Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Zardnaar" data-source="post: 7096624" data-attributes="member: 6716779">Over the years 5E has been out there have been a few complaints about the fighter sucking usually the champion. I am also not a fan of the Eldritch Knight either while the Battlemaster is the best one IMHO. While I do not think the fighter is bad as such I do think it has a few issues. I will examine a few of those issues here. 1. Failure to meet expectations. Its kind of in the name. Fighter it implies that you are good at fighting. 5E also has this problem with the various gish builds such as Valor Bards, the SCAG Bladedancer, Pact of the Blade and Eldritch Knight options. The main problem is though the fighter is not actually that good at fighting  compared with the Paladin, Ranger and Barbarian. Unlike those classes it also gives up a lot to get what abilities it does have. Paladins in effect are proficient in every save at level 6 and grant that bonus to nearby allies, Rangers have out of combat abilities and Barbarians can generally tank damage and deal a lot of damage as well. 2. The Other Warrior Types Out Damage it. And Out Utility it.  At least for the 1st 10/20 levels of the game. In addition to the other warrior types having out of combat abilities they are also better than the fighter in combat as they are matching spells+class abilities up against action surge. All Rangers and Avenger Paladins for example get hunters mark which in effect is an extra 1d6 points of damage. Hunter Rangers also get either an extra 1d8 points of damage or an extra attack. Sure the damage is situational but its very easy situation to trigger and Hunters also get volley later on. Extra attacks+ the sharpshooter feat may also be good or so I hear.  And Barbarians get that whole advantage to hit thing and proficiency bonus to damage via rage and most of the warrior types also get a combat style. All Paladins can also smite and the Oath of the Ancients gets some AoE spells and one of the best auras in the game. 3. To Many Key Fighter Abilities Arrive late. The fighter in theory will eventually out damage the other classes as they get a 3rd and 4th attack at level 11 and 20. I practice this means you get a 3rd attack, the 4th attack may as well be tales from la la land or a myth and legend due to how many level 20 games you will actually see. Extra uses of action sure and indomitable also come late along with the Eldritch Knight spell patter (level 15 for level 3 spells). Second Wind also scales poorly at the higher levels (well actually from level 2 or 3). Since I suspect most players do not see level 11+ games that often they never see the fighter in their element. Even if they do play higher level games at best the fighter is gimped for 50% of its career and more likely 66.6% of the time if you finish up at level 15. Once again how many level 20 games are you actually going to see. Indomitable is also a piss poor thing with the traditional AD&D/BECMI fighter with good saves at higher level being replaced with a limited amount of rerolls. The fighter does get 2 more feats than everyone else (more likely 1 in the real world) but you can only take resilient once and their are arguments about it being a feat tax anyway. Even in 5E some classes get an extra save option (transmuter), proficiency in all saves (Monk), and virtual Proficiency in all saves (Paladin). Indomitable should just be pick a new save proficiency IMHO. 4. Class is Front Loaded. In 5E medium armor kind of sucks with the default array. A single level of fighter gets you proficiency in con and strength saves, martial weapons, a combat style and heavy armour proficiency as the main appeal, you also get second wind. Con saves are important for a spellcaster and strength saves are fairly common out of the 3 weaker saves (str, con, dex). To be a better valor bard, blade lock, some cleric builds, and arguably Ranger (melee builds) and Paladin start your career as a fighter. Proficiency in con saves is massive for gish builds especially ones planning on entering melee. Its also good for dex based Rogues for some builds or strength based Rogues tanking around in heavy armor using a rapier+ shield+shieldmaster+expertise in athletics and dual wielding Rogues. Rangers and Paladins can have 2 weapon styles by level 3 and are proficient in con saves for hunters mark. Fighter saves good, Rogue saves more or less the worst in game also Druids and Wizards might want to have a word about that.  So there you have it. If you want to be a good archer player a hunter ranger, if you want to tank and deal good damage be a barbarian, if you want a gish play a Paladin or MC the fighter. A well built battlemaster is decent in the right party (read Rogue or sharpshooter player in the group). Only play a fighter if you start at level 11+ or if you know the game is going to high levels and you have a realistic chance to reach those levels and play to level 15 at least. Action surge is cute/great but its not really enough vs the other options. Can you have fun playing a fighter absolutely but I can also have fun with Toast the RPG where the goal is to play as a piece of toast and aim for various spreads. Mechanically the fighter is outclassed for half its career and probably all or most of it in the real world.</blockquote>

Verification