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

[Minigiant]

Just because you refuse to accept the answer, doesnt mean he's wrong. The class has squat for meaningful non-combat features that other classes don't also get (backgrounds, skills). Sure, they could blow their extra feat on non-combat, but frankly they need those to compete in combat vs classes like the paladin until they pull in their 4th attack (at a level few play to, or at for long).

I dunno.

The fighter seems to be better out the box combat-wise than the other combat classes. The ranger and paladin kinda suck if you aren't dropping spells and the barbarian is rather bland when not in a rage. And you don't get many spells or rages until high levels. The 1/2 casters only have 4/2 as their slots a day at level 6. That runs out quick after 6-8 combats.

So the barbarian/paladin/ranger are playing catch up on the fighter in combat.
The fighter plays catch up on noncombat. They can afford to take a noncombat feat.

I think reliability will be the legacy of the fighter. Fighter don't run out of juice and become junk in a fight like others do.

 

[Imaro]

I dunno.

The fighter seems to be better out the box combat-wise than the other combat classes. The ranger and paladin kinda suck if you aren't dropping spells and the barbarian is rather bland when not in a rage. And you don't get many spells or rages until high levels. The 1/2 casters only have 4/2 as their slots a day at level 6. That runs out quick after 6-8 combats.

So the barbarian/paladin/ranger are playing catch up on the fighter in combat.
The fighter plays catch up on noncombat. They can afford to take a noncombat feat..

Emphasis mine... unless you're trying to optimize for combat like crazy (At which point why are you worried about non-combat effectiveness)... this.

EDIT: The game clearly states what the expected assumptions around number of combats per adventuring day are... if you aren't wildly diverging from these expectations then yeah... those spells for the Ranger & Paladin, Rage for the Barbarian, etc. get used up... or can't be used in every fight... the fighter provides a better overall consistent combatant.

 

[Ashkelon]

I dunno.

The fighter seems to be better out the box combat-wise than the other combat classes. The ranger and paladin kinda suck if you aren't dropping spells and the barbarian is rather bland when not in a rage. And you don't get many spells or rages until high levels. The 1/2 casters only have 4/2 as their slots a day at level 6. That runs out quick after 6-8 combats.

So the barbarian/paladin/ranger are playing catch up on the fighter in combat.
The fighter plays catch up on noncombat. They can afford to take a noncombat feat.

I think reliability will be the legacy of the fighter. Fighter don't run out of juice and become junk in a fight like others do.

Umm, you do realize that from levels 1-10 the paladin, ranger, and fighter are all basically the same. The fighter gets action surge (1 extra attack action every short rest), but the ranger can have +1d6 damage 1/turn on every attack they make. Both paladin and ranger can make use of hunters mark (+1d6 damage on every attack they make) as well. Over the course of the day, those extra d6s add up to a bit more than the fighter gets from an action surge once per rest. Action surge is good for burst though.

Sure, at level 11+ the fighter deals better damage, but for the vast majority of players over the vast majority of the game, paladin and ranger will straight up deal more damage per round.

And of course, let us not forget that most games don't actually support the suggested playstyle of 5-8 encounters per day, and typically have only 3-5, further rewarding the players who chose daily recharge abilities over short rest recharge abilities.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I'm sorry, does the Battlemaster have 17 (or 12? or 34?) maneuvers, not 18? By all means, correct the number if it's wrong. I wouldn't want to make any factually incorrect statememts. Does the Eldritch Knight not cast spells? I'd be surprised to hear that, but you included the fact that it does in the quote that you declared to be false statements. So if you have some stunning new information about that, feel free to let us see it. Does the Champion do much more than attack & deal damage? If you've heard of some non-combat feature it gets that's significantly better than the usual two ASIs and the non-stacking half-proficiency bonus of 'Remarkable' Athlete, please, share that, as well.

