Are fighters less underpowered in 5e?

[gutza1]

I heard that in 3.5e fighters became more and more useless as the game progressed. However, my friend said that a 3.5e fighter would be very effective if optimized, it's just that wizards are overpowered. Is that situtation the same in 5e? How do fighters compare to wizards, clerics, druids,etc. when it comes to utility?

[Eslin]

No, 3.5e fighters got slightly more useful as the game progressed, core was the worst time for them. At least other books gave them options, though nowhere near that of a caster. It wasn't just wizards that were overpowered, it was spellcasting in general - martial characters never got in or out of combat options anywhere near as useful as casters did. Fighters were never effective when optimised - at most you could spend all your features getting really good at one trick, and if that one trick wasn't useful in the situation you were in, you were ****ed. And that trick would still never be as good as whatever 6th level spells the druid decided to prepare that day.

In combat 5e fighters have gotten a few more options (as long as you don't pick champion). They still don't have that much to do, because apparently the awesomeness that was the tactical abilities of the warblade or 4e fighter got completely forgotten by the designers, but they can at least do a little more in combat than they could in 3.5. They can now outperform the cleric in melee, though onion druids are still at least as good as fighters are in hand to hand. Out of combat, fighters still get to sit there and pick their nose while the casters fix everything.

[Sartharina]

Fighters are actually pretty good because of systematic overhauls to the system.

They actually have trained skills now, DCs aren't so obscene that they can succeed even when not trained, they are no longer turrets, they can heal themselves as a Bonus action, and their extra attacks actually matter.

[TheOOB]

The Fighter in 5e does pretty much one thing, they fight, but they do it very well. As far as out of combat pursuits, they are about in the same boat as most of the classes(4 skills, two of which are based on class), which means they will defiantly be useful where they are skilled.

Otherwise almost all of the fighters abilities are fighting focused. Out of all the classes, the fighter is the most consistent class, as most of their abilities can be either used at will or once per short rest. They eventually get up to four attacks per round, more than any other class, they can act twice once per short rest(huge bonus), meaning they always have offensive power, and defensivly they have the second best hit points, the best armor, can heal every short rest, and can even get a couple of boosts on saving throws a few times per day.

Out of the three archtpes, the Champion is simple but a little underpowered(it's all passive bonuses, not as bad as it initially looks, but still meh), the battlemaster gets a bunch of cool fighting moves, and the Eldtritch Knight gets spells, meaning there is some choice and variety.

All in all, the fighter isn't as flexible as other classes, nor does it have the same burst power(save for action surge, which is amazing), but the fighter is easy to play and always delivers consistent and useful performance. 8-9 encounters into the day the wizard and cleric are down to cantrips, the rogue is near dead, the barbarian can't rage anymore, but the fighter is still fighting at near peak efficiency.

[Falka]

No, 3.5e fighters got slightly more useful as the game progressed, core was the worst time for them. At least other books gave them options, though nowhere near that of a caster. It wasn't just wizards that were overpowered, it was spellcasting in general - martial characters never got in or out of combat options anywhere near as useful as casters did. Fighters were never effective when optimised - at most you could spend all your features getting really good at one trick, and if that one trick wasn't useful in the situation you were in, you were ****ed. And that trick would still never be as good as whatever 6th level spells the druid decided to prepare that day.

In combat 5e fighters have gotten a few more options (as long as you don't pick champion). They still don't have that much to do, because apparently the awesomeness that was the tactical abilities of the warblade or 4e fighter got completely forgotten by the designers, but they can at least do a little more in combat than they could in 3.5. They can now outperform the cleric in melee, though onion druids are still at least as good as fighters are in hand to hand. Out of combat, fighters still get to sit there and pick their nose while the casters fix everything.

Currently Eldritch Knight + Polearm Master + Sentinel is one of the most overpowered tactical combinations of the game.

And I don't think it's reasonable to say "Fighters were good, you just needed to spend 70 bucks buying splats to make the class work".

[Inevitability]

A fighter in 3.5 was doomed to suck. He had to spend his money on items to grant him flight, true seeing, immunity to this and this common status effect, a way to bypass all kinds of regeneration and damage reduction... and if he did all of that and min-maxed his build, he would still be outclassed by many other characters. Not to mention that he could only hit things, while other classes had actual options inside and outside of combat. Meanwhile, wizards were summoning überangels, building magical copies of the gods themselves, destroying armies with a single spell and turning into dragons.

