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

[Tony Vargas]

Wow, there's ALOT of assumptions (in favor of the Paladin of course) in this...

You mean like 'no spells?'

1st that the paladin readily identifies the strongest target to use it onThat 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.

Those don't sound like they'd be terribly rare situations.

Colossus Slayer only works if a creature is already damaged... so it's not necessarily every round

Not necessarily, but, again, doesn't seem like it's terribly rare that monsters get damaged in combat.

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...and so on.

Now it sounds like you're making some assumptions, too.

I mean, he's making a case that some other classes have greater DPR potential than the fighter, even without spells, and you're poking some pretty small holes in it. I don't buy what either of you are selling. I think you're both diving too far down the rabbithole on a very simple question.

Is there really any class in 5e that's just sucks out loud in combat?

I don't get the impression there is. They may not be neatly or obviously balanced, but they can all have a pretty significant impact once initiative is rolled, at least some of the time.

 

[Imaro]

You mean like 'no spells?'

And yet somehow the analysis still included smite dice... so no, not like that...

Those don't sound like they'd be terribly rare situations.

So you run games where the most powerful opponent is not only easily identifiable but easily attacked as well? Can't say that's the norm in my game (Or that I'd find it particularly satisfying on a game/sim or narr level) but if you and @Ashkelon readily find that happening in your games... to each his own I guess... I still don't think it's a common situation.

Not necessarily, but, again, doesn't seem like it's terribly rare that monsters get damaged in combat.

Never said it was I was moreso speaking to the misrepresentation of Colossus Slayer... since it does have limitations that were ignored.

Now it sounds like you're making some assumptions, too.

The assumption that a BM would use his maneuvers? Yeah I am if we're assuming Smite dice/spells... not seeing your point here.

I mean, he's making a case that some other classes have greater DPR potential than the fighter, even without spells, and you're poking some pretty small holes in it. I don't buy what either of you are selling. I think you're both diving too far down the rabbithole on a very simple question.

Again if you can construct the perfect situation for any class (or choose to ignore limitations) you can skew the numbers... it's the nature of data... and those are actually some pretty big holes... especially seeing as he still resorted to Smite dice...

 

[Minigiant]

The point is the fighter is most reliable and least situational.

The fighter's features work at range and in melee. The barbarian and paladin are 95% melee focused on features. Only rangers work ranged and melee well.
The fighter's features work on hordes, solos monsters, and small groups. The paladin is mostly solo monster focused. The ranger is more group focused with and option of solo focus in some hunter subclass or solos with hunter's mark.
The fighter still functions when spells are done. The ranger and paladin run out fast at low levels and get weak without spells.
The fighter's primary abilities are all combat stats (STR/DEX/CON). The ranger (WIS) and paladin (CHA) both encourage an additional high stat.
Fighter's get 2 more ASI or feats. Both rangers and paladins itch for their casting stat and the War Caster feat.

Now ranger have fighter's beat in exploration and paladins beat them interaction. The fighter wins on reliable combat power in more situations and this allows for more customization.

That's the legacy. Their reliability.

 

[Tony Vargas]

So you run games where the most powerful opponent is not only easily identifiable but easily attacked as well?

I run whatever I want.

But it hardly seems like it'd be rare for a Paladin (or fighter) to smack the BBGEG.

Never said it was I was moreso speaking to the misrepresentation of Colossus Slayer... since it does have limitations that were ignored....

The assumption that a BM would use his maneuvers?

The assumption that a maneuver contingent on an enemy action would consistently work. That strikes me as ignoring a more significant limitation than an enemy having taken damage already. If only because one's contingent on something that's already established, while the other's contingent on a future decision.

Again if you can construct the perfect situation for any class (or choose to ignore limitations) you can skew the numbers... it's the nature of data... and those are actually some pretty big holes...

It is the nature of that sort of analysis that you can skew them a bit with weird assumptions, but, no, I'm not see'n the big holes. I am seeing a desire on both sides to compare one class at it's best to another off-peak, and that's not helpful. The fighter's best is pretty damn good, thanks to the way multiple attacks amplify any damage boost. He's hardly alone in that.

The point is the fighter is most reliable and least situational.

That's the legacy. Their reliability.