Just because you refuse to accept the answer, doesnt mean he's wrong. The class has squat for meaningful non-combat features that other classes don't also get (backgrounds, skills). Sure, they could blow their extra feat on non-combat, but frankly they need those to compete in combat vs classes like the paladin until they pull in their 4th attack (at a level few play to, or at for long).

Oh man, the bolded part? That's some serious irony there.

How many threads have there been when it's been pointed out over and over again that fighter gets two extra feats above everyone else? Those are pretty darn important because feats are a BIG deal and grant a lot. Because they have the choice to get those two extra options that no other class gets, it is objectively false to say that the fighter is only "prettymuch "I attack, I deal damage," or ""Fighters are only good in combat,..."

It is objective fact that a fighter CAN do more than that. Just because you choose not to, doesn't make it any less true. The option and functionality is there for everyone. Even if you don't use feats, in bounded accuracy, those two extra +1 bonuses to skill checks and saves also prove that a fighter can be good at out of combat tasks. So can we stop with repeating the same lies please? Can we have at least a shred of intellectual honesty here? Or is that too much to ask?

 

[Tony Vargas]

How many threads have there been when it's been pointed out over and over again that fighter gets two extra feats above everyone else?

The same number that it's been pointed out that feats are optional, that everyone has one or two Feats (or one ASI, if feats aren't used), already, before you get that 1st bonus ASI at 6th, so it's at best your 2nd-string choice, and only gets less significant from there, and that most games don't even hit the 14th level for that second ASI.

Those are pretty darn important because feats are a BIG deal and grant a lot.

When they're used. When they're not, it's an extra ASI, and, sure, a +1 better mod in some tertiary stat...

Even if you don't use feats, in bounded accuracy, those two extra +1 bonuses to skill checks and saves also prove that a fighter can be good at out of combat tasks.

Any +1 is nice to have under bounded accuracy, even in if it's only for two levels, and thereafter in some secondary or tertiary stat.

It's just not nearly as nice as a +6.

Because they have the choice to get those two extra options that no other class gets,

Two additional choices, by 14th, from a list /everyone/ gets to choose from. And they need to cover both combat & non-combat.

The 3.x fighter had a real feat advantage in feats - more bonus feats than other classes got feats, in total. It could match every non-combat feat another character might take, while still exceeding the combat feats another character might take. That was a real advantage. It didn't drag the fighter out of Tier 5 by itself, but it was at least meaningful as far as it went. Two bonus ASI's over 14 levels just isn't as meaningful.

But, really, why are you even bringing up those two ASIs in response to the following:

I'm sorry, does the Battlemaster have 17 (or 12? or 34?) maneuvers, not 18? By all means, correct the number if it's wrong. I wouldn't want to make any factually incorrect statememts. Does the Eldritch Knight not cast spells? I'd be surprised to hear that, but you included the fact that it does in the quote that you declared to be false statements. So if you have some stunning new information about that, feel free to let us see it. Does the Champion do much more than attack & deal damage? If you've heard of some non-combat feature it gets that's significantly better than the usual two ASIs and the non-stacking half-proficiency bonus of 'Remarkable' Athlete, please, share that, as well.

which acknowledges those two ASIs, anyway.

What does the Champion get besides two ASIs & RA? Why, /those same two ASIs!/ Wow. Can't argue with that.

it is objectively false to say that the fighter is only "prettymuch I attack, I deal damage,"

That would be objectively false, since the EK also casts spells and the Battlemaster also layers on riders from maneuvers. Of course, I only said it about the Champion, of whom it is true ("prettymuch") - even if it's not a strong claim, it's not an objectively false one.

it is objectively false to say "Unless something Changes: "Fighters are only good in combat,..."

Speculation about the 5e fighter's legacy - without certain knowledge of future events, it's just speculation. With certain knowledge of future events, why waste your time on the boards, go buy some lottery tickets....

Maybe that speculation about the fighter's legacy (the point of the thread, BTW) will prove false in 5 or 10 years, maybe it won't. Until then, it's not objectively false.

