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

[Sacrosanct]

Lol! Thanks for proving basically every point I have made in this thread.

Might want to check again. because...

First off, many of the heroes you mention there have significant capabilities both in and out of combat. Far more than what the 5e fighter gets.

Like what? Give some supporting evidence of your claim here.

Secondly, many of the warriors can perform superhuman feats of strength, skill, and endurance. Similar to the type of abilities I proposed as "talents" for the mythic warrior. Some of the heroes you mentioned can actually accomplish tasks well beyond the scope of anything I suggested as well.

Again, give examples of those personalities doing things above and beyond what a 5e fighter can do. Otherwise you're just blowing worthless smoke.

Third, some of the more "mundane" heroes you mention would be to go to defeat a T-Rex, let alone something like a dragon. The heroes who can defeat it all possess superhuman levels of speed, skill, strength, and endurance. The 5e fighter lacks all of those qualities, even at high levels, yet is still expected to fight monsters like Storm Giants and Ancient Dragons.

So I can expect examples of those personalities beating a T-Rex then? Or are you just pulling more stuff out of your bum? The really funny thing though? A 5e fighter, as written, can beat a T-rex at higher levels. And I assume these "best of the best legendary heroes" would be high level, right?

 

[Ashkelon]

A 5e fighter, as written, can beat a T-rex at higher levels. And I assume these "best of the best legendary heroes" would be high level, right?

Go read those myths yourself if you don't believe me. Beowulf ripped the arms off s troll and later on cut an ancient dragon in half armed with nothing more than a dagger. Cuchulain possessed incredible strength and single handed my defeated an army. Lancelot had the strength of ten men. There are dozens of examples of mythological mundane warriors with superhuman strength and endurance.

And yes the 5e fighter can defeat a T-Rex. That is the point!!! That is something that is impossible for a "mundane" human, yet you find it perfectly believable that a mid level fighter could do that. But in order to defeat a T-Rex in single combat. A real world warrior would need superhuman levels of strength, skill, and endurance to even get close to fighting s T-Rex with a chance of winning. That is where the fighter fails. It simply doesn't match the fiction. 5e is like asking us to imagine Gimli being able to defeat a T-Rex. It is completely ridiculous to imagine. Yet asking for a mythic warrior who can lift 4x as much as normal or jump 2x as far is somehow considered unbelievable?

 

[Remathilis]

Lol! Thanks for proving basically every point I have made in this thread.

First off, many of the heroes you mention there have significant capabilities both in and out of combat. Far more than what the 5e fighter gets.

Such as...

I'm not up on my Asian or Celtic mythology, and I'm probably a little rusty on my Mythology in general, but none of the superhuman abilities you listed farther back seemed to come from any real myth or legend I recall. I don't recall too many legends of heroes who jump 20 feet vertically, or can carry a horse on their back unencumbered. Some of them were cunning, some were strong, and some were tough, but few broke the limits of mundanity without magic, divine power, or something along those lines.

Secondly, many of the warriors can perform superhuman feats of strength, skill, and endurance. Similar to the type of abilities I proposed as "talents" for the mythic warrior. Some of the heroes you mentioned can actually accomplish tasks well beyond the scope of anything I suggested as well.

What Superhuman feat of strength did Attila the Hun do? What unnatural talent did Hector possess? When Did Jason jump over a building, Roland charm someone, or Spartacus carry four times what a normal man could?

Your confusing "mythic power" with "high level". Hector is a high level fighter. In 5e, he's probably 15+, capable of attacking three times to a common soldiers one, able to withstand blows that would fell a normal man, shrug off minor injuries, use bursts of energy to act even faster, and even resist attacks targeting his mind or body. Compared to a world of Challenge 1/4 guards, Hector is a god; but he's still only doing what a 15th level fighter is doing.

Third, some of the more "mundane" heroes you mention would be to go to defeat a T-Rex, let alone something like a dragon. The heroes who can defeat it all possess superhuman levels of speed, skill, strength, and endurance. The 5e fighter lacks all of those qualities, even at high levels, yet is still expected to fight monsters like Storm Giants and Ancient Dragons.

