter cannot be skilled or proficient at dealing damage without GWM/SS and maxing their attack stat? If so, you're wrong. If not... well then you're in agreement with me.

To uniquely contribute you need to do something others can't, or do it better. Supposedly, the fighter's extra ASI at 6th gives him a shot at 'doing better.' In this case, though, it seems there was a diversity of high stats and proficiencies in the party, such that the fighter wasn't ever that competitive with them. It's always possible, of course, that a fighter's 14th level ASI put to some tertiary stat that no one else invested in would give the fighter a +1 edge with those stat checks, it just didn't happen in that instance.

Yes and even when he was the best at something [MENTION=6774887]Ashkelon[/MENTION] claimed it didn't matter because of bounded accuracy...

 

[Ashkelon]

1.) You can have 20 Str and Lucky at level 8, even from standard array. Check your math: +1 from race is 16, then you get feats at level 4, 6, and 8.

You forgot I took great weapon master at 6. Missing out on that would reduce my damage by 30-40% which would been terrible for our group.

2.) In what way is the bard's 5% chance of falling "better" than the fighter's 2.25%?

well that is per failure. If you need to make multiple rolls (such as in most climbing or swimming attempts, eventually, your luck will run out). Sure if you only ever make 3 Athletics checks per day, lucky can be useful for improving ones athletic capabilities, but that is rarely the case. Besides, if the bard really needs to he can use Bulls Strength or spider climb to reduce his chance of falling to 0, a feat the fighter can never accomplish.

Side note: the Druid took lucky and found it far more useful for refilling saving throws. Failing a saving throw can be far more brutal than failing a skill check most of the time.

You can't exclude Luck dice because they're there to be used. As DCs climb and consequences for failure rise, Lucky's advantage increases further. When a single DC 20 check stands between you and avoiding 20d6 to someone you care about, would you rather have the bard's 50% success rate or the Lucky fighter's 84%?

when do you ever have a challenge where a single roll determines whether or not you will take 20d6 damage? Climbing a 200 foot cliff over a pool of magma? Congrats, the bard uses spider climb or someone else use flight because a 0% chance of taking 20d6 damage is much better than a 16% chance of that...

3.) With an athletics-optimized shieldmaster bard in the party, no wonder you went GWM. That's a good team. Doesn't go so well with archers but is great with GWM halberdiers.

yep, the Bard knocking people prone + GWM fighter is brutal. The bard would use Bulls strength on himself (lasts an hour), to gain advantage to Strength checks so he could knock creatures prone quite easily. Honestly, the bard didn't even feel all that optimized for Strength either. He never raised it above its starting now value of 16. He took shield master at 4 and resilient (Con) at 8.

 

[Imaro]

...Double Post

 

[Ashkelon]

@Ashkelon: You completely ignored my post about party composition. How did you feel about my point that it's not a problem with the Fighter, but rather a problem with you picking a class that your party didn't actually have any unique use for?If you have a party that already has a Life Cleric focused solely on healing, you shouldn't bother playing as a Bard that is focused solely on Healing, or you'll feel overshadowed. That role is covered.Your party already has a Wildshaping Druid with absolutely no restrictions on what type of animal he can be or for how long or how many times per day, and a Bard who is also the strongest man in the world. Your Fighter is irrelevant in that party.But there are plenty of parties where Fighters are important and have lots to do.

So it's my fault for wanting to play a fighter?Or I should only play a fighter if the group has no valor bard, war cleric, barbarian, paladin, blade-warlock, Druid, or rogue with expertise in Athletics?Kind of limiting, don't you think? Especially when I stated that I typically enjoy martial characters in general but hate spell slots.


Besides, I have played 5e in a party with no Strength primary PC before. Training in athletics is overrated (except for its use in combat). Climbing, jumping, and swimming just aren't all that challenging or important to the game. Especially when many low level spells can simply bypass such challenges. By level 7+, the need to make athletics checks is almost nonexistent and any party can get by with someone with a 14 Strength and the guidance cantrip.


P.S. Wild shape twice per short rest is more than enough to cover both combat and utility needs.

 

[Imaro]

Well I will say this... I am amazed that in a highly optimized party a warlock wasted an invocation on learning some skills... but maybe that's just me.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I find it interesting you acknowledge the flexibility of the 3e fighter when the reality was the same as the 5e fighter...

