D&D 5E The Fighter Problem

[Aldarc]

More feats would also benefit the fighter without the need for errata.

I (tentatively) like the idea giving the Fighter more exclusive fighting styles as they level, but I am less enthusiastic about what I quoted here. This proposed "solution" resembles the advanced "solution" to the 3E Fighter's problem too eerily, which led to feat bloat (and an associated power creep) and a few other issues.

However, I have often heard, and am beginning to agree with, the idea that High Level Fighters don't match the fantasy. I'm only level 8 right now, but looking at the future I don't have a lot that isn't just more of what I've been doing. I'll get more attacks, more uses of Action Surge (not more uses of Second Wind which is odd) more uses of Indomitable, and there is this place where High Level Fighters should be more mythic in stature. Perhaps a reputation system added in or some sort of crazy semi-magic ability. I don't know, but while the Barbarian gets giant strength and the paladin becomes an angel, the fighter just doesn't hit that mythic mark for me.

Or to go back to Mearls's design goals for the fighter, why am I picking the Fighter to be Beowulf and not the Barbarian, especially if the Fighter is supposed to be ripping off Grendel's arm but the Barbarian could arguably do it better?

--------

All that said, I'm less interested in the debate of power levels between the fighter and associated classes. It's a bit too white room for my tastes. The discussion on the fighter's "story" and "fantasy," however, does interest me. A few people talked about the failure of the fighter in terms of their lack of story identity, including Mike Mearls himself. I happen to agree on that front, which is perhaps one reason why I have rarely - and I do stress rarely - seen fighters played in my D&D groups. Sure, they may represent a "blank slate," but that can also work against them, as was the case in my groups. There has not really been anything about fighters that have "sparked" a story or character. Again, I'm not saying that this is universal - if the fighter is one of the more popular classes, then truly something must be working right - but, rather, that this is my own circumstantial experience with fighters among my play groups. I agree with the earlier poster who talked about the problem exists if it's perceived to exist, but not otherwise. In this case, the perceived problem appears to be affecting the individuals in my groups. It's not as if fighting types are problems for them. I have seen them pick rangers, paladins, barbarians, and other gishes. Just not fighters.

In particular, I find the argument in favor of the fighter's "blank slate" status somewhat perplexing. It seems as if we take the fighter's lack of identity, story, or fantasy as a given and treat it as a privilege rather than a problem. But if having a "blank slate" is such a privilege, then why is that "privilege" only given to the fighter? Why just the fighter? Why not the mage, rogue, or cleric? Why do we want "blank slates" for the fighter but not want one for the wizard? Surely, there would be people who would want open-ended mages without stories too, if being a "blank slate" is truly as liberating as people claim. But this "appeal" only really surfaces when it comes to the fighter.

 

[Corwin]

No its true but there are class abilities better than a feat imho.

Again. There are class abilities that can be better than a feat in some circumstances. But I would caution you that whatever same feat you are denigrating, as inferior in the moment, will be "better" than the same class ability you are championing in other circumstances.

 

[Corwin]

Ironically my next PC concept is a dual wielding halfling fighter with weapon specialization.

Why ironically? Sounds like it has the potential to be a fun character. Of course, I tend to include a bit more "concept" in my "concept", other than race/class/powerz! But to each their own.

It is my honest belief that you would find a lot less problems with 5e if you stopped treating it like the last several editions and just enjoyed it for what it is on its own terms.

 

[Warpiglet]

I have a pal who only plays multi class characters. He cannot stand be pigeon-holed into one thing or another. Our other veteran player-friend often plays--his words--"a vanilla fighter" because he thinks they are entertaining. His characters have always been memorable.

It is interesting how perspective can make so much difference. I always want to do cool things in a game or have something really work, but I knew there was so much of a need for so much parity. In the old days I do not even think it was a real concern because under the right circumstances, the balance of power really shifted. Getting smacked around by some goblins is a joke to a tough fighter but would have been deadly to a wizard of great power. Maybe that is how we tolerated weak thieves and healing clerics?

Those quirks of forced role are not present and now some people really crave parity. Perfect parity of course would mean almost no variety.

If power and utility are lacking for a fighter (I disagree) why are we concerned about "fixing" them? If they don't have flavor and they cannot do much what is the end point? One thing I always deeply deeply hated about prestige classes was that they robbed the player of the opportunity to flesh things out for themselves.

I don't see an endpoint to this unless it is a few new varieties (surely they are coming). Realize some people want to play a slugger that....slugs.