You somehow find it perfectly believable that a "mundane" warrior could go toe to toe with a fire breathing reptile twice as big as a T-Rex, but being able to jump 2x as far as normal or being able to lift 4x as much as normal is completely unbelievable.

What do you mean a high-level fighter lacks superhuman levels of skill, strength, and endurance?

He has enough stat bumps to raise his strength score or take diverse training. He can act twice per round a couple times per rest. He strikes far more often than other classes per round. He's adept with every weapon, armor, and shield in the game, can self-heal, and has 100's of hit points. He's usually only one feat (GWM/SS) for being totally broken.

Like you, I want a martial warrior who can emulate the heroes from myth and legend. At low levels the class could be used to recreate lower level heroes like Gimli or Conan. At mid levels it might be able to replicate mid level heroes like Beowulf or Lancelot. At high levels it would be able to emulate the most fantastic of heroes such as Roland, Gilgamesh, Cuchulain, and the like. The 5e fighter can do the low level heroes just fine. It does a fairly good Gimli for example. But that's it. It doesn't scale up along with the other classes. It's stuck in perpetual mundanity.

There's your problem. Gimli isn't low level. He slew hundreds of orcs in both Helm's Deep and Pelethor Fields. Conan even less so, he did amazing feats of combat and strength that doesn't break mundanity (and he's more a barbarian than a fighter anyway, by the movies. The book, is a barbarian/rogue/fighter). Beowulf is likewise a just high level, as is Lancelot. Gilgamesh or Cuchulain are demi-gods. Aragorn is a superhuman and the King, Legolas is a Tolkien elf (which is basically a perfect being), Arthur has Kingly powers, the blessing of God, AND a holy avenger. All of them are high level fighters (or paladins, rangers, or barbarians).

 

[Sacrosanct]

Go read those myths yourself if you don't believe me. Beowulf ripped the arms off s troll and later on cut an ancient dragon in half armed with nothing more than a dagger. Cuchulain possessed incredible strength and single handed my defeated an army. Lancelot had the strength of ten men. There are dozens of examples of mythological mundane warriors with superhuman strength and endurance.

Sorry dude, but you made the claim. Do your own research. Or are you admitting that you are wrong and were totally just blowing smoke? Beowulf wasn't on my list either. And I'm pretty sure I never read anywhere where Lancelot had the strength of ten men. Not to mention, he isn't all of "Arthur and his knights".

And yes the 5e fighter can defeat a T-Rex. That is the point!!! That is something that is impossible for a "mundane" human, yet you find it perfectly believable that a mid level fighter could do that. But in order to defeat a T-Rex in single combat. A real world warrior would need superhuman levels of strength, skill, and endurance to even get close to fighting s T-Rex with a chance of winning. That is where the fighter fails. It simply doesn't match the fiction. 5e is like asking us to imagine Gimli being able to defeat a T-Rex. It is completely ridiculous to imagine. Yet asking for a mythic warrior who can lift 4x as much as normal or jump 2x as far is somehow considered unbelievable?

You've just shifted the goal posts so fast I almost got whiplash. For the past several weeks, your whole point was that the 5e fighter can't do enough, and needs more to be on par with heroes from legend. And now you're saying that the 5e fighter is already doing inhuman things that heroes from myth and legend can do? Make up your mind, man.

 

[Minigiant]

Single-target DPR was certainly the fighter's thing in post-UA 1e and 2e AD&D, specialization and broken TWFing rules saw to that. Short adventuring days - the infamous 5MWD - have been a problem for D&D, in general, throughout it's run.

Single target DPR is split into melee and ranged.
Now pre-3e, the relation with fighters, paladins, and rangers was weird as the latter 2 classes were "fighter+" classes and were "better" than fighters of the same level. XP wasn't normalized so comparing classes was weird then.

Weapon Specialization was added half way through 1e, 0D&D didn't have it, so not /every/ edition. ;P

I didn't mean Specialization as in weapon specialization feats and features. I said specialties, as in STR fighters were better at melee and DEX fighter were better at range.

Are we still talking across editions, here? Or are we talking the DPR-specialized 5e fighter? Because that might, very hypothetically, be true, of the former.