The customizeability of the 3.x fighter was really quite remarkable. Most of his class features were in the form of 11 bonus feats (aside from that, he had full BAB, and slightly higher than typical hps). With a large list of 'fighter feats' (only a couple of which were fighter-exclusive) to choose from, the fighter could out-feat any other class in some fighting specialty, while leaving /all/ his regular feats from leveling to other things, if he so desired (or to master other feat chains, or mastering the first one much sooner than other characters could). Feats weren't optional, and you didn't sacrifice vital stat increases to get them.

So you could build a very high-damage charge build, multi-attacking build (via Great Cleave or WWA, practical multi-target multi-attacking, too), battle-field-control build, archery, mounted combat, etc...

Of course, if you wanted spellcasting you needed to multi-class - but then multi-classing wasn't optional, either, and the EK was an availabe PrC in 3.5, as well.

5e fighters are a lot more locked-in. They're multi-attacking DPR specialists. Style choice makes a modest difference to the exact context of that DPR (ranged vs melee, more or less tanky). Battlemaster doesn't open up a much greater range of options than everyone had by default in 3.5, and makes them limited-use. EK gives you a gish alternative if multi-classing isn't available (but in 3.5, it was, as was the EK PrC).

Now, admittedly, all that cool & awesome aside, the 3.5 fighter was still languishing in Tier 4. But it was still a lot more open to a much wider range of builds than the 5e fighter (or, 4e fighter, which was almost as locked into the Defender role as the 5e fighter is locked into that of Striker) - that it had the misfortune to be in the same game with 3.5 casters, not withstanding.

5e feats are 'bigger,' sure, but you can still compare that proportionately. 5e characters will typically get at least 5 feats over 20 levels. 3e characters typically got at least 7. 5e fighters get 2 bonus feats, at 6th and 14th, 3e fighters got 11 bonus feats, 1 at first, one at 2nd, and one at each even-numbered level.

Now, I'm not sure if it would really help that much to restore that proportion, whether that'd be to give the Fighter more ASIs (6!) - feats are optional, stats max out at 20 - or take them away from everyone else (1-2?).

So is your argument that a fighter cannot be skilled or proficient at dealing damage without GWM/SS and maxing their attack stat? If so, you're wrong. If not... well then you're in agreement with me.

Just pointing out that GWM isn't the only optimal option, let alone the only option. I don't necessarily agree that choosing between an optimal specialized feat and a sub-optimal one that is also generally available, is all that great a way of differentiating a character. And, I certainly can't agree that it's any kind of balancing mechanism when feats are, themselves, options that may or may not be available in a given campaign.

Of course, it's possible to factor out the impact of arguably 'overpowered' feats by simply assuming feats are not being used.

ASIs are still pretty important. Bounded Accuracy makes every point of attack bonus or save DC pure gold, so maxxing attack and caster stats is only to be expected - and sure to be done by the second or third feat at the outside. Having that extra +1 bonus in STR or DEX at 6th & 7th level, before moving on to other stats or feats (if allowed) later, is definitely one of the perks the fighter gets.

Yes and even when he was the best at something [MENTION=6774887]Ashkelon[/MENTION] claimed it didn't matter because of bounded accuracy...

You really do need to be more than just advertising-claim 'best' (no one has a higher bonus than me? Woohoo! I'm the best... and so is everyone else with the same bonus) to grab even 5e's DM-arbitrated spotlight-style 'balance,' yes. Like I pointed out, above, you need a pretty large advantage for it to show up meaningfully above the noise of d20 randomness. Expertise does that handily at higher level, for instance. Special abilities that obviate checks or do things checks can't are the other obvious way to get there.

So it's my fault for wanting to play a fighter?

Ultimately, for wanting to play a martial character that didn't conform to the 5 available archetypes.

For instance, I doubt you'd have been much happier with a Berserker or Champion than you were with the Battlemaster. A rogue would have obviously given you a very different experience, but just as obviously wouldn't have fit the character concept.

Or I should only play a fighter if the group has no valor bard, war cleric, barbarian, paladin, blade-warlock, Druid, or rogue with expertise in Athletics?Kind of limiting, don't you think? Especially when I stated that I typically enjoy martial characters in general but hate spell slots.

Or you could play the Barbarian or the Rogue with Expertise in Athletics, I suppose.

 

[Hussar]

I'm still not seeing any tangible evidence as to the fighter being bad in anyway. When I stand back and look at the fighter, I see a class that was built exactly how the designers wanted it.

