Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Willie the Duck" data-source="post: 8630977" data-attributes="member: 6799660">In combat. Out of combat I concede that they dropped the ball on the fighter. Excepting the (admittedly really frequent) situation of 5/15 minute workday (which is absolutely an issue, but then that's the point upon which I feel we should be focusing), I think fighters do a very good job of doing the one thing they are given leave to do.I understand that you are highly displeased with the fighter class, but I think you are selling these differences short. At first level*, the wizard has 6+2 (base) + 1d6+2 (one hit dice to spend) = avg. 13.5 hit points to leverage throughout the day. The fighter has 10+2 (base) + 1d10+2 (one hit dice to spend) + 3** x (1d10+1) (second wind) = avg. 39 hit points.*let's say 14 con and dex (unless dex-build) for each,  and 16 in primary/preferred attack/casting stat.**assuming the old saw of 6-8 encounters with 2 short rests, and I acknowledged many games do not follow that formula, but if that is the area of contention, we can discuss that issue as a side issue.The AC of the fighter can start at 16/18 if they choose chain mail (w/ or w/o shield). 14/16 if dex-based, but that can go up 1 when one gets 45 gp for studded. The wizard has an AC of 12, 15 if they want to spend 1/2 of their primary wizarding juice on Mage Armor.The Fighter can be attacking for 2d6(re-roll 1-2)+3 (avg. 11.3) if gwf/greatsword; 2x(1d6+3) (avg. 13) if 2wf/shortswords; 1d8+3 (7.5) and a serious upgrade in to-hit if archery/longbow; 1d8+5 (9.5) if dueling and whichever 1d8+dex/str weapon one picks; or any number of other fighting styles (several of which open up entire new avenues of fighting, or provide solid defensive uses for reaction actions) with a still solid 1d8+3. The wizard in the same position will be doing 1d4+2 with a dagger, or 1d8+str with a 2h quarterstaff (str-build wizard being an interesting idea, but that will likely eat intoBoth weapon and armor can change based on racial selection, but then the opportunity cost must be considered.Those differences in damage can make the difference between whether a goblin goes down this round or the next, whether the combatant is hit or not, and whether said combatant drops or not.At second level, the fighter gets action surge. That could just be another attack, but honestly if that's the most one can find to do to leverage this ability, that's the problem, not the class.At third they get an archetype, and these can absolutely change the script. When discussing valor bards previously this was kind of overlooked. To get that decent armor and a second attack is most of a frontlining-caster (valor/swords bard, bladesinger wizard, hexblade warlock)'s archetype choice. For want of this they won't be doing the character-defining things a lore bard or diviner or celestial tomelock is doing. A fighter, otoh, gets the good at fighting core and then gets to choose an archetype on top of it.At fifth level they get an extra attack a full level before any of the others. Much like the multiclassing on a spellcaster before 3rd level spells, delaying that extra attack can make or break whether a character fills a role or fails at a role.At sixth they are an ASI ahead, meaning they can get that primary stat up to 20, or start really filling out the options through feat selection (still keeping pace by taking the expected advancements).Once you hit seventh, things do peter out and fighters (and most of the <full casters) have some levels that feel unfulfilling. And the casters start having multiple 3+ level spells per day, and so on. Exactly when things flip over, and when the casters truly run away with the game is certainly going to be playstyle dependent. However I think you are perhaps being blindered a bit towards the advantages that fighters have at lower levels. They do fighting gud. They really do.Rune Knights and Eldritch Knights and Echo Knights are fighters, not wizards, regardless of whether an ability is coded as 'magic.' Are we discussing fighters vs. wizards, or are we discussing non-magic vs. magic? Because I don't think anyone is interested in another grievance fest on that issue. Yes, completely non-magical characters lose out in D&D. That's been true since there were monsters that could only be hurt by magical weapons (the original Unearthed Arcana barbarian had a real issue with that, pre-errata). I'm rarely impressed when people use discount high-school debate terminology, but this really does seem like goalpost shifting. I don't discount your personal experience, and I decidedly agree that the fun stops for fighters once the combat encounter ends (barring things everyone can do), but I think you have extrapolated an experience perhaps dominated by loosely policed workday into a general idea that fighters aren't at least exemplary at their jobs. They are. I've never seen a valor bard or hexblade* or bladesinger come close to doing the fighter's job better than the fighter. These seem more like the caster class you take if your party front-liners are bad at keeping the enemies away from the rear-liners, so you want to be a little less squishy. *hexblade is overtuned, and probably gets a little too close to a fighter while still getting spells (although warlocks in general are a little undertuned in the spell department), but still is not a fighter in combat.</blockquote>

Verification