D&D 5E The Legacy of the Fighter in 5 to 10 years

[Zardnaar]

Hard to say I think the fighter not having penalties on multiple attacks to hit, being able to move and attack and the weapon styles will be the main legacy.

 

[Li Shenron]

IMO what the identity of the Fighter has traditionally (i.e. - not just 5E but through the history of D&D) been is sheer training/skill + mastery of all armor and weapons.

For armors, they almost there with Fighters and Paladins being the only ones with full proficiencies, although there are other ways (races, feats, subclasses) to get the missing profs.
For weapons, they could have tried giving proficiency in all weapons only to Fighters, and to give Paladins/Rangers/Barbarians only simple weapons + 3 martial weapons of choices. But I am sure this would not have been a popular design decision.
Another option would have been to grant Fighters (only) proficiency in also all weapons beyond simple/martial, including both improvised and exotic weapons. Alas, there are no exotic weapons in 5e at all at this point.

That's about proficiency rather than 'mastery', but how to represent the latter? I see two options:

Mastery as efficiency > Attack or damage bonuses. IMO they purposefully stayed away from additional attack bonuses as much as possible, to stay more faithful to the idea of bounded accuracy. That's why we don't have any 'weapon specialization' around in 5e. OTOH, damage bonuses (as in 3e Fighter-only Weapon Specialization feats) could have easily been there... Anyway I think that "Fighting Styles" are the closest thing to this, except that they don't focus on one weapon but on one weapon category/setup.

Mastery as flexibility > Being able to 'unlock' additional weapon abilities. IIUC the design decision was to implement this within feats, to make these available to everyone, and then just give more feats to the Fighter.

As usual, there is a strong trend to react to the Fighter's stuff by saying "why shouldn't my Ranger/Paladin/Barbarian/Rogue/Cleric be able to learn that too?". This is what risks killing the Fighter class in every RPG. I am happy that at least this is not completely true in 5e!

 

[Bluenose]

IMO what the identity of the Fighter has traditionally (i.e. - not just 5E but through the history of D&D) been is sheer training/skill + mastery of all armor and weapons.

Barbarians are raw power and primal fury (I kind of see the Barbarian/Fighter distinction as like Sorcerer/Wizard - instinct vs training) & tend to be less armored

It is fascinating that in 5e design the class designed around 'raw power and primal fury' does less damage but is more resilient than the one that depends more on skill and training. After all, who wouldn't expect the berserker to be a hard hitter with less resilience than the knight? You have to congratulate the originality involved in switching that around.

 

[Imaro]

It is fascinating that in 5e design the class designed around 'raw power and primal fury' does less damage but is more resilient than the one that depends more on skill and training. After all, who wouldn't expect the berserker to be a hard hitter with less resilience than the knight? You have to congratulate the originality involved in switching that around.

Not sure I agree with the point you are making here... majority of the time "Berserkers" are showcased in fantasy or even outside of it... they are always portrayed as being able to take massive amounts of damage... without going down. While the warrior is usually portrayed as a more skillfull opponent who wins through better technique, battle acumen, etc. I actually think 5e does a pretty good job of representing the archetypal differences in the two.

 

[Minigiant]

I see the legacy of fighters being the best of the base aspects of weapons and armor combat on the reliable side: damage, number of attacks, AC and defenses.

Other classes can do one or two well or even better, but the fighter has the best combination with the fewer restrictions.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Not sure I agree with the point you are making here... majority of the time "Berserkers" are showcased in fantasy or even outside of it... they are always portrayed as being able to take massive amounts of damage... without going down. While the warrior is usually portrayed as a more skillfull opponent who wins through better technique, battle acumen, etc. I actually think 5e does a pretty good job of representing the archetypal differences in the two.

That's my understanding as well.

Re: the generic feel of the fighter mentioned upthread, I think that's intentional as well, because unlike all the other classes that are pretty specialized archetypes, the fighter has to cover much more. Everything from the mercenary, to the soldier, to the brawler, to the samurai, to the knight, to the archer, etc etc

 

[RotGrub]

well I'm not a fan of the fighter's non-magical healing ability. The very idea of it stands against my play-style. I was really hoping for an option to remove second wind from the game, but it seems Mearls was hell bent for self healing. oh well, dreams crash one by one to the ground....

 

[Bluenose]

Not sure I agree with the point you are making here... majority of the time "Berserkers" are showcased in fantasy or even outside of it... they are always portrayed as being able to take massive amounts of damage... without going down. While the warrior is usually portrayed as a more skillfull opponent who wins through better technique, battle acumen, etc. I actually think 5e does a pretty good job of representing the archetypal differences in the two.

I'm not sure that they seem any tougher than non-Berserker warrior types. Or at least, not any better at lasting in combat than the knight, to use a different archetype. Also, that doesn't really answer to the damage differential, where the berserker seems like it should be the class doing the high damage (and perhaps taking it but still fighting) which is not apparent when you see both a Fighter and a Barbarian in action.

 

[Imaro]

I'm not sure that they seem any tougher than non-Berserker warrior types. Or at least, not any better at lasting in combat than the knight, to use a different archetype. Also, that doesn't really answer to the damage differential, where the berserker seems like it should be the class doing the high damage (and perhaps taking it but still fighting) which is not apparent when you see both a Fighter and a Barbarian in action.

Really... because the damage reduction they get in 5e sure seems to support them being able to take a blow and shrug it off (especially without the use of armor which has no relation to actual toughness) better than a fighter.

As to the damage differential... I spoke to that already, in most of the fiction I'm aware of the archetypal berserker doesn't do massive steady damage... he's usually inaccurate, wild and somewhat blinded to the best ways to attack by his rage, but kills things because he just can't be stopped or put down fast enough... not because he does the most damage overall. As a contrast the fighter is usually portrayed as more accurate, skilled and tactical in his attacks a disciplined warrior who does the most damage because he is purposefully measuring his opponent and choosing his attacks.

 

[Minigiant]

One has to remember the the barbarian more or less relies on rages. They only get 2-6 rages in a game designed for 5-8 encounters. And until level 15,a DM to toss out a monster who can stop a rage with control spells or unconsciousness. So for 50% the day, the barbarian is a second rate fighter.

The fighter is awesome all day. Even with subclass features expended (sup dice and spell), the fighter still have their fighting style, versatility in weaponry, and increased number of attacks. Add in the bonus feats.

The ranger runs out of spells, they stink.
The paladin runs out of spells, channel divinities, and lay on hands, they stink.
The barbarian runs out of rages, they stink.
The monk runs out of ki, they are horrible.
The fighter runs out of action surges, second wind, and subclass powers, they are still pretty rocking .