Something else that bothers me is how come the person with the highest numerical value in something has to be the one to attempt it? When you actually look at the math, there isn't much of a numbers difference between someone who has gone all out in a skill vs someone who spends less resource in it. Also depends on the situation as well. I would rather send in the elf who may not have scores as high when dealing with other elves. There are still some remnants of previous editions where the highest score means better interaction from NPCs.

I'm very happy this edition wasn't designed fully around my number vs your number, challenge solved.

Well, that's hardly surprising considering that you pooh pooh every criticism and ignore everything that doesn't fit. :/

But, actually, I do agree with you here. There is nothing wrong with the fighter as written. It's a fun class. Does what it says on the tin - take this class if you want to beat on things with a lumpy metal thing. Fair enough.

What most of the people here are asking for though, is a fighter, as in non-magical option - that has as many choice points as a caster. By 10th level a Battlemaster, the most complex non-magical character, has about 10 choice points between an extra feat, Manoeuvres and the other odds and sods. Note, most of those choices, about 8 of them, have been made by 6th level.

Compare to a caster, which chooses 1 or 2 new spells every level, possibly can opt to swap out 1 known spell every level, and then chooses subclasses which contain yet more options. A 10th level caster simply has more options. Does anyone disagree with that? Does anyone think that non-casters have as many options as casters?

So, why not something like the old 1e Martial Arts rules from Oriental Adventures - you have a tree of maneuvers slotted off into different styles. You can choose breadth - take a new low level manoeuvre from another school, or, after you have two lower level manoeuvres you can take a higher level maneuver and gain specialization in a particular style.

There, poof. Non-dissassociated, perfectly in keeping with the nature system for giving caster levels of options to a fighter. Might take about ten pages for the manoeuvres. Done.

 

[Imaro]

The customizeability of the 3.x fighter was really quite remarkable. Most of his class features were in the form of 11 bonus feats (aside from that, he had full BAB, and slightly higher than typical hps). With a large list of 'fighter feats' (only a couple of which were fighter-exclusive) to choose from, the fighter could out-feat any other class in some fighting specialty, while leaving /all/ his regular feats from leveling to other things, if he so desired (or to master other feat chains, or mastering the first one much sooner than other characters could). Feats weren't optional, and you didn't sacrifice vital stat increases to get them.

You do realize the battlemaster has numerous maneuvers that allow him to do many of the things the 3e fighter had to spend multiple feats on just to become proficient enough to have a decent chance of success in there usage.

So you could build a very high-damage charge build, multi-attacking build (via Great Cleave or WWA, practical multi-target multi-attacking, too), battle-field-control build, archery, mounted combat, etc...

but majority of your feats are going to one, possibly 2 builds because you need to spend multiple feats in order to be decent at most of these builds...

The 5e battlemaster is already a multi-target multi-attacker (since movement can now be split and he has maneuvers that protects him against OA's and allow him to damage nearby enemies), the battlemaster can exert battle field control through conditions, pushing & maneuvering maneuvers, the protection fighting style, sentinel feat, etc. He increases his damage just by using Superiority dice but can also take Great Weapon Fighting style, Riposte maneuver and the SS and GWM feats, he can be a high accuracy fighter through Precision Strike and can be an archer by taking the archery style and maneuvers that work with ranged attacks... so yeah I'm not buying the more customizable argument with what you've presented above (at least not taking core vs. core... once splatbooks enter the picture it's a different story.)

Could a core 3e fighter heal? Grant his allies attacks and/or maneuver them into and out of different positions? Reduce damage to himself? These and more are all things a BM can do with maneuvers...

Of course, if you wanted spellcasting you needed to multi-class - but then multi-classing wasn't optional, either, and the EK was an availabe PrC in 3.5, as well.

And yet with the fighter I don't have to multi-class to get spells...

5e fighters are a lot more locked-in. They're multi-attacking DPR specialists. Style choice makes a modest difference to the exact context of that DPR (ranged vs melee, more or less tanky). Battlemaster doesn't open up a much greater range of options than everyone had by default in 3.5, and makes them limited-use. EK gives you a gish alternative if multi-classing isn't available (but in 3.5, it was, as was the EK PrC).

Again...with the objective statements and nothing backing them up... I've listed only a fraction of what the BM can accomplish above and it's way beyond what everyone had by default in 3.5... and your comparison of a multi-class fighter is flawed since we are comparing the customization of the fighter... not the fighter plus other classes. So yeah... You haven't really shown anything once again... just stated your, IME, incorrect opinion as fact. Put something up here to prove what you are stating and maybe I'll start to actually take your statements seriously but right now, just as in the other post you aren't backing your claims up with anything concrete.

