Fighters and Other Fighty Things-Like Warlocks.

[NoseFeratu]

It seemed to be in demand.

[Chronos]

Is there a topic to this discussion?

[BootStrapTommy]

Is there a topic to this discussion?Fighters and other fighty things, like warlocks.

[JNAProductions]

Barbarians are pretty big on fighting. They hit (mostly big) stuff with big metal pointy bits attached to big wooden stick bits with their big muscles.

[ChubbyRain]

The Fighter has long lived out its welcome in D&D.

We now longer need such a broad and generalize class, no other class is that generalized except maybe the wizard, but they always have a class feature of some sort to allow them to become a specific type character straight away.


Barbarian: Raging Warrior
Bard: Warrior Caster who Sings
Cleric: Warrior Caster of the Gods
Druid: Warrior Caster of Nature
Fighter: Warrior that Fights
Monk: Warrior of Mystic Energy (ki)
Paladin: Warrior of the God's Oaths
Ranger: Warrior of Nature
Rogue: Skulking Warrior
Sorcerer: Channel of Arcane Energy
Warlock: Warrior Caster of a Patron
Wizard: Studious Caster of Arcane Energy

One