Thoughts on the Fighter

[BigONotation]

I was thinking about the who linear Fighter Quadratic Wizard debate that seems to still be going on and I had a thought. While you can't give the fighter Wish or Forcecage you can give him what he already gets earlier.

If he is the master of armed combat why does he gain his second attack at the same time as others who have not dedicated themselves to the art of battle as he has? I say let him have his first attack at 4th instead of the generic 5th, his 2nd extra attack at 9th and his last extra attack at 14th. It will set him apart as the undisputed most skilled of melee combat.

Also, while Indomitable is great, it has too few uses to be very useful at the level the Fighter attains them. I would give him Indomitable at 5th with charges equal to his con bonus or at least starting with two uses and advancing by two each further time he gains it.

I'm going to try these changes out in a group I'm running as I feel the Fighter really needs some extra oomph. Otherwise, mechanically I feel a player is better off choosing Paladin or Barbarian as both get their powers very early.

[Eslin]

All that's doing is increasing direct power. What a fighter needs is options and the ability to contribute in more than one way.

[Falka]

Fighters are fine. There is no need to fix what is not broken. People that complain, the vast majority, haven't played the game enough to actually have a valid claim to their assumptions.

[TheOOB]

A few things, I will agree that the wizard is probably a more powerful class than a fighter, in 5e, but it's not unmitagated, and it's not where near the level of 3e. Second, what the fighter does the fighter is really, really good at. When it comes to standing toe to toe with the enemy and dealing out good reliable damage, no one beats the fighter. The fighter gets 4 attacks, which they can ALWAYS use, they get the best armor and best hp in the game(second wind more than makes up for no d12), and their two best not at-will special abilities(second wind and action surge) are short rest. As long as a fighter isn't dead(which is difficult to accomplish) a fighter can always fight at near full power and be good at it. On a long day with 8 encounters, the fighter just wins.

As far as specific points, I understand the desire to give the extra attacks to fighters earlier, but 5e really seems to be trying to universalize some concepts. Most classes get their first real powerful ability at level 5, and fighters should be no exception. Also fighters are already is really strong multiclass dip, they don't need to be stronger.

Indomitable is a useful ability, but not something to be relied on. A fighters prime stats are Strength or Dex, so you don't want to pigeonhole them and make them need to invest heavily in CON.

As for comparisons to Paladin and Ranger, ranger is probably the least powerful class in the PHB, and doesn't really get anything interesting or powerful until their later archetype abilities. The Paladin also doesn't really pick up speed until the second tier.

[BigONotation]

All that's doing is increasing direct power. What a fighter needs is options and the ability to contribute in more than one way.

Agreed, I was also considering giving all Fighter sub-classes expertise dice and just letting the Battle Master have more of them. Similar in mechanic they could be used to enhance rolls but not be used for maneuvers.

[BigONotation]

Fighters are fine. There is no need to fix what is not broken. People that complain, the vast majority, haven't played the game enough to actually have a valid claim to their assumptions.

My group and I tested six classes at 1st, 5th, 11th, 14th, and 20th against appropriate level encounters. That's where I drew my ideas from for changing the class.

[Falka]

My group and I tested six classes at 1st, 5th, 11th, 14th, and 20th against appropriate level encounters. That's where I drew my ideas from for changing the class.

How many encounters? Was it an adventure or merely battle simulations?

[BigONotation]

A few things, I will agree that the wizard is probably a more powerful class than a fighter, in 5e, but it's not unmitagated, and it's not where near the level of 3e. Second, what the fighter does the fighter is really, really good at. When it comes to standing toe to toe with the enemy and dealing out good reliable damage, no one beats the fighter. The fighter gets 4 attacks, which they can ALWAYS use, they get the best armor and best hp in the game(second wind more than makes up for no d12), and their two best not at-will special abilities(second wind and action surge) are short rest. As long as a fighter isn't dead(which is difficult to accomplish) a fighter can always fight at near full power and be good at it. On a long day with 8 encounters, the fighter just wins.


The fighter gets four attacks at 20th, which .001% of campaigns might reach.

Second wind decreases in usefulness every level after it is obtained, if it scaled I'd say sure.

So your argument is fighters win when there are lots of encounters, so we're reliant on the DM catering to the fighter by increasing the encounters per day, got it.



As far as specific points, I understand the desire to give the extra attacks to fighters earlier, but 5e really seems to be trying to universalize some concepts. Most classes get their first real powerful ability at level 5, and fighters should be no exception. Also fighters are already is really strong multiclass dip, they don't need to be stronger.


So if we're going with what the intention of the designers is, we should go back to the Fighter design goals published by Mike Mearls during the playtest period which state that the fighter should have no equal on the battlefield. This ensures that in a flat mechanical way that harms no one and only slightly benefits the fighter. The PHB already has rules regarding extra attacks and dips.



Indomitable is a useful ability, but not something to be relied on. A fighters prime stats are Strength or Dex, so you don't want to pigeonhole them and make them need to invest heavily in CON.


I also said you can just give them two charges starting at 5th. Makes them miles tougher vs mage goes first attacks that are I Win buttons.

[BigONotation]

How many encounters? Was it an adventure or merely battle simulations?

No adventure, six encounter days. Classes were Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin, Rogue, Wizard, Cleric.

[MustacheFart]

Just pointing out that "having no equal on the battlefield" doesn't necessarily mean doing the most damage. It could be in reference to endurance and lasting the longest.

[hawklost]

The fighter gets four attacks at 20th, which .001% of campaigns might reach.

Second wind decreases in usefulness every level after it is obtained, if it scaled I'd say sure.

Second Wind does scale, it gives you 1d10+fighter level, at 20 that is a guarantied 21 health back. recharge after short rest.



So your argument is fighters win when there are lots of encounters, so we're reliant on the DM catering to the fighter by increasing the encounters per day, got it.

And if we want the Casters to win, we drop the number of encounters, therefore relying on the DM catering to the caster class. See how claims like yours aren't extremely good since it is a swinging scale? 1 end gives one class more advantage, the other gives the opposite class more. If you throw in a random number of encounters from 2-10 during a day instead of telling the party they will be having so many, it might change up who is better since the Fighter can continue on without too much worry while the Wizard won't know if encounter 2 is the last and he can blow his list or if he will face a huge number of encounters after.



So if we're going with what the intention of the designers is, we should go back to the Fighter design goals published by Mike Mearls during the playtest period which state that the fighter should have no equal on the battlefield. This ensures that in a flat mechanical way that harms no one and only slightly benefits the fighter. The PHB already has rules regarding extra attacks and dips.

No equal does not mean Most DPS, Most Hp, Most AC or even Most survivability. What it means is that combining all three of those (plus whatever else) the Fighter should be king on the battlefield. If you compare only one aspect, the Fighter might not be the best but if you compare all the aspects, the Fighter might shine (or not depending on so much)

[Dienekes]

Having no equal in battle is a term so vague it's useless. Does it mean best damage, best health, the ability to control a battlefield, being unstoppable? All of the above?

A class that is the best at all of that is probably unbalanced. But to be honest, being the best at health or damage is pretty boring. Useful, but boring. I'd instead try and focus on how you want the fighter to play and make him good at it, instead of just giving a bunch of numbers