In past editions, it's probably true with equal ability scores and powergaming and obscure splatting kept to a sensible level.

Of the 5e fighter it is definitely true.
The 5e one has the highest average of Melee DPR, Ranged DPR, Defending, Solo killing, Horde breaking, Toughness, Single turn Novaing, and Adventuring Longevity at most levels of 5th edition.

You mean a combat generalist? Not in 5e, and, frankly, not in any edition. There was an obscure 4e build that tried, and you could go crazy trying to create a generalist build in 3.x (and get tantalizingly close, with some MCing, around level 14 or so), but it was never practical. Specialization of one sort or another was just too over-rewarded.

I'd like to hear what you think makes any given 5e fighter a viable 'combat generalist.' It seems that combat style, feats (if available) and archetype choices are all going to drive specialization of one sort or another, just as has been the case in every edition.

I didn't say the fighter wins in every category. The fighter however is at least decent in every category and good to excellent in the rest.

The typical STR fighter is good against solos, good against hordes, excellent in melee, decent at range as all 3 subclasses support ranged attacks, has the option to run defender, can nova, and has a decent attack available for most of the day regardless of subclass.

The barbarian's ranged attack are terrible, stays terrible, and function mostly as a cheat to keep rage going. One thing starts flying and only high level eagle barbarians aren't leaning on allies and doing nothing.

Rangers are soft. They lack the self healing and toughness of the other warriors. Sure they can cast cure wounds on themselves but it pales to the others. They also are limited at defending as lack the option to take protection and are already encouraged to dual wield or carry a 3 handed melee or ranged weapon. Also can't nova all that well.

The paladin is close to the barbarian in the "terrible ranged attack" boat. 2 subclasses at least offer a CD that works with a bow and oath of vengeance allows for hunter's mark so there's that if they have them available. Their horde busting leaves something to be desired as well. Also the benefits of Charisma conflicts with their primary attack stat and the ability to take feats to branch out.

I found my experiences with 5e fighters and the stories on the web to have them less likely to be useless if the DM follows the guidelines and varies encounters.

 

[Hussar]

Is anyone actually claiming that the fighter is bad in combat? I've not seen it. All I've seen is claims that the fighter isn't much better than other "fightery" classes in combat while its very far behind outside of combat.

How much better does a class have to be at combat to utterly lack any class based non-combat abilities? How much is being a 10 in combat worth if we're adjusting the sliders between the three pillars? Is it really worth a 10: 2: 2 class?

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Every time I read conversations like this ("The Paladin does just as good...."), I can't help but shake my head. I have not once ever played D&D where there was no role-playing involved. D&D has never only ever been about DPR. So even if the paladin did do the same amount of average damage as a fighter, you have to play him or her like a paladin. That's not insignificant. Fighters have no such restrictions on how you're supposed to role-play them. Paladins do, and it's pretty rigid. Not as rigid as the LG AD&D paladin, but rigid nonetheless. And certainly important when choosing which classes to play.

Comparing classes by looking only at the mechanical aspects while ignoring probably the biggest thing in the game (role-playing) is a waste. It would be like comparing engine speeds without factoring in the different kind of vehicles you're driving.

Paladin roleplaying really depends on their oath. Oath of the ancients? You can play them as party animals. The one in my current game follows fey trickster spirits and spends his time playing pranks, screwing with evil gods and stiff necked aristocrats and encouraging art and freedom. Devotion can be considered the stuffy one, and Vengeance works well for people wanting a more violent "ends justify the means" angle. It's like saying playing a cleric limits your roleplaying - there's a huge amount of gods so one of them is going to fit the personality you'd have on a non-cleric. And if you cause yourself grief for following your oath then, hey, free inspiration!

Anyways, we certainly arent going to convince each other of much, and I've wasted enough time griping about my issues with the class. I'm glad you enjoy your fighter! Take care.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Sorry dude, but you made the claim. Do your own research. Or are you admitting that you are wrong and were totally just blowing smoke?

You made a claim. You provided a list of characters from myth whom you considered examples of 'mundane' fighter. Your claim. Your list.

