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

[I'm A Banana]

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.

I don't think that trading off between the pillars is a great kind of balance. At the extremes, it leads to players twiddling their thumbs in scenes where they feel like they can't make a contribution because it's, say, an Interaction scene and "I've got an 8 Cha, I can't do anything!" Ideally, you want broadly capable PC's who can contribute to every pillar successfully, and then they can maybe choose a specialization if they want to double-down on a pillar - and maybe someone can choose to "ignore" the pillar if they want to, but they'll still be fine when it needs to happen.

5e seems to follow that model in most respects. A Champion whose player really wants to tank their social skills puts an 8 in Cha and doesn't take any social skill proficiencies (even from their background!), so maybe they're an Urchin with proficiency in Sleight of Hand, Stealth, and Acrobatics and Perception. Lo, they are actually quite good at the Exploration pillar without really trying (even a low Dex or Wis here would be a 10 with the Standard Array, which is fiiiiiine with Bounded Accuracy). And even this clod can make a Charisma check, and stands a chance at succeeding despite himself (a -1 can still roll a 17 and DC's are bounded). So if everyone else is dead and it's on him to persuade the mind flayer not to eat him, he can still stand a chance. There's never nothing he can do.

So you have a broadly capable character who, even in the area they "dump," isn't a waste of space. This points to D&D 5e not really trading off pillars like that - you don't get good at Combat by sacrificing something else. Everyone is about equal in Combat, and if you choose to "dump" it (say, a wizard who refuses to take anything other than ritual spells), you'll still do fine (cantrips!), even if you won't be pulling out any surprises.

 

[psychophipps]

I see the Fighter the same way I see Batman. He's not the strongest, fastest, toughest, smartest (but there are admittedly few that can surpass him in this category), or possesses some strange special powers. He's just a highly trained and motivated human with a metric butt-ton of resources, and that alone keeps him in the top tier or the second tier of superheroes depending on how you look at it.
Fighters can't smite, rage, or cast spells, but nobody can deny that the fighter is still pretty handy to have around. They might not have the fancy add-ons, but they're definitely an asset. Knocking the fighter is like dissing the middle dog of your sled team. Yeah, it's not exceptional, but it's definitely still pulling it's share of the weight.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

...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...

I think that's a clear example of reading too much into it.

There could be any number of reasons, including aversion to high-level play in both holding older editions against the new edition and genuinely not liking how this edition's high-level play works styles, for wanting the old campaign not to resume. Unless you ask the players for concrete information on what their exact reasons were, all you have is speculation - not evidence.

 

[Psikerlord#]

...but is that your experience of 5th edition itself, or your expectation because previous versions of the game made that your expectation and you haven't allowed yourself to give 5th edition the chance to change it?

I ask because my experience of 5th edition is that, among running other games that I enjoy, I've barely had the time for a campaign to even reach 12th level as of yet - but have seen none of the indicators present in prior versions of the game in which I too found campaigns to end at or before 12th level.

A mix of both - over time my groups tend to want to restart with a new bunch of PCs, often somewhere in the 8th - 12th range, and 5th has so far proven no different. The only edition we choose to go higher than 12th was 4th Ed - but even then a few of us swapped out PCs halfway through, etc.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

A mix of both - over time my groups tend to want to restart with a new bunch of PCs, often somewhere in the 8th - 12th range, and 5th has so far proven no different. The only edition we choose to go higher than 12th was 4th Ed - but even then a few of us swapped out PCs halfway through, etc.

Thanks for answering. Have you and your group thought about intentionally pushing on past 12th in 5th edition at least once to see how things actually play out, even if switching to different characters along the way?

I am really curious whether this is a case of your group finding that 12th level is the end of what part of the game is actually enjoyable for them to play, or just a case of your group generally wanting to try something new after a shorter period of time than my group (who answer the end of basically every campaign, no matter how long it's played or what level they reached with "...do we really have to end it there? Can you maybe try to come up with a sequel for this?" and other similar expressions of not having had quite enough of their characters).