In 5e, fighters are much better. They can pick from a variety of trained skills, plus the ones from their background, are the best at straight-up melee damage, no exceptions, and gain an awesome ability that easily justifies dipping two levels of fighter. Not only that, they can even pick up some spells with the Eldritch Knight subclass or some combat versatility with the Battlemaster subclass.

[Eslin]

Currently Eldritch Knight + Polearm Master + Sentinel is one of the most overpowered tactical combinations of the game.

And I don't think it's reasonable to say "Fighters were good, you just needed to spend 70 bucks buying splats to make the class work".

I never said they were good. I said they were bad, and even with very specific builds you could only do one thing well, and would be useless if that one thing wasn't useful for the current situation.

And no, that combo is not overpowered. Contagion, true polymorph and forcecage are overpowered, and as opportunity attacks go that combo with warlock and warcaster is far better.

[TripleD]

3.5 Fighters were designed to depend on feats. On the surface this is not a bad idea; you would get to build up your own fighting style over the course of your character's growth.

The problem was that 98% of feats in 3.5 were either:
1) Taxes for better, more interesting feats
2) provided bonuses so situational as to be useless

5e fighters, simply by virtue of actually having class features, are significantly better.

[Falka]

I never said they were good. I said they were bad, and even with very specific builds you could only do one thing well, and would be useless if that one thing wasn't useful for the current situation.

And no, that combo is not overpowered. Contagion, true polymorph and forcecage are overpowered, and as opportunity attacks go that combo with warlock and warcaster is far better.

Still, you didn't get the point. Trying to compare 3.5 Fighters with 5e Fighters while claiming they could be "somewhat fixed" with splats is avoiding the whole issue about how bad Fighters were in that edition.

I can't see how two 8th level or higher spells that have obvious counters are overpowered. I mildly agree with Contagion, but then again, browsing through the spell lists, I've noticed that it's so easy to remove a disease that I'm starting to think giving a 5th level spell a single target effect like that isn't really that impressive.

An Eldritch Knight, for instance, has access to Counterspell WHILE being a Fighter. With a Polearm he can reach half of the mobs effortlessly and punish them each time they try to do anything besides hitting him. He gets free cantrips while attacking, and at higher levels can even throw spells between attacks. Mageslayer makes him even more deadly against a BBEG caster and will probably not let him even act before taking half of his HP away. I've seen it in action and it's kind of sad people don't realise how strong Fighters get when you give them a couple of "low level" spells. They just see the big nukes or just, like in the case of True Polymorph, assume people have unlimited time or that the DM is so dumb that he will let you turn a couple of rocks into a sentient, capable army.

[Person_Man]

3..0/3.5/Pathfinder Fighter could do a small number of things fairly well if optimized effectively, and the ability to do those things got better as more splat books came out. Those things were melee damage, melee battlefield control, being a meat shield, and imposing Fear (which was added later through obscure splat). If you consider Prestige Classes to be the 3.5 version of subclasses, then the Fighter (like every other class) could diversity into almost anything.

5E Fighter starts the game as an effective damage dealer (melee or ranged) and meat shield. It remains fairly good at these roles throughout all 20 levels. Champion subclass improves on these two roles modestly. Eldritch Knight gives you some poorly scaled magical options. Battlemaster gives you some semi-useful maneuvers which can aid an ally or impose modest effects. Feats/Ability Score Increases are more useful in 5E, and the 5E Fighter gets a few more of them. But Feats do not scale with class level, so getting slightly more of them at mid-higher levels is actually less useful for the 5E Fighter then getting actual high level class abilities.

In both 3.5 and 5E, the options possessed by full casters become comparatively more numerous, flexible, and powerful as you increase in level. A 20th level Fighter in either edition might deal plenty of damage. A 17th level Wizard in either edition might turn into a dragon (or whatever else it wants to turn into). 5E made these magical reality changing "nuclear bombs" less numerous, both in terms of the number of crazy options that exist, and how often full casters could use them and stack them together. But they still exist, because some players really really like using them.

