Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Quickleaf" data-source="post: 7097055" data-attributes="member: 20323">In actual 5e play, I've never felt the fighter sucked in terms of overall combat effectiveness, whether I've been playing a fighter or DMing for fighter players. It feels perfectly capable. My concerns with the fighter's design are more thematic in nature.  [MENTION=5889]Stalker0[/MENTION] actually did an <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?359873-Barb-vs-Fighter-vs-Monk-vs-Paladin!" target="_blank">analysis of barbarian, fighter, monk, and paladin</a> and the Fighter looks strong in overall combat effectiveness (as determined by DPR x RIS, where DPR = damage per round, and RIS = rounds I survived). The Paladin only comes out ahead by committing massive resources (that recharge during a long rest) in a single fight...and then that Paladin will be at a disadvantage in later fights when the Fighter recharges Action Surge / Second Wind / Superiority Dice after a short rest (though its worth noting that [MENTION=5889]Stalker0[/MENTION]'s analysis uses a Champion Fighter, not a Battle Master, and the Champion still comes out ahead in overall combat effectiveness compared to Barbarian, Monk, and Paladin over the course of the adventuring day.His mathematical findings mirror my own observations at the table as both DM and player.You have two points here: Damage and Utility. I think you're incorrect about damage, but I agree with you about utility.The first – that other warrior types out damage the Fighter – is only true if you're designing your comparison to favor other warrior types; namely, by looking at a single encounter day during which the Paladin expends all its spell slots to smite. In that case? Yes, the paladin would deal more damage than a fighter. But over the course of an adventuring day with a couple short rests? The fighter is in the lead.The second – that the fighter's utility is less than other warrior types – I would totally agree with. Conceptually, I think it's a mistake to continue using the name "fighter" because it's an anemic term that whittles down the concept to just fighting...an action ALL adventurers do in D&D. My preference is to replace it with "warrior" which has a broader connotation of belonging to a warrior caste/culture and having a cause – and that reinterpretation leads to new creative space to introduce more options for the class out of combat. For example, in my take on the Warrior I invented "Camp Talents".I will add, however, that Action Surge has good potential to be used in non-combat situations, but is easily overlooked in these sorts of conversations that can hyper-focus on DPR.OK, lots of points here...By your reasoning, wizards shouldn't have to wait till 17th level to get 9th level spells, because 17th level "may as well be tales from la la land." Same goes for rogues getting Elusive at 18th level, or any high-level class features. That doesn't make sense.I believe the intent with Second Wind was that as you advance into higher levels, there are more combats (and more challenging combats) and therefor more the DM is expected to provide more short rests. I haven't seen that explicitly called out in the books, but it would make sense if the designers believed Second Wind would be used more frequently during the course of an adventuring day at 15th level than at 1st level.The fighter's "element" relies more upon Action Surge than the 11th or 20th level Extra Attack. So, it's not gimped by that metric.But I *think* the heart of what you're implying is that the fighter doesn't FEEL especially unique? And in that case, I'd agree. I have a theory...that this lack of uniqueness is, in part, due to how often the Fighter (Battle Master) gets to use superiority dice vs. a Paladin gets to use divine smite, vs. a Barbarian gets to rage, vs. a Ranger gets to use hunter's mark. At 1st level, the Fighter (Battle Master) looks pretty good compared to the others, but by 11th level the Fighter (Battle Master) is actually using its signature thing – superiority dice – LESS frequently, whereas the Paladin, Monk, and Ranger at 11th level use their signature things MORE frequently.Indomitable may be a weird design choice (esp. when the Rogue gets WIS proficiency at 15th via Slippery Mind, a much simpler design choice), but when compared to other features in 5e (not AD&D/BECMI), Indomitable is pretty decent. I have seen plenty of folks house rule it so that you only expend a use of Indomitable if you succeed your save (i.e. if you fail even with the re-roll, you don't expend a use of Indomitable).While I associate the Fighter with being "really good at saving throws" from early on in their career, it seems like the designers avoided this for <s>two</s> reasons:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">They wanted the Paladin to fill the niche of "really good at saving throws" thanks to Aura of Protection.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">They didn't want to further front-load the Fighter, and make it even more tempting to multi-class fighter for boosted saves.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">EDIT: Also, I think they wanted to differentiate the Paladin's Aura of Protection (always on "blessing") vs. the Fighter's Indomitable (activated "gritting your teeth and shaking it off). While the Paladin's Aura is awesome at general defense (assuming CHA of +2 or +3 eventually advancing to +5 at higher levels), the Fighter's Indomitable is good for resisting a singe really nasty effect (e.g. petrification, which hopefully doesn't come up multiple times a day) thanks to probabilities similar to advantage (which tends to translate to roughly a +4 bonus, depending on the target number). And by the time the Paladin is getting +5 to saves, the Fighter can use Indomitable twice versus the same really nasty effect. So, the Paladin is general coverage, but the Fighter is spot protection.</li> </ul>I'm all for insightful analysis and critique of the Fighter class, but if you're assuming "more likely 1 in the real world", then you'd better be assuming the same thing for other class features when you're comparing them to the Fighter. It's only fair.All of the classes are front loaded, and those like Sorcerer and Cleric even moreso than the Fighter. And the reasons you cite for multi-classing just 1st level in Fighter, I remember a dual-classed PC in AD&D who took a 1st-level in Fighter for most of those same reasons.Actually, if you look at most classes, they provide 2 features at 2nd-level (e.g. Barbarian's danger sense & reckless attack / Monk's ki & unarmored movement / Paladins' divine smite & fighting style & spellcasting / Ranger's fighting style & spellcasting). Only the Fighter and the Rogue get one feature at 2nd-level. So in that sense the Fighter is a little less front-loaded than other classes.I think you have some valid criticisms/concerns/ideas here, mixed in with a bit too much hyperbole.</blockquote>

Verification