How many classes could you argue have great non-combat choices other than those provided by backgrounds?

I don't know about 'great' - you could set the bar pretty high if you really wanted to - but /something/ meaningful, I suppose the 33 sub-classes with casting or other supernatural abilities, plus the Thief & Assassin, thanks to Expertise. Not so sure about the Berserker.

Bard: Jack of All Trades, Expertise, More skills than most classes, spells
Cleric: domain, spells
Druid: wild shape, spells, various exploration related class features
Paladin: divine sense, spells, auras
Ranger: favored terrain, favored enemy, more skills than most classes, spells
Sorcerer: spells
Warlock: spells, invocations
Wizard: rituals, spells

Monk: the ability to jump 2x as far as normal and run on water

That's it? That's pretty limited. Still beats 'Remarkable' Athlete, of course, but pretty unimpressive just the same.

Rogue: most trained skills, expertise, reliable talent

Expertise, alone, helps you stand out. Eventually, you'll be making checks others just can't - unless someone else, like a Bard (who's also a full caster and has other goodies), has Expertise in the same skill, anyway.

No amount of feats can match the utility of 4 first level spells, 3 second level spells, and 3 third level spells. No amount of feats can match the utility of expertise in 4 skills and the ability to treat any skill check of a 9 or less as a 10.

More than double the feats of other classes would come close. In 3.x, 11 bonus feats on top of the 7 everyone got let the fighter devote up to those full 7 feats to matching what anyone else could do out of combat with feats, while still exceeding what anyone else could do in-combat with feats. If the fighter just got a feat at 1st and another at each even level, for instance, he'd be more than doubling the baseline, and really could do things with feats that no one else could (quite) match. If they were bonus /feats/ (accessible whether feats are available to other classes or not), rather than ASI, so much the moreso. (It'd still be debatable what that advantage might amount to - in 3.x, it still amounted to Tier 4-5.)

5E is very combat centric. Most editions of D&D are.

Mechanically, at least, most RPGs are. There aren't really any 5e classes that suck out loud in combat, are there? Not to the point that anyone playing them might just as well leave the room when initiative is rolled, at least?

And of course, let us not forget that most games don't actually support the suggested playstyle of 5-8 encounters per day, and typically have only 3-5, further rewarding the players who chose daily recharge abilities over short rest recharge abilities.

Though that's not at odds with my personal experience, I don't think it's a fair thing to assume. Rather, it's worth noting that 5e is nominally balanced around that 5-8 or 6-8 or whatever it says in the encounter guidelines, challenges per 'day' (actually, between long rests - the DM can certainly deny or grant opportunities for long rests to mess with what constitutes a day). That's a constraint on the DM, yes, but if he conforms to it, balance issues should be reduced. There are other ways for the DM to impose balance, as well, regardless of how well the classes shake out under analysis.

 

[Celtavian]

I don't know about 'great' - you could set the bar pretty high if you really wanted to - but /something/ meaningful, I suppose the 33 sub-classes with casting or other supernatural abilities, plus the Thief & Assassin, thanks to Expertise. Not so sure about the Berserker.

Really? Your players are taking Expertise in non-combat skills? Mine aren't. Perception and Stealth for use in combat and scouting the majority of time. The fighter with Stealth and Perception can do these things as well because creature Perception is often low and so is stealth.

I don't think the bar would be too high. Combat is fairly simple. The fighter usually has a higher AC, does more damage, and has that nifty Second Wind and can usually use Athletics, the most powerful combat skill, very, very well if strength-based allowing some simple, but effective, tactical options.

I'm not sure what people want the fighter to do. He kills things resolving combat very quickly. That is an important part of the game.

Mechanically, at least, most RPGs are. There aren't really any 5e classes that suck out loud in combat, are there? Not to the point that anyone playing them might just as well leave the room when initiative is rolled, at least?