Now, admittedly, all that cool & awesome aside, the 3.5 fighter was still languishing in Tier 4. But it was still a lot more open to a much wider range of builds than the 5e fighter (or, 4e fighter, which was almost as locked into the Defender role as the 5e fighter is locked into that of Striker) - that it had the misfortune to be in the same game with 3.5 casters, not withstanding.

That's funny because a BM with Protection Style, Menacing Attack, Goading Attack, Trip Attack and/or Pushing Attack with the Sentinel Feat and the Polearm Master Feat makes one helluva defender... but yeah you keep waxing on about what can't be done with the fighter in 5e and I'll stick to actual facts.

5e feats are 'bigger,' sure, but you can still compare that proportionately. 5e characters will typically get at least 5 feats over 20 levels. 3e characters typically got at least 7. 5e fighters get 2 bonus feats, at 6th and 14th, 3e fighters got 11 bonus feats, 1 at first, one at 2nd, and one at each even-numbered level.

Yes and seeing as how most games don't go past 10th level... most of those feats were going towards building up the 1-2 things your build was centered around to an acceptable level that the BM is laready at with his scaling maneuvers... and he still gets feats. Let's also not forget a BM can retrain his maneuvers... a fighter couldn't retrain feats...that strikes me as way more customizable.

Just pointing out that GWM isn't the only optimal option, let alone the only option. I don't necessarily agree that choosing between an optimal specialized feat and a sub-optimal one that is also generally available, is all that great a way of differentiating a character. And, I certainly can't agree that it's any kind of balancing mechanism when feats are, themselves, options that may or may not be available in a given campaign.

The question wasn't about optimal... it was about whether the feat was needed to be adept at dealing damage... it isn't. Just as an easy example, a fighter who trips an opponent and allows his allies to get advantage (along with every other attack he has left) is probably outputting more damage than a fighter with GWM... In other words the feat isn't necessary for a fighter to be adept at dealing damage.

Of course, it's possible to factor out the impact of arguably 'overpowered' feats by simply assuming feats are not being used.

ASIs are still pretty important. Bounded Accuracy makes every point of attack bonus or save DC pure gold, so maxxing attack and caster stats is only to be expected - and sure to be done by the second or third feat at the outside. Having that extra +1 bonus in STR or DEX at 6th & 7th level, before moving on to other stats or feats (if allowed) later, is definitely one of the perks the fighter gets.

All I'll say is you seem to have quite a few assumptions about how the game is/should be played... that don't really line up with what I've seen or what some/many posters are stating.

You really do need to be more than just advertising-claim 'best' (no one has a higher bonus than me? Woohoo! I'm the best... and so is everyone else with the same bonus) to grab even 5e's DM-arbitrated spotlight-style 'balance,' yes. Like I pointed out, above, you need a pretty large advantage for it to show up meaningfully above the noise of d20 randomness. Expertise does that handily at higher level, for instance. Special abilities that obviate checks or do things checks can't are the other obvious way to get there.

Or you could take some non-combat feats... unless of course the non-combat stuf just isn't that important to you... then I would expect you to just focus on what is.

 

[Ashkelon]

I kind of wish feats had been split into combat feats and expert feats (like they were in one of the play test packets), and that characters got a specific number of each type of feat.

So a level 20 fighter might have 6 combat feats (including + STR, Dex, or Con) and 4 expert feats (including + Int, Wis, or Cha). A level 20 rogue might have 4 combat feats and 4 expert feats. A
level 20 wizard or cleric might have 4 and 4.

I really think it was a huge mistake having combat character creature resources share space with noncombat character creation resources. Combat is such a large part of D&D; it has the most rules, takes up the most time at the table, and often has the most severe consequences for failure.

The feats that provide noncombat utility don't actually do all that much. Seriously, compare what those feats do to what 3 levels of bard, warlock, wizard, cleric, or rogue provide. Those 3 levels easily provide 5x more non combat capability than any of the feats. Even 1 level of most of those classes provide more utility than those feats.

Then we have certain feats that are way too good in combat compared to other feats. Great Weapon Master increases your damage by 25-45%. That is way too good to pass up.

These factors combine to make non combat feats significantly less appealing than combat feats. Having players get to take both combat and utility feats would help even the playing field a little. It would ensure that all classes can gain some unique and interesting non combat options.