Lastly, is the battlemaster and eldritch knight really lacking utility? Come on! Use those big DnD playing brains! If you do more than spam shield with your eldritch knight (take an illusion spell!) or something else. Couple it with a criminal background or something! Or maybe push charisma and a charlatan background! There are many, many unique characters to be had.

If it is just power, I do not think anyone but the champion should be questioned. Even then is it that far off? For the sake of argument, say the paladin is a real ball buster. The fighter seems like nothing with 2-3 attacks and great weapon master etc? I dunno...that seems odd to me. Is the problem actually identified by an earlier haiku one with the paladin being too tough for some peoples taste?

 

[dco]

In particular, I find the argument in favor of the fighter's "blank slate" status somewhat perplexing. It seems as if we take the fighter's lack of identity, story, or fantasy as a given and treat it as a privilege rather than a problem. But if having a "blank slate" is such a privilege, then why is that "privilege" only given to the fighter? Why just the fighter? Why not the mage, rogue, or cleric? Why do we want "blank slates" for the fighter but not want one for the wizard? Surely, there would be people who would want open-ended mages without stories too, if being a "blank slate" is truly as liberating as people claim. But this "appeal" only really surfaces when it comes to the fighter.

The PHB has an introduction for each class and then it starts to explain the class features. I don't understand what you and other people say about story, identity, fantasy, etc, it doesn't make any sense.

 

[Mistwell]

I was thinking about this. I had already come to the conclusion that Barbarian and Ranger were about on-par with Fighter and it was only Paladin who was superior at doing the things Fighters are "supposed" to do.

But then I noticed the MAD issue. Paladins need Charisma. It powers all those additional abilities people keep touting. They still need all the stats the Fighter needs: Strength and Con. And they cannot drop Wisdom, because they still need to make those saves despite having proficiency. And they can't completely dump Dex - way too many saves. But now they need Charisma, and not a middling Charisma because a simple 12 Charisma means most of those touted powers don't do much. So what, they can ONLY dump Intelligence? That's a MAD issue. It's not insurmountable, but it's definitely worse MAD than the Fighter is facing...while the Fighter also has a lot more ASIs than the Paladin to deal with that very issue.

So it again seems pretty close to on-par with the Fighter.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

I was thinking about this. I had already come to the conclusion that Barbarian and Ranger were about on-par with Fighter and it was only Paladin who was superior at doing the things Fighters are "supposed" to do.

But then I noticed the MAD issue. Paladins need Charisma. It powers all those additional abilities people keep touting. They still need all the stats the Fighter needs: Strength and Con. And they cannot drop Wisdom, because they still need to make those saves despite having proficiency. And they can't completely dump Dex - way too many saves. But now they need Charisma, and not a middling Charisma because a simple 12 Charisma means most of those touted powers don't do much. So what, they can ONLY dump Intelligence? That's a MAD issue. It's not insurmountable, but it's definitely worse MAD than the Fighter is facing...while the Fighter also has a lot more ASIs than the Paladin to deal with that very issue.

So it again seems pretty close to on-par with the Fighter.

This is a good point. My 18th level Paladin (or at least he started a Paladin then added other MCs, including Fighter) is nearly unassailable in combat with an unmodded AC of 26 with a Cloak of Displacement and often casts Haste and Shield. However his saves are meh because he concentrated on Str and Con but only has the minimum Cha (13). On the other hand my Fighter has saves that go right to his core stats of Str and Con & he can easily take Resilient to pick up another.

 

[Flamestrike]

Hordebreaker seems to trigger alot and hunters quarry lasts an hour so in effect its on most of the time by the mid levels. A bonus 1d6 per attack more ir kess all the time plus a 1d8 or extra attack tends to beat a fightets damage even with action surge.

The d6 dosent add to the damage of the extra attack (unless you drop your initial target and have a spare bonus action to shift hunters mark). And Hordebeaker is situation. You need a monster adjacent to another monster. It doesnt function on solo encounters, and on many encounters with 2-3 monsters. Obviously the more on the board, the more use you get out of it.

I'll take the reliable and high damage increase of (precise strike + higher Dex + sharpshooter) 4 x per short rest and action surge 1 x short rest over (hordebreaker + hunters mark).

And the ranger has spells and skills and exploration support while they deal similar damage.

Pfft. Exploration. It's the redheaded stepchild of the 'three pillars'. Most exploration is handwaved down to a montage, with an NPC telling you where to go and maybe a DC 10-15 survival check to avoid getting lost on the way.