There are a lot classes that suck at dealing damage compared to the fighter.

 

[Minigiant]

Umm, you do realize that from levels 1-10 the paladin, ranger, and fighter are all basically the same. The fighter gets action surge (1 extra attack action every short rest), but the ranger can have +1d6 damage 1/turn on every attack they make. Both paladin and ranger can make use of hunters mark (+1d6 damage on every attack they make) as well. Over the course of the day, those extra d6s add up to way more than the fighter gets from an action surge once per rest.

Sure, at level 11+ the fighter deals better damage, but for the vast majority of players over the vast majority of the game, paladin and ranger will straight up deal more damage per round.

And of course, let us not forget that most games don't actually support the suggested playstyle of 5-8 encounters per day, and typically have only 3-5, further rewarding the players who chose daily recharge abilities over short rest recharge abilities.

The warrior classes are not close to being the same outside of them not having ton of spells prepared, not having tons of spells available, and being heavily reliant of the attack action. Concentration checks suck. A scratch has a chance of shaving off a nice buff spell early. Fighter never really worry about it as 2/3 of them don't cast spells and the one that does rarely worried about concentration.

If you follow the guidelines, the nonfighter warrior will run out of magic. And they kinda suck without their magic. The fighter will have 3 Action surges and 3 Second Winds a day and complete freedom of their builds.

Now if you are not following the guidelines, you should be adjusting your game as the game is based on those expectations. You can't blame a game for being out of whack when you move out of its expectations and adjust nothing else. You could say the expectations are off compared to what many play however long days is the traditional way to nerf classic spellcasters.

Reliability is the fighter's thing.
The

 

[Ashkelon]

The warrior classes are not close to being the same outside of them not having ton of spells prepared, not having tons of spells available, and being heavily reliant of the attack action. Concentration checks suck. A scratch has a chance of shaving off a nice buff spell early. Fighter never really worry about it as 2/3 of them don't cast spells and the one that does rarely worried about concentration.

If you follow the guidelines, the nonfighter warrior will run out of magic. And they kinda suck without their magic. The fighter will have 3 Action surges and 3 Second Winds a day and complete freedom of their builds.

Now if you are not following the guidelines, you should be adjusting your game as the game is based on those expectations. You can't blame a game for being out of whack when you move out of its expectations and adjust nothing else. You could say the expectations are off compared to what many play however long days is the traditional way to nerf classic spellcasters.

Reliability is the fighter's thing.
The

So you are hyperfocusing on the 3-5 encounters per day thing and completely missing the bigger picture. So lets make it a little more clear for you. Right now, picture a fighter, paladin, and ranger. Now strip the spells away from the ranger and paladin entirely. Got it? Good.

In terms of combat potential, the ranger at level 3 gets +d8 damage once per round when it hits a damaged enemy. The paladin has channel divinity, the fighter has superiority dice or an improved crit range. The fighter also has action surge.

Action surge gives the fighter +100% damage for 1 round per rest.

The paladins CD gives it advantage on attacks against a target for a whole fight, once per rest. If the paladin has GWM, advantage translates to ~+50% damage. If the paladin doesn't, it is only worth about +25% damage. So, assuming the paladin is smart and only uses CD on what appear to be boss monsters, he only needs 2-4 rounds of combat for it to match the output of action surge. Of course, if the boss fight lasts 3+ rounds, the CD can actually greatly outdamage action surge. CD also doubles you chance to crit, which pairs nicely with smites (you can choose to use smites after you see if you crit, to double their dice). Since both action surge and CD are short rest abilities, this puts the paladin on nearly equal combat capability with the fighter, before we even consider the effect of spells.

