D&D 5E When do you think the revised fighter will be released?

[MoonSong]

What? NO!

Don't want to get involved in the Sorcerer discussion, but the Monk?

Look, if you happen to like Monks, the 5e Monk is perfect. In fact, as a true Monk fan, I would say that 5e is the first edition that really got the Monk right.

The Open Hand Monk is just about perfect. I would argue that, in terms of design, it might be the best realized archetype in 5e.
Shadow is also an excellent example of how to do a flavorful variation. It is a great ninja.

So, they didn't do a great avatar monk, but that's because (again, IMHO) the Monk ki-chassis isn't great for spellcasting. But ... who cares?

To the extent that the Monk doesn't do well in popularity surveys, I would say it's not because of class design (which is amazing) but just because some people don't like Monks in their D&D. If you don't like the 5e Monk, your issue isn't the class design, your issue (again, IMO) is the Monk class.

Don't take me too seriously, but I don't think we'll be seeing any new revised class anytime soon. Ranger will take its time, then the natural followup is the sorcerer, should the designers ever recognize sorcerer is in need of help. And that isn't happening with all the new subclasses that we (I) expect in the near future. No matter how much I desire it and advocate for it, I know it isn't happening. Then if the planets align and a pig flies and that ever happens, that is at least three more years. And even then the next one by popularity would be monk, and monk is quite solid, but let's say that also happens by a weird twist of fortune, we are talking at least seven years before fighter is even on the table.

 

[Wiseblood]

There's a fixed Ranger?

 

[MoonSong]

There's a fixed Ranger?

Look for Revised Ranger in Unearthed Arcana.

I think this is the latest version. Not making it to print anytime soon though

http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/unearthed-arcana-ranger-revised

 

[Kobold Stew]

There's a fixed Ranger?

Here you go -- RANGERIFFIC.

 

[Quickleaf]

With ranger being fixed, the fighter is now the weakest class by a large margin. When do you think they will get an update?

While I would like to see the fighter re-designed (though perhaps for unique reasons), I don't see that happening. Whenever possible, the 5e design philosophy is to be additive rather than redactive/retroactive. The ranger was an exception to that rule.

The fighter is "well designed enough" and may have "approval ratings" from the fans at around 70-75% based on fan-conducted polls and some comments from the designers.

I'd like to see a re-design that embraces more styles of fighter, makes their combat feel more visceral than other PCs, fills some "holes" in their class features compared to barbarians/paladins/rangers, and has more interesting story hooks for players to hang their imaginations upon.

The latter (interesting story hooks) at least seems to be something that Mike Mearls is paying attention to with future fighter sub-classes being released.

 

[Ancalagon]

This is completely bonkers as far as I'm concerned. Fighter is one of the strongest classes in the game. Fighter also uses the most broken feat in the entire game the best.. Great Weapon Master. At level 20 a fighter gets 4 attacks with two action surges for a 2 turn total of 16 attacks... the fighter could very well slay a dragon by them self.

16 attacks hmmm? Show your math

An Eldritch knight can have 8 attacks in one turn.. two turns in a row.. and use the Shield spell for +5 AC when needed, and has Counterspell. Given how absolutely broken the Great Weapon Master feat is, I would take an Eldritch Knight over a paladin any day. I also would not overlook those two extra ASI that a fighter gets, if your group is using the rules that the game was balanced for (not rolling for stats) but the standard array, they become all the more important.

The most compelling argument for a paladin is, imho, the level 6 Aura of Protection.

All this is at *level 20*. A lot of people never play at that level. And even if you did, it's end of campaign stuff. Comparing class balance at level 20 is... not very useful.

Oh and we don't use feats

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

Never, because the Fighter is fine.

Sure it's a bit boring, but so has every other fighter, except for 4th edition, and that basically turned every class into a caster, including the fighter.

 

[Wiseblood]

16 attacks hmmm? Show your math



All this is at *level 20*. A lot of people never play at that level. And even if you did, it's end of campaign stuff. Comparing class balance at level 20 is... not very useful.

Oh and we don't use feats

16 attacks, is correct but should have used the word rounds not turns.
Round one: attack action 4 attacks, action surge 4 more attacks
Round two: attack action 4 attacks, action surge number two 4 more attacks
for a total of 16 in two rounds

If you did use feats Great Weapon Master could net 160 points of damage above and beyond what you see without. FWIW I agree level 20 comparisons are not much use for my table.

 

[Caliban]

16 attacks hmmm? Show your math

Not Razamis, but since you asked - in this case the math is simple. Level 20 fighter get 4 attacks with an attack action, and can use Action Surge twice. So round 1, attack 4 times, action surge, attack 4 more times. Repeat on round 2, for 8 more attacks. Total of 16 attacks over two rounds. That's without trying hard.

If the fighter is hasted, add 2 more attacks for those two rounds, and if they have something that gives them a bonus action attack (TWF, Polearm Master, GWM, etc), add two more attacks for that, and if they can take a reaction attack (Sentinal feat, Polearm master feat, AoO's, battlemaster shenanigans), that is potentially another two attacks.

So fully tricked out, 20 attacks over two rounds, 22 if they can make reaction attacks.

 

[Ancalagon]

I'm silly I missed the 2 turn bit. Ooops.

The level 20 thing stands however.