Aside from interacting with your immediate environment of course (i'll listen at the door, prod the floor ahead of me with a 10' pole, jump over the pit, swim across the river, climb the tree, avoid the ambush etc) and the Fighter (who 9/10 selects athletics and perception as his mandatory two class skills) can handle those challenges just fine.

 

[Caliburn101]

I have a Champion Fighter in my group who's a Dex Archer, and his damage output is brutal. He is also an Outlander and acts like a mundane Ranger half the time. Great character, and a stone cold killer against an ambushed foe in the first round. At his current modest 6th level that's an action surged four arrows with +4 to hit (with advantage, so the equivalent of +9) and 1d8+14 damage per arrow incoming at his target(s), and that's if he doesn't critical with the 8 rolls he has against a 19-20...

 

[Chaosmancer]

If you want to compare survivability, then you need to factor the barbarian's resistance into the equation, which tends to compensate for the lower AC; even if the barbarian is getting hit twice as often as the fighter, the barbarian has more than twice as many effective HP, so they stay in the fight just as long. And where an enemy can use clever tactics to gain advantage against the fighter, that's a non-factor against the barbarian, since attacks against the barbarian are already made with advantage.

The higher AC is only a significant benefit to the fighter when making a comparison against a barbarian who isn't raging.

I’d disagree, and I’m curious why you don’t because of the bolded.

If the Barbarian is near constantly being attacked at advantage and has a lower AC, I find it reasonable to assume they are getting hit more than twice as often. This is compounded with my experience that Barbarians in my groups tend to be in the single digits after most fights, because their resistance makes them feel tougher than they actually are and they wade into the middle of groups of enemies and take 3 or 4 attacks where the other characters strip enemies from the edges and only get attacked 1 or 2 times.

I find higher AC is a slightly different part of the metric (at the table) than survivability, because an attack that misses is 0 damage, and being missed more often is better than taking 1/2 damage from every hit.

In particular, I find the argument in favor of the fighter's "blank slate" status somewhat perplexing. It seems as if we take the fighter's lack of identity, story, or fantasy as a given and treat it as a privilege rather than a problem. But if having a "blank slate" is such a privilege, then why is that "privilege" only given to the fighter? Why just the fighter? Why not the mage, rogue, or cleric? Why do we want "blank slates" for the fighter but not want one for the wizard? Surely, there would be people who would want open-ended mages without stories too, if being a "blank slate" is truly as liberating as people claim. But this "appeal" only really surfaces when it comes to the fighter.

This is difficult for me to answer, because I try very hard to wipe the slate clean with all the classes. I think this is the core of it though.

A wizard can have any backstory they want, but they had to study magic at some point.

A Paladin can have any story they want, but they had to make their oath at some point.

A Cleric can have any story they want, but they have to have some connection to a Diety.

A Rogue can have any story they want, but they are stealthy and shady most likely, or highly charismatic "playa's"

A fighter can have any story they want, but they had to learn to fight.


Any class can follow any path to get to "and now I'm an adventurer" but most of them need some element in their story to explain their awesome powers. The rogue seems to have more of a story, because most of us want them for stealthy missions and thieves tools, but honestly they can be built without any of that. Fighters just need to have been fighting, and with all of humanity and it's stories to choose from, that is a fairly easy thing to tie in. It literally can be represented by almost anything.


However, that doesn't mean that the fighters have no identity at all.

Battlemasters are highly skilled combatants who also take up an art (calligraphy, painting, sculpting, ect). This calls to mind the renaissance man style warriors, the french nobility or the Samurai of the Far East. Warriors who were devoted warriors but also men of culture, intelligence, and good breeding.

Eldritch Knights had to have studied magic, and a particular brand of magic that combines spell and steel into a single form.

Champions have the simplest stories, but they could also represent the simple folk. The Rambo or Stallone style of fighter who just brutally beats down those in their way (I know Rambo's skills and psyche is closer to barbarian, but he could also be a champion fighter with high dex and stealth skills, plus lots of good roleplaying). In fact, I built a champion for conventions who is a tough hide shifter, lots of AC, lots of health, and was left wondering the plains in the middle of a gnoll horde killing everything. Spent years just fighting to survive, no training, no fancy moves, just killing things.

The identity of the fighter seems generic, because war and fighting are generic to a game with as much combat as DnD, but that just leaves room. It allows us who already try and work from a blank slate that last bit of space, that part we can't erase from other classes is usually a focus, for fighters it is not necessarily their focus.