Now for the ranger. Colossus Slayer basically translates to a free d8 damage every round. From 5th-10th level, action surge provides the fighter with roughly 20 extra expected damage when used. Assuming you take a rest every 8 rounds of combat, that gives you roughly 2.5 additional DPR. Including critical hits, Colossus Slayer gives the ranger ~4.6 additional DPR from level 5 and up. So, the ranger actually has better "reliable" DPR than the fighter. Of course, most groups don't rest quite that often, which pushes the usefulness of Action Surge downward. A more realistic estimate is Action Surge once every 10+ rounds of combat, but we will give the fighter the benefit of the doubt here.

Now a crit range of 19-20 won't actually do much so the champion is out of luck, but superiority dice do add roughly 2-3 DPR to the fighter. This makes the fighter roughly on par with the paladin or ranger in these examples. But, these calculations are both before taking spells into consideration mind you. Spells like haste, hunter's mark, magic weapon, and smites can all add a significant amount of damage over the course of the adventuring day (whether you have 4 encounters or 8).

For example, a level 10 paladin has 25d8 smite damage he can toss about each day. The level 10 paladin also has more total HP than the fighter due to 50 HP worth of lay on hands, so the paladin is actually more likely to make it to 6+ encounters than a fighter.

Of course, at level 11+ the fighter pulls ahead slight (slightly). And at level 17 when the fighter gains his second action surge, then he truly shines. But for those first 10 levels, the fighter definitely isn't the "best" at fighting. He is pretty much on par with or even slightly behind all the other weapon users.

 

[Tony Vargas]

There are a lot classes that suck at dealing damage compared to the fighter.

Not the question I asked. There is a little more to combat, even in 5e, than DPR - even if it's just multiplying the next guy's crazy DPR.

There aren't really any 5e classes that suck out loud in combat, are there? Not to the point that anyone playing them might just as well leave the room when initiative is rolled, at least?

If you follow the guidelines, the nonfighter warrior will run out of magic. And they kinda suck without their magic. The fighter will have 3 Action surges and 3 Second Winds a day ....

I don't see how 3 action surges don't run out in 6-8 combats.

Reliability is the fighter's thing.

Generally has been: one way 5e continues to capture the feel of the classic game. That reliability got him a Tier 5 rating & years of 'SUX' threads in 3.x, and called "the weak cousin of D&D" on the back of an early 2e supplement, though. Ol' reliable traditionally meant the fighter sucked when the chips are down and everyone's bringing their A game, and shines when it's not important enough to anyone else to expend resources - or when the party is in the last stages of a grinding TPK. It takes a certain mindset to feel good about that kind of niche.

Now if you are not following the guidelines, you should be adjusting your game as the game is based on those expectations. You can't blame a game for being out of whack when you move out of its expectations and adjust nothing else...

You really can't blame a game that gives you guidelines for what happens when you color outside them. You can blame a game for having somewhat inflexible guidelines with potentially serious consequences of deviating from them, when it spent two hears of very active public playtesting supposedly trying to accommodate many more 'styles' of play, though.

In the end, 5e accommodates one style of play: the Empowered DM style. Fortunately, you can do whatever you want with that style.

So you are hyperfocusing on the 3-5 encounters per day thing

I was sure it was 6-8...

and completely missing the bigger picture. So lets make it a little more clear for you. Right now, picture a fighter, paladin, and ranger. Now strip the spells away from the ranger and paladin entirely. Got it? Good.

I mostly followed the rest of your analysis, but it left me wondering: if you strip away all the offensive limited-use resources - spells, action surge, etc - how do those melee types stack up? Are they really doing the same base-line damage, or is the fighter's 6th level ASI and/or any MAD on the others' side, or any other factors having an impact?

And, then, what about monkeywrenches like a magic sword dishing out +2d6 extra damage very hit?

Doesn't most of the theoretical difference get lost in the noise of the d20 and various situational factors?