[Warskull]

I heard that in 3.5e fighters became more and more useless as the game progressed. However, my friend said that a 3.5e fighter would be very effective if optimized, it's just that wizards are overpowered. Is that situtation the same in 5e? How do fighters compare to wizards, clerics, druids,etc. when it comes to utility?

In 3.5 Fighters were effective, but Wizards and Clerics just grew in power so much more quickly. The power gap between Fighter and Magic Classes grew with each level.

In 5E the fighter is a solid class outputting some of the best consistent DPR in the game. Magic classes have far few casts of their world crushing level 9 spells (you only get one level 9 spell per rest.) Plus Wizard spells no longer scale with caster level. They must use a higher level spell slots to deal more damage.

The removal of the terrible full-attack rules also helps. Fighters get 4 attacks, the can move and use all 4 of these attacks. 3.5 suffered from melee classes having a difficult time using their multiple attacks because for the most part they could not do so and move.

So now fighters can deal solid DPR every round with some abilities. Wizards can hit really hard, but have limited ammo, so they have to pick and choose their moments.

[Beige]

your freind is sadly talking out of his behind. fighters where terrible in 3.5, with only the samurai (a reskined fighter who didn't even get to pick how he sucked and was stuck in TwF) and the monk (too much MaD and no magic items) being anywhere near as terrible. Even a heavily optimized fighter could only really compete with a lazily built unoptimized T3 class at best, and even that was a push.

In 5e, fighters are a fair cop better and are actually capable of competing with the other classes. They're still not as good as full casters, but they actually work now - they're the most reliable and efficient melee warriors in the game, as well as the only characters able to make 4 attacks a round. They don't get the same fancy toys that the paladin or barbarian do, but they make up for it with a large number of feats, the martial progress and the action surge - they now really feel like their the most skilled warriors, which I like, rather than feeling like what you'd get if you took the other martial classes and plucked away the fun parts.

also, much like the rest of the changes to the system, they're now viable out of combat as well - with capped save DCs meaning they may actually be able to make one or two and them having just as good skill access as everyone but the rogue and bard :smallbiggrin:

now it's the ranger who sucks XD

[Surrealistik]

Less underpowered, but still underpowered relative to casters, if only because they lack their insane versatility.

[Falka]

now it's the ranger who sucks XD

And he doesn't, really. Unless your games are mostly based in a coliseum or a "let's fight X encounters" over and over, the Ranger is a solid class and it really helps groups to pass safely through exploration-based quests. Pass Without Trace is an awesome spell, for instance, that can allow a full party to use Stealth efficiently (and so you ignore the "tin can Fighter / Cleric syndrome" that forces you to fight every encounter).

[wolfstone]

3..0/3.5/Pathfinder Fighter could do a small number of things fairly well if optimized effectively, and the ability to do those things got better as more splat books came out. Those things were melee damage, melee battlefield control, being a meat shield, and imposing Fear (which was added later through obscure splat). If you consider Prestige Classes to be the 3.5 version of subclasses, then the Fighter (like every other class) could diversity into almost anything.


Is there a list of these books? I'd like to know which ones to go for to round out my collection of 3.0/5 books/resources.

[Zweisteine]

Currently Eldritch Knight + Polearm Master + Sentinel is one of the most overpowered tactical combinations of the game.
Care to say why? If you want tactical, battlemaster seems to be the way to go.

Quite literally everyone I've seen mention it has said that eldritch knight is a trap. And I agree. Any turn you could be casting a spell, you could be making two or more attacks. Seems to be a poor tradeoff. Even if you take abjuration over evocation, it's better to leave that to the wizard.
(And a shameless self-advertisement: See my eldritch knight fix here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?370324-The-Revised-Eldritch-Knight-Giantitp-s-First-5e-Fighter-Fix). I have remove the issue of spells preventing attacks, though I can't say with confidence that it is balanced.)


My opinion of fighters in 5e:
Their relative combat ability has improved over previous editions, but, the archetypes are a bit lacking. Battlemaster is cool, and adds a new mechanic, but eldritch knight has issues (i.e. it lowers your overall damage output) and champion is generally lackluster. The other issue is that the biggest damage boost they get is each new attack. The second new attack doesn't give improvement over other melee classes, because they also get it, and the third and fourth attacks come much later in the career.