The 'reliability' legacy is something fighters have always had going for them, such as it was.

I think it's funny that we're both revisiting the old fighter-as-consistent paradigm, and looking to average out the big peak damage of Action Surge to make valid comparisons with other classes. Clearly the fighter did get Action Surge, and can use it to gain a round of peak power in a sufficiently significant fight. So, while the pre-4e fighter couldn't 'bring his A game' when the chips were down, the 5e fighter still can, albeit, in the form of yet more attacks on top of his already 2e-like multi-attacking DPR. Just as clearly, lots of other classes can bring a lot of damage when they need to (or even when they don't particularly need to), and do a lot of other things instead or as well, depending on the resources in question.

 

[Minigiant]

The 'reliability' legacy is something fighters have always had going for them, such as it was.

I think it's funny that we're both revisiting the old fighter-as-consistent paradigm, and looking to average out the big peak damage of Action Surge to make valid comparisons with other classes. Clearly the fighter did get Action Surge, and can use it to gain a round of peak power in a sufficiently significant fight. So, while the pre-4e fighter couldn't 'bring his A game' when the chips were down, the 5e fighter still can, albeit, in the form of yet more attacks on top of his already 2e-like multi-attacking DPR. Just as clearly, lots of other classes can bring a lot of damage when they need to (or even when they don't particularly need to), and do a lot of other things instead or as well, depending on the resources in question.

Yup.
Back to old reliable auto rifles in a wold with pistols, sniper rifles, shotguns, grenades, and "wacky guns".
Back to turning good old face-smacker like the old days and not praying for "favorable conditions".

Like that boring card in a TCG that is never a dead card. No fancy card text. Just "boring reliable goodness".

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

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

You do realize we're both pot and kettle here, correct? Both are quite set in our ways, and convinced the other is wrong.

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?

In ivory tower games, sure. In real games, which dont begin at 14th level or spend a bulk of their time there, no they dont. Level 1-5 the fighter has 0 feats over the other classes. Level 6-13 they get one more. And that's the band people play more, per WOTC's data, since their survey indicated games end around 10-12.

So the 10th level champion fighter gets 1 more ASI (or feat in games that use them), can heal d10+level and action surge once per short rest. They get remarkable athlete, which is pretty crappy, an expanded crit range and an extra fighting style. If your game makes it to 11 you get an extra attack compared to the paladin adding d8 to his 2 attacks.

The paladin gets divine sense (campaign dependent), Lay on Hands (which at 10th level heals the equivalent of 3 second winds, only it's much better because it can go all in one shot, cure disease, be spread around, etc). The paladin is immune to disease and frightened and adds his charisma bonus to all saves. He extends the immunity to fear and saving throw bonus to his allies within 10 feet as well. He has 4/3/2 spells, which can be cashed in for smites (that grant a bonus vs undead and fiends, again campaign dependent, but not unreasonably so).

And that's before we look at what his oath gives (additional spells prepared, channel divinity, and an extra aura (the ancient's resistance to spell damage in particular is nice)

The paladin is going to be better in the social arena, but since his charisma bonus also helps his saves, investing in that gives him bigger returns on safety in the combat/exploration pillar as well.

The fighter peaks early, which can be an issue if you allow multiclassing. The paladin has more group utility, and certainly comes out ahead in games without a ton of DM handholding to ensure that the 6-8 encounters the fighter depends on are railroaded down everyone's throat. Even with an extra feat or two, the champion fighter is still lacking in class features.

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?

Yes, please. Let's have some honesty and look at how games are actually played. The 6-8 meaningful encounter day is a myth outside of a very specific type of dungeon crawl hack and slash fest that allows for 1 hour naps several times a day. So is the idea that most games spend much time post level 14 where the second feat/ASI kicks in.

 

[Sacrosanct]

You do realize we're both pot and kettle here, correct? Both are quite set in our ways, and convinced the other is wrong.

.

This isn't a choice thing here. Those claims are objectively untrue. Saying all a fighter can do is attack, or that they are no good out of combat, are false statements. Objectively false statements that have been roundly debunked over and over again. It doesn't matter how many times you, Tony, and Ashkelon repeat the same untrue things, it doesn't make them any more true. When you claim that something can't do something, and are shown exactly how they can, that definitively proves you wrong. Sorry, but that's a fact.

