D&D 5E What Makes the Fighter Best at Fighing?

[TheLoneRanger1979]

Bloody 9 hells! I had to unvote 2 times, before i could makeup my mind on this one. At first i was all like the classical things, extra attacks, armor proficiency...... but then as i read the comments it all began to change. Even more so as i ran simulations in my head. Armor? Will it's nice..... but at least one other class has it. Weapons? Even more classes have them. So the only thing other classes don't have is the extra attacks. But does it mean? Do extra attacks make fighters good at fighting? And why? What makes extra attacks good, when compared to let's say ... spell slots? And it is around this that i think a case can be made for fighters being best at fighting. But for this to work, i bit of a narrow and arguable definition of fighting must be made.

So what do we do in DnD? We explore, we interact, we fight, we REST, we have our downtime...... so if we take fight, and isolate it, and then we do some of it, then some more of it..... and extend to even more then that...... every class in DnD is at some extent dependent on some resource to last through repeated fighting. The fighter (its basic concept at least) seams to be the least dependent on resource though. Those extra attacks will be with you, no matter how many encounters you've had in a row, no matter now many criticals you've made, no matter how many times you hit or missed a target..... as long as your fighter is still standing, you can still hit more often then anyone, and you are as efficient in those hits at the end of the 10th encounter, as you were at the start of the 1st. The best way to get a feel of this is to simulate large scale battles (think of historical battles, many on many soldiers that fight for hours, often for days without rest or respite). If by fighting we mean war making, the act of fighting and NOTHING else, then yey, i say the fighter with its extra attacks is the only class that remains viable the more of it (fighting) it does. One other resource that never runs dry is the extra ASI's. Or the feats you can get for them. These can give the class the extra survivability it needs (when compared by say a barbarian, though still not quite up there), or the extra damage (to offset the ranger and paladin advantages a bit), or even just plain flexibility of the rogues. For the third one i had to go on a whim, and what seams to be thread consensus....... this one is resource dependent and i would rate it third, even if when utilized it really does "spike" the fighter's capability. That is of course action surge...... but it's a bit unfair to include it..... cause if we allow for short rests, then the battle master's maneuvers are every bit as useful....

Now, i understand that this is DnD and we are not going to get engaged and prolonged slug fests (at least no DM worth his/her weight in water would allow his party to die off, just because they ran out of resources after 3-9 encounters), but if our fighters are the archetype soldier, then yeah...... soldiering is the best thing they do, out of all the classes. So.... maybe we should use the term soldiering instead of fighting?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Sure, there's nothing wrong with a DEX Paladin. One of the features of 5e is that you can have viable characters even if they are so-called "sub-optimal" variations. But look at how you're describing it. "Perfectly fine." "Perfectly cromulent." "Nothing wrong."

But the fighter excels whether he goes STR or DEX. He doesn't commit to a more purely defensive style if he goes DEX, because he has Two-Weapon Fighting or Archery as options. And with his extra ASIs he can max his DEX early and devote the rest to CON, or WIS, or whatever he wants, without worrying about CHA. Heck, he can max both STR and DEX if he so desires, for maximum damage in both melee and ranged, without sacrificing any defense, or other class abilities. That's Illithidbix's point. The game is set-up so if you go with STR, that's right in the fighter's wheelhouse. If you go with DEX, that's also right in the fighter's wheelhouse. Go with INT and you're still in the Eldritch Knight's wheelhouse. Heck, CON is in the fighter's wheelhouse. Max CON, Protection Fighting Style, plate and shield, and he's hardly ever going to go down. And that's not even including feats like Heavy Armor Master or Tough. It's only when you go with the WIS or CHA fighter that you have to resort to "perfectly fines" and "perfectly cromulents". Whatever ability score you want to focus on, the fighter's going to fight, and fight well.

I find it completely hilarious that the phrase "there's nothing wrong with this" or "it's perfectly fine" is somehow a bad thing. I was not, even slightly, damning with faint praise. I was trying to avoid overstating my case. It seems I succeeded by a landslide. The Paladin is a great class in any form, and going pure-Dex+studded leather+shield+rapier is no less great than going full plate+shield+longsword. Arguably better, because you give up 1 max AC for huge Initiative, access to Dex skills, solid ranged combat (though Str-based thrown weapons are often underestimated), and a prime stat in one of the "important" saves that you aren't proficient in (which Aura of Prot is nearly equivalent to!)