EDIT:

Is there a list of these books? I'd like to know which ones to go for to round out my collection of 3.0/5 books/resources.
One of the best books to get to improve non-casting characters is the Magic Item Compendium, because of the sheer variety of options it contains (the same way the Spell Compendium benefits casters, really. The Tome of Battle is basically the official, and well-balancced fighter fix. The Complete Warrior is probably the most obvious place to look if fighter PrCs is what you want. And, of course, Dungeonscape has the dungeon crasher fighter variant, which, paired with CW's shock trooper feat, can drastically increase a fighter's damage output.

[pwykersotz]

Care to say why? If you want tactical, battlemaster seems to be the way to go.

Quite literally everyone I've seen mention it has said that eldritch knight is a trap. And I agree. Any turn you could be casting a spell, you could be making two or more attacks. Seems to be a poor tradeoff. Even if you take abjuration over evocation, it's better to leave that to the wizard.

I'll dissent on that one. Eldritch Knight adds less battle capability and more versatility. I'm not going to be taking Find Familiar and Fly to do more damage, after all, and neither Battlemaster nor Champion come close to those. And Mirror Image is amazing. Throw Counterspell in to stop spellcasters from stopping you, and you have a very nice way to play.

[Soras Teva Gee]

And he doesn't, really. Unless your games are mostly based in a coliseum or a "let's fight X encounters" over and over, the Ranger is a solid class and it really helps groups to pass safely through exploration-based quests. Pass Without Trace is an awesome spell, for instance, that can allow a full party to use Stealth efficiently (and so you ignore the "tin can Fighter / Cleric syndrome" that forces you to fight every encounter).

Well I think even if not so much in actual play the Ranger lack some obvious bells and whistles to scream "play me, play me" in the abstract as while its abilities are nice for the right game most people will probably think someone having Survival is enough. Also I get the creepy impression a Beast Master robs their animal friend of all independence. I could care less about independent attack options really... I want to know how I'm supposed to send my little friend out scouting like is always the best use. They seemed to have feared the '2 pc for the price of 1' phenomena so fiercely they didn't let you have the whole point of a pet.

Still the ceiling and floor seem such that even the Ranger being the worst is more "ehh well someone has to be" then being "nigh unplayable" or some such.

[Eslin]

Still, you didn't get the point. Trying to compare 3.5 Fighters with 5e Fighters while claiming they could be "somewhat fixed" with splats is avoiding the whole issue about how bad Fighters were in that edition.

I can't see how two 8th level or higher spells that have obvious counters are overpowered. I mildly agree with Contagion, but then again, browsing through the spell lists, I've noticed that it's so easy to remove a disease that I'm starting to think giving a 5th level spell a single target effect like that isn't really that impressive.


No, you don't get the point. I never claimed they could be somewhat fixed in splats, I said the imbalance was worst in core because they had NO options while casters had most of their best options. I never said they could be somewhat fixed, I said they could at best focus their entire character into one thing and then sit and cry when the wizard did that one thing better because he happened to prepare that spell today.

Most monsters don't have spells, and you can't really remove a disease when you're permanently stunned.

[Doug Lampert]

No, you don't get the point. I never claimed they could be somewhat fixed in splats, I said the imbalance was worst in core because they had NO options while casters had most of their best options. I never said they could be somewhat fixed, I said they could at best focus their entire character into one thing and then sit and cry when the wizard did that one thing better because he happened to prepare that spell today.

Most monsters don't have spells, and you can't really remove a disease when you're permanently stunned.

Hey, you're only stunned for 3 rounds because you're legendary so you make the saves despite having disadvantage on them. Of course that's three rounds of stun-lock and to get it down to that you probably burned most of your legendary "get out of jail free" cards.

[Eslin]

Hey, you're only stunned for 3 rounds because you're legendary so you make the saves despite having disadvantage on them. Of course that's three rounds of stun-lock and to get it down to that you probably burned most of your legendary "get out of jail free" cards.

Which I'd say is a pretty amazing deal for a fifth level spell :smallbiggrin:

[Cambrian]

I'll dissent on that one. Eldritch Knight adds less battle capability and more versatility. I'm not going to be taking Find Familiar and Fly to do more damage, after all, and neither Battlemaster nor Champion come close to those. And Mirror Image is amazing. Throw Counterspell in to stop spellcasters from stopping you, and you have a very nice way to play.
Very much agree on this.