Shifting the goalposts like they are rubber bands (the rest of your post) doesn't help your argument one bit.

"All fighters can do is attack." Objectively false
"Fighters are no good out of combat" Objectively false.

So please. PLEASE stop repeating this crap.

 

[Ashkelon]

And let us not forget that even with the two best noncombat feats combined would still be less non combat utility than every other class in the game except possibly the Barbarian.

 

[Celtavian]

And let us not forget that even with the two best noncombat feats combined would still be less non combat utility than every other class in the game except possibly the Barbarian.

Why is that bad? Isn't there room in the game for a couple of classes that do single target damage and combat better than everyone else? Does everyone need to be active in other pillars? I've found that too many characters participating in every pillar slows the game down. You don't want everyone trying to be the face. You don't want everyone scouting. You don't want everyone making a knowledge check. What's wrong with having a guy in the group who shines brightest in battle?

Can you provide some examples of what you're wanting for out of combat abilities? As well as reasons why you can't multiclass to create the archetype? Why does it need to be something you should be able to do playing a single class fighter?

 

[Ashkelon]

Why is that bad? Isn't there room in the game for a couple of classes that do single target damage and combat better than everyone else? Does everyone need to be active in other pillars?

The problem is the fighter isn't better than single target damage than everyone else. And he definitely isn't better at "combat". But he is dead last when it comes to usefulness outside of combat. That is fine, I guess. But the rogue can be just as good at single target damage, while also providing tons of non combat utility so clearly being good at combat doesn't have to come at the expense of non combat capability.

I've found that too many characters participating in every pillar slows the game down. You don't want everyone trying to be the face. You don't want everyone scouting. You don't want everyone making a knowledge check. What's wrong with having a guy in the group who shines brightest in battle?

With a name like fighter, they probably should shine brightest in battle. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't also be moderately capable outside of combat. I'm not saying they should be great everything. I'm not saying they should even be great at many things. But they are literally the worst class outside of combat. And not by a small margin either.

Can you provide some examples of what you're wanting for out of combat abilities? As well as reasons why you can't multiclass to create the archetype? Why does it need to be something you should be able to do playing a single class fighter?

Honestly it doesn't need to be the fighter. I think we would need to rebuild the class from the ground up to make it worthwhile or interesting. I'm completely fine with the legacy of the fighter being in 5e exactly what it was in 3e and 2e; A boring, repetitive, and simple class for newb players or grognarda who don't want to bother with tactical decisions or complexity. I'm fine with the fighter being the worst class when it comes to accomplishing tasks outside of combat. I merely want a martial warrior who is more representative of "fighters" from myth, legend, and fantasy.

Here are some possible ideas for non combat abilities for a mythic martial warrior (maybe in the form of special talents which are like warlock invocations but for martial warriors).

Larger than Life
You have proficiency with STR checks and your carrying capacity is doubled. You can also grapple or shove creatures as if you were one size larger.

Endurance
You have proficiency in Con checks and you recover 1 level of exhaustion whenever you complete a short rest.

Strength of Legends
You gain expertise is Athletics checks and your carrying capacity is doubled (yes, 2 doubles quadruples your carrying capacity).

Mighty Leap
Double the distance of any jump you make.

Leap of the Clouds
Your high jump distance is equal to your long jump distance.

Peerless Athletics
You gain a climb speed and a swim speed equal to your speed.

Demolisher
You have advantage on STR checks to break objects and your melee attacks deal double damage to objects and structures.

Mark of Prestige
You gain a mark of prestige (as detailed in the DMG).

Hero's Charm
You have advantage on Charisma (Persuasion) checks. When you successfully persuade a non-hostile creature, that creature is Charmed by you for 1 hour. While charmed, it treats you as a friend. The effect ends if you or one of your allies act in a hostile manner towards your new "friend".

Villain's Menace
You have advantage on Charisma (Intimidation) checks. When you successfully intimidate a creature, that creature is frightened by you for 1 minute. The frightened creature can make a Wisdom saving throw (DC = 8 + your proficiency bonus + your Charisma modifier) at the end of each of its turns to end this effect.