Also, I challenge your assertion that the Fighter excels at this in comparison to the Paladin (or Barbarian). Show me the math--show me how it's not just a small difference, but the difference between mediocre and excellent. I've done the math myself already, and I didn't see it. Given equal focus on defense as I had said, those points to Strength aren't doing much--Con is better, but the Paladin's save aura covers a good portion . Then Lay on Hands at 5xlevel, metered out however you like to whoever you like, is pretty much straight-up superior to even 3d10+3xlevel (15.5 + 60 = 75.5 vs. the Paladin's 100)--and, as flawed as it is, my polling around here at ENWorld at least suggests that ENWorlders favor fewer than two short rests per day.

Further, Protection Style isn't want you want if YOU don't want to go down--that's for keeping OTHER people from going down. Defense Style is what you want for that, though +1 AC vs. +2 Damage (from Dueling Style) is sort of an equivocal situation when you start at 18 AC and hit 20 by the "middle" levels (~11-12) if not earlier; it's better to have the AC early on, but the damage is better (especially for Fighters!) at high level. I'd assumed Defensive for both characters as part of the "equal focus on defense" thing.

 

[Iosue]

I find it completely hilarious that the phrase "there's nothing wrong with this" or "it's perfectly fine" is somehow a bad thing.

No one said it was a bad thing. You qualified your assessment of a Dex Paladin compared to a Str Paladin. You felt the need to do that. The Dex fighter needs no such qualification in comparison to a Str fighter because the game is specifically designed to cater to it. Your demand for math proofs comparing a Dex fighter to Dex paladin is a total non-sequitur.

The PHB has a table that lists each class's primary ability score. Most have one, e.g., Strength for Barbarians or Wisdom for Clerics. Paladins, Monks, and Rangers have two each (Strength/Charisma, Dexterity/Wisdom). Fighters are the only class that gets an "or". Strength OR Dexterity. That is one of the unique characteristics of the fighter class.

Recognizing this particular characteristic in no way devalues the paladin.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Was this a mechanical goal for the fighter design? Seems like a questionable goal to me - runs in the face of the idea of "class balance" if every fight is dominated by one dude with the right class selection.

Seems like a fine goal to me. In a role playing game with 3 main pillars of activity, making the fighter class the best at fighting doesn't run in the face of class balance at all. Fighters are supposed to dominate fights, other classes are supposed to dominate interaction and exploration.

The idea that all classes have to be balanced around fighting alone is short sighted unless one is designing a game of pure combat.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I appreciate and enjoy the anecdote. However, potentially coincidental issues causing a campaign to end aren't really the same thing as what was being talked about since they aren't tied to a particular level (my last schedule conflict-related campaign ending being a campaign that began at 3rd level, and got put on hold for 6 months by the time the party reached 4th level for example).

Similarly, I don't find a desire for slower level advancement to be inherently related to not wanting to play past 12th level. And if the comment that was being made regarding most campaigns ending at 12th level was meant to be saying that 12th level is as far as can be gotten before the real life time limit for the campaign runs out, then that level should naturally rise higher than 12th given that it takes much less play-time (in my experience at least) to advance in levels with 5th edition than any edition prior (excepting 3.5 with highly optimized characters facing nothing but "inappropriately difficult" encounters that barely break their stride, and kill 10 orcs find 10,000 gp in treasure styled 1e campaigns).

Agree, it's just an anecdote, and I wouldn't read too much into it... but there is at least some evidence there that the high-level play may be one factor in the players' desire not to resume the old campaign and to instead start fresh. It doesn't mean anything unless there are a lot of corroborating data, but it's an anecdote.

 

[Li Shenron]

I couldn't really pick 3 because IMHO it is the total of these features that matters. None of these features alone is the dealmaker.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Now, i understand that this is DnD and we are not going to get engaged and prolonged slug fests (at least no DM worth his/her weight in water would allow his party to die off, just because they ran out of resources after 3-9 encounters), but if our fighters are the archetype soldier, then yeah...... soldiering is the best thing they do, out of all the classes. So.... maybe we should use the term soldiering instead of fighting?