The other 2 fighters are very much more limited in their abilities. With access to spells the Eldritch Knight can easily be more versatile, more useful outside of combat, or be more prepared to solve issues that restrict the ability to reach and/or attack and damage the enemy (or not have to).

Furthermore the Eldritch Knight has solutions for large groups of weak enemies that can easily swarm the other fighter varieties-- and against the weaker enemies the casting stat becomes less important.

[Zweisteine]

Dot forget that an eldritch knight can learn only four non-abjuration, non-evocation spells, which includes such spells as fly, mirror image, haste, and contagion. And one of those is at level 20.

And in the situations Cambrian brought up, a true wizard will do much better, and the fighter doesn't need to be involved, with the exception of unreachable enemies, which spells won't help with too much.


I'll admit an eldritch knigt has some uses, but it doesn't seem to be any better than the battlemaster, which boosts damage while providing battlefield control, to a degree.

[Shining Wrath]

3.5: A level 20 wizard can defeat all the fighters in the world.
5e: A level 20 wizard can defeat a L20 fighter, but probably doesn't want to go up against 2 L20 fighters. Teleporting away and leaving the field of battle to them becomes a good idea.

So yes, magic still rules, but it doesn't rule anywhere near as much.

[obryn]

To the OP:

They are underpowered compared to 4e Fighters, but much better than 3.x Fighters.

[Person_Man]

Is there a list of these books? I'd like to know which ones to go for to round out my collection of 3.0/5 books/resources.

Guide to Melee Combos (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?127026-3-X-Person-Man-s-Guide-to-Melee-Combos) contains all the information you should need. Scroll down to "Stock Fighter Advice" if you want help on the Fighter specifically.

[VoxRationis]

What's with the champion archetype, anyway? Anyone can see that it's plainly an inferior choice to the other two. A handful of minor bonuses versus a number of special attacks or free wizard levels.

[Sir_Leorik]

What's with the champion archetype, anyway? Anyone can see that it's plainly an inferior choice to the other two. A handful of minor bonuses versus a number of special attacks or free wizard levels.

Champions have a higher chance of scoring critical hits, add half their proficiency bonus to Initiative (meaning they act sooner in the Initiative order), and are more resilient than other Fighters (they regain hit points at level 18). They should be using two-handed weapons and choosing Feats that make them even more resilient.

[VoxRationis]

Aren't feats optional in 5e?

[MadBear]

What's with the champion archetype, anyway? Anyone can see that it's plainly an inferior choice to the other two. A handful of minor bonuses versus a number of special attacks or free wizard levels.

The champion is the class for the "I just want to hit things and not think" player. It's a good archetype to cover a genuine niche in the game. Just keep in mind if you find yourself perusing these forums, chances are you aren't the, "I'm just here to hang out and don't want to think" player. Hence why it gets hate on these forums, and at least unlike 3.x, it isn't a trap archetype.

[CyberThread]

Out of combat, fighters still get to sit there and pick their nose while the casters fix everything.[/QUOTE]



Yo how about some love for feats and background choices?

[Snails]

tl;dr -- yes, they are less underpowered

Three things:

(1) 5e Fighters enjoy multiple attacks as they climb levels, and do not need to use clever tactics or clever builds to gain the benefits (like in 3e).

(2) All PCs live on the same level playing field with respect to skills (instead of most fighterish classes being "skill stupid" like in 3e), so they are no longer terrible outside of combat.

(3) It still seems to be a Sacred Cow that primary spellcastering classes gain immense flexibility from their spells for free.

IMO, the situation has been improved. But I would argue they should throw the non-spellcaster and half-spellcaster classes a bone, and give them another skill for free. It is not like one more proficiency can throw things out of whack, with skills scaling so flatly.

[Sartharina]

Champions also get an extra combat style at level 11. My only complaint is that the other archetypes tend to get two bonuses per level.

[Soular]

What's with the champion archetype, anyway? Anyone can see that it's plainly an inferior choice to the other two. A handful of minor bonuses versus a number of special attacks or free wizard levels.

Why? Because role-playing is all about picking the right spell for the situation? If that's what I wanted I'd go play 4E (*spit).