It contains characters from myth who displayed superhuman abilities.


Cu Chulain, for instance, could throw three spears so quickly that all three were in the air at the same time.

Not super-human enough for you?

He could leap onto the last spear, balance on it, leap to the second, then the first, and ride it to the target.

Celtic mythology has heroes doing all sorts of bizarre, super-human, and impossible things like that. Killing with a shout, punching the top off a mountain, leaping over the walls of a fortress, etc. Blame it on the bards' use of hyperbole...

Roland, as already mentioned, performed some super-human feats in battle, not many of them attributable entirely to Durendal.

And, even though your list resorts to pulling historical as well as mythical figures, it's not hard to find some super-human feats attributed to some of them, as well. Yue-Fei, for instance, supposedly used a bow with a 400-lb pull.


That standard of realism that D&D strangely seems to resort to where the fighter's concerned is a very modern one.

Beowulf wasn't on my list either.

Beowulf didn't have any magical powers and wasn't of divine origin, so I don't see why you left him out. Except, perhaps, that the example of him ripping Grendel's arm off had already been brought up...

And I'm pretty sure I never read anywhere where Lancelot had the strength of ten men.

The "Strength of Ten" idiom was Galahad, and Lancelot and Galahad were both divinely-empowered, archetypes suitable to the Paladin more than the fighter.

You've just shifted the goal posts so fast I almost got whiplash. For the past several weeks, your whole point was that the 5e fighter can't do enough, and needs more to be on par with heroes from legend. And now you're saying that the 5e fighter is already doing inhuman things that heroes from myth and legend can do? Make up your mind, man.

"Not doing enough" does not preclude doing /something/, in fact it strongly implies it.

It's the fighter that's got an identity crisis going. On the one hand, the things it can do (beyond hitting stuff) in an active sense are profoundly constricted, ostensibly by realism. On the other, like all D&D characters, he eventually gets enough hps to survive absurd dangers, like falls from great heights, or going mano-y-mano with a T-Rex.

It's just another example of the odd double-standard D&D perpetuates.

I'm not up on my Asian or Celtic mythology, and I'm probably a little rusty on my Mythology in general, but none of the superhuman abilities you listed farther back seemed to come from any real myth or legend I recall. I don't recall too many legends of heroes who jump 20 feet vertically

Not that startling a feat in Celtic mythology, where the hero might leap over a fortress wall from a standing start.

, or can carry a horse on their back unencumbered.

sounds familiar, but I can't place it.

What do you mean a high-level fighter lacks superhuman levels of skill, strength, and endurance?

Well, there is a hard cap on stats, now. And bounded accuracy could easily be seen as creating the impression that improvement from level 1 is not all that dramatic in skills, in general.

Beowulf is likewise a just high level

And being high level lets you rip off monsters' arms, how, exactly?

 

[Ashkelon]

Sacrosanct you are having some serious trading comprehension issues here. I never once said the 5e fighter could perform superhuman feats. It can't. It is entirely mundane. And that is the problem

Let's make this clear, to kill a creature like a T-Rex let alone a dragon a human would need superhuman levels of Strength, skill, speed, and endurance. Levels only seen in mythology. Yet, somehow a D&D fighter can do this. The 5e fighter doesn't have exceptional strength, skill, speed, or endurance. At lest not when compared to heroes of myth and legend. This is why there is a disconnect. Just as you wouldn't expect Gimli to be able to solo Smaug in LotR using. Only his axe, you also wouldn't expect a completely mundane warrior to be capable of fighting something like a T-Rex or a dragon.

Why is it that you can suspend your disbelief there, but find having 4 times your normal carrying capacity to be unbelievable? That seems plain silly. Frankly, it is far more believable that a warrior with the strength of 4 men could slay a t-Rex than to believe a perfectly mundane warrior could kill one.

 

[Hussar]

It actually wouldn't take that much to bring fighters up a bit in the other two parts of adventuring.

Spend your action surge to gain advantage and proficiency bonus to your next skill check.

Or

Spend a Superiority Die. Gain that number as a bonus to your next skill check.

Poof. Done. Fighters are now capable of doing more that DPS and are still balanced against other classes.