 

[Imaro]

The paladins CD gives it advantage on attacks against a target for a whole fight, once per rest. If the paladin has GWM, advantage translates to ~+50% damage. If the paladin doesn't, it is only worth about +25% damage. So, assuming the paladin is smart and only uses CD on what appear to be boss monsters, he only needs 2-4 rounds of combat for it to match the output of action surge. Of course, if the boss fight lasts 3+ rounds, the CD can actually greatly outdamage action surge. CD also doubles you chance to crit, which pairs nicely with smites (you can choose to use smites after you see if you crit, to double their dice). Since both action surge and CD are short rest abilities, this puts the paladin on nearly equal combat capability with the fighter, before we even consider the effect of spells.

Wow, there's ALOT of assumptions (in favor of the Paladin of course) in this... 1st that the paladin readily identifies the strongest target to use it on (what is there a glowing arrow over his head??). That the paladin isn't attacked/delayed by others before he reaches said target (since that's just wasted rounds of CD). That he's in a fight with a low number of enemies, since it becomes way less useful in a battle with numerous enemies... and so on. Nice try tilting things in your favor but I think you're vastly overestimating the power of this feature by presenting it's ideal situation of usage... of course everything is more powerful under those circumstances.. There are no contrived situations for Action Surge to work optimally... it works against the same, or different foes...

Now for the ranger. Colossus Slayer basically translates to a free d8 damage every round. From 5th-10th level, action surge provides the fighter with roughly 20 extra expected damage when used. Assuming you take a rest every 8 rounds of combat, that gives you roughly 2.5 additional DPR. Including critical hits, Colossus Slayer gives the ranger ~4.6 additional DPR from level 5 and up. So, the ranger actually has better "reliable" DPR than the fighter. Of course, most groups don't rest quite that often, which pushes the usefulness of Action Surge downward. A more realistic estimate is Action Surge once every 10+ rounds of combat, but we will give the fighter the benefit of the doubt here.

Colossus Slayer only works if a creature is already damaged... so it's not necessarily every round (Again with skewed situations that favor the point you are trying to make)...

Now a crit range of 19-20 won't actually do much so the champion is out of luck, but superiority dice do add roughly 2-3 DPR to the fighter. This makes the fighter roughly on par with the paladin or ranger in these examples. But, these calculations are both before taking spells into consideration mind you. Spells like haste, hunter's mark, magic weapon, and smites can all add a significant amount of damage over the course of the adventuring day (whether you have 4 encounters or 8).

I disagree... at lower levels both Paladins and Ranger's spells are pretty limited... and they are daily resources while the Fighter's superiority dice and action Surge recharge on a short rest. going by the recommended 2 short rests a day that is 3 *(Action Surge) and 12d8 of superiority dice... up to 7th level then 15d8 after that... Now I do agree there's a point where the smite dice increase more than the maneuver dice, but then there's that extra feat and the fact that maneuvers have riders... smites don't.

The most telling gap in your "analysis" however is that there is no consideration of BM maneuvers that can up the fighter's damage significantly... like Riposte which allows him an extra attack outside of his turn, or Trip Attack which can give him advantage on his foe for all of his attacks after the trip (as well as those of his allies which is something the Paladin's CD doesn't do)... and so on. In other words your "analysis doesn't seemed nuanced enough, especially considering the adaptability of the BM in combat to really determine whose a better combatant.

For example, a level 10 paladin has 25d8 smite damage he can toss about each day. The level 10 paladin also has more total HP than the fighter due to 50 HP worth of lay on hands, so the paladin is actually more likely to make it to 6+ encounters than a fighter.

Of course, at level 11+ the fighter pulls ahead slight (slightly). And at level 17 when the fighter gains his second action surge, then he truly shines. But for those first 10 levels, the fighter definitely isn't the "best" at fighting. He is pretty much on par with or even slightly behind all the other weapon users.

Off turn attacks... advantage for everyone... causing damage to more than one creature with one attack... reducing damage to ones-self and so on... in other words...Maneuvers need to be accounted for as well and from observing play I honestly think they push the fighter past the paladin and ranger when it comes to pure combat effectiveness in a wider variety of situations.