Due to some David Weber Safehold fiction I've been reading, I've actually considered letting my next campaign involve the PCs in fights between actual armies. One characteristic of an army fight is that if you can take more of the fight, you do. A Sharpshooter fighter who can reliably output damage for hours at a time could turn the tide of battle on a whole section of battlefront. Conversely, a wizard with Meteor Swarm might only be able to do that once, so he should save it for when it really counts (acting as a sort of emergency reserve).

The better the PCs do, the more of their comrades they save.

 

[ZzarkLinux]

I really wanted to pick action surge & second wind. However, I must face the facts, and I voted that the fighter is not best at fighting :-( No matter how you define "best at fighting", the Fighter is either competing for 1st place or behind 1st place.

Fighting = "winning" the encounter. Well, Mr. Fighter can only inflict hitpoint damage. Spells can circumvent hitpoint systems, and skills / scouting can skip encounters. Even if the encounter is a "hitpoint damage encounter", then the fighter falls behind the Paladin (smite), the barbarian (rage), the wizard (sleep), and other classes.

Fighting = "surviving" the encounter. A shapeshifting druid has more hitpoints. A barbarian has damage reduction. A Paladin has heavy armor, saves, plus healing spells. All 3 of those classes boast more skills and additional features which can also swing the tide of combat. Oh, and casters are a thing. Surviving on d10 hitdice and heavy armor doesn't qualify as "best".

Fighting = "consistency" in encounters. This is hogwash. In real life war, in first person shooters, hell even in boxing, consistency is meaningless. The way to win combat, the way to survive combat: it to get an advantage and push the advantage. In war, you don't just stand next to an enemy swinging sticks, you get an armored vehicle and push the advantage. In fighting games, you don't just stand next to the opponent tapping the "jab" button, you get an advantage first. The fighter is inflexible and has no advantages. He will always end up fighting on opponents' terms, where his consistency is meaningless. You want to spike your damage, and push your advantage, not "be consistent".

* oh, and consistency. Most campaigns are "consistently" level 1 to level 12. Exactly where the fighter is outclassed.

No matter how you slice it, the Fighter is not the "best at fighting". He has several competitors who exceed his strengths in every facet. So he is not the "best at fighting", only "one of the best". A participation award given to many classes.

Congratulations Fighter. You get a participation award for the Combat Tier of D&D. Maybe you'll do better in the Exploration Tier and Social Tier ...

/rant

 

[Mirtek]

IMHO at the levels that matter the fighter is not the best at fighting. An AC 16 barbarian attacking with advantage while being attacked with advantage for half damage only outfights the AC 18-21 fighter who has no auto-advantage and is hit less often but for full damage until around level 11 when the 2d extra attack turns the tide.

Unfortunately this encompasses the most played level range and thus most campaigns never reach the point when the fighter starts outfighting the barbarian

 

[TheLoneRanger1979]

....In real life war, in first person shooters, hell even in boxing, consistency is meaningless. The way to win combat, the way to survive combat: it to get an advantage and push the advantage. In war, you don't just stand next to an enemy swinging sticks, you get an armored vehicle and push the advantage. In fighting games, you don't just stand next to the opponent tapping the "jab" button, you get an advantage first......

I usually don't pay attention to the comparison of real life fighting and wars with DnD (i mean, come on.... there have been countless threads on the subject and will be many more)..... but throwing real life war, boxing matches and.... first person shooters of all things in the same basket? Besides, several war wars tend to disagree with you anyways

Due to some David Weber Safehold fiction I've been reading, I've actually considered letting my next campaign involve the PCs in fights between actual armies. One characteristic of an army fight is that if you can take more of the fight, you do. A Sharpshooter fighter who can reliably output damage for hours at a time could turn the tide of battle on a whole section of battlefront. Conversely, a wizard with Meteor Swarm might only be able to do that once, so he should save it for when it really counts (acting as a sort of emergency reserve).

The better the PCs do, the more of their comrades they save.

That would certainly bee and interesting campaign. I can't recall of all that many campaigns based around army level fighting and have always been curious as to how they can be pulled off.