 

[Warbringer]

My 3rd choice-hit points

 

[Tony Vargas]

I see the Fighter the same way I see Batman. He's not the strongest, fastest, toughest, smartest, or possesses some strange special powers. He's just a highly trained and motivated human with a metric butt-ton of resources

It's certainly easy to see a high-level 1e fighter that way - with his Rod of Lordly Might, Platemail of Etherealness, Helm of Brilliance, and, er, well, Wings of Flying, maybe? Heck, in a sufficiently Monty Haul campaign he could probably qualify as Iron Man.

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.

Competing for 1st place is still best, because the competitors can't claim to be strictly better. (They might also claim to be 'best' of course).

Fighting = "winning" the encounter. ... 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.

So, just hashing out those two, you're down to the Barbarian & Paladin as rivals?

Fighting = "consistency" in encounters. This is hogwash. 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".

Action Surge /is/ a damage spike, a spike that's bigger the more Extra Attacks, and DPR-optimizing Style, ASIs, &c you have.

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".

As long as no class can clearly be shown to be better, 'best' still applies.

I don't think that trading off between the pillars is a great kind of balance.

It's how D&D has done it in the past, that an across a range of levels, which is even less great, I'll agree. The concept of the fighter as 'best at fighting' is also very much 'excels in the combat pillar to make up for lacking in others.' And that fits the traditional focus of the class and it's past feel well. So it's hardly surprising or unworkable for what 5e was trying to accomplish.

The alternative would be balancing classes within each pillar, independently. 5e's certainly not doing that.

My 3rd choice-hit points

I didn't bother putting that on the list because of the obvious objection that the Barbarian has more hps. In retrospect, it's fair to think that d10 HD would synergize with other things (like Second Wind & Armor Proficiencies) to contribute the fighter being best at fighting, in some all-round sense.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The alternative would be balancing classes within each pillar, independently. 5e's certainly not doing that.

It's not balancing classes within each pillar.

But it is balancing every character within each pillar.

If the worst you can be at a social interaction is "-1 to Cha checks," with bounded accuracy, you are not actually very bad at social interaction. You are not prevented from excelling. You are not a lost cause. Every character gets ideals, bonds, flaws, and traits, too. Every character has the opportunity to play to these and gain Inspiration.

Classes, meanwhile, seem balanced in the Combat pillar pretty nicely. Each one is good at at least one the four main methods of contribution to success in a combat scenario, and via the default actions available to any character, any character can contribute in a pinch to one of 'em. Depending on the class, you also get a non-combat pillar jacked up (Champions = Good At Exploration; Bannerets = Good At Interaction).

So I think that the claim that any 5e is overall balanced in each pillar is a true statement. And the idea that a fighter is "best at fighting" because it gives up some other pillar doesn't seem to hold up to scrutiny, IMO, both because fighters explicitly get features related to other pillars and because a fighter's combat ability seems to be pretty much on par with the combat ability of other classes.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It's not balancing classes within each pillar.

But it is balancing every character within each pillar.

That'd be even harder, and I can't say I'm see'n it.

If the worst you can be at a social interaction is "-1 to Cha checks," with bounded accuracy, you are not actually very bad at social interaction.

Bounded Accuracy lets everyone participate, in a given pillar, where the only bar for participation is being able to make a check, sure. That's far from the same as 'balanced within a pillar,' which'd be a lot less practical to try to implement.

So I think that the claim that any 5e is overall balanced in each pillar is a true statement.

'Balanced' to any meaningful degree isn't a claim I'd want to have to defend, but 5e avoids quite a lot of balance issues by leaving them up to the DM, so I don't feel the need make or defend (nor pick apart) such a claim. ;P

And the idea that a fighter is "best at fighting" because it gives up some other pillar doesn't seem to hold up to scrutiny

For purposes of this poll, I don't really care what theoretical design 'price' the fighter may have paid for the features that make it best at fighting, just which of those features seem the most significant.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

M) All of the above