I cut my teeth on BECMI Fighters, and they remain my favorite to this day.

To me, combat is easily the most boring part of a game session. So the Champion is like easy-mode. Everything he has is innate, nothing situational. He doesn't need to sneak, he doesn't have to line up LoS, or memorize spells... just stride toward the enemy and apply the edge of his sword, liberally.

When a fight starts I ask myself, "Am I currently wearing armor, and do I have something to hit stuff with?" So long as the answers are yes, then I am 100% G2G.

For 5E I currently have a Fighter-Champion and Rogue-Thief. I like these characters because they are challenging. You have to rely on your wits and really play the characters to the hilt to remain relevant. I find that far more stimulating than keeping track of spells and stuff.

And I am lazy. :redface:

[obryn]

Why? Because role-playing is all about picking the right spell for the situation? If that's what I wanted I'd go play 4E (*spit).

I cut my teeth on BECMI Fighters, and they remain my favorite to this day.

To me, combat is easily the most boring part of a game session. So the Champion is like easy-mode. Everything he has is innate, nothing situational. He doesn't need to sneak, he doesn't have to line up LoS, or memorize spells... just stride toward the enemy and apply the edge of his sword, liberally.

When a fight starts I ask myself, "Am I currently wearing armor, and do I have something to hit stuff with?" So long as the answers are yes, then I am 100% G2G.

For 5E I currently have a Fighter-Champion and Rogue-Thief. I like these characters because they are challenging. You have to rely on your wits and really play the characters to the hilt to remain relevant. I find that far more stimulating than keeping track of spells and stuff.

And I am lazy. :redface:
I'd argue BECMI/RC Fighters are - in general - substantially better off than 5e Fighters.

BECMI gives you the wonderful Weapon Mastery, for one thing, including the ability to scare away enemies just by being awesome. Second it gives you saving throws that actually improve as you level. And let's not forget damage that scales wonderfully with the system as a whole.

[Soular]

I'd argue BECMI/RC Fighters are - in general - substantially better off than 5e Fighters.

BECMI gives you the wonderful Weapon Mastery, for one thing, including the ability to scare away enemies just by being awesome. Second it gives you saving throws that actually improve as you level. And let's not forget damage that scales wonderfully with the system as a whole.

Yeah, sadly the days of Fighters and their sub-classes ruling the roost have been gone since 3.X, but at least 5E throws them a bone. Now they can contribute to the outcome of a battle by being more than ablative wounds for the spellcasters.

[Person_Man]

It's also worth mentioning that according to a tweet from Mearls, for the Champions expanded crit range, rolling an 18-19 is both an automatic hit and a critical hit. Not likely to be relevant in most combats given bounded accuracy, but it could be useful in a few corner cases against really hard to hit boss enemies.

Also, my group has a long standing cross edition house rule that when a player rolls a natural 20 it bypasses anything that prevents you from hitting that enemy (like re-rolls, deflect arrows, etc). If anyone actually ever chose to play a Champion in a real game, as a house rule I would keep this tradition and also let all of their crits bypass all other special defenses except for Immunity, including Resistances, Uncanny Dodge, spells, etc.

In addition, as a house rule I'm happy to allow strait Fighter build to gain the benefits ofany two of their subclasses, not just one. They're all weak sauce, and I tend to play with high optimization groups.

[Sartharina]

It's also worth mentioning that according to a tweet from Mearls, for the Champions expanded crit range, rolling an 18-19 is both an automatic hit and a critical hit. Not likely to be relevant in most combats given bounded accuracy, but it could be useful in a few corner cases against really hard to hit boss enemies.

Also, my group has a long standing cross edition house rule that when a player rolls a natural 20 it bypasses anything that prevents you from hitting that enemy (like re-rolls, deflect arrows, etc). If anyone actually ever chose to play a Champion in a real game, as a house rule I would keep this tradition and also let all of their crits bypass all other special defenses except for Immunity, including Resistances, Uncanny Dodge, spells, etc.

In addition, as a house rule I'm happy to allow strait Fighter build to gain the benefits ofany two of their subclasses, not just one. They're all weak sauce, and I tend to play with high optimization groups.

That was something I saw in the PHB - you can't use rerolls to force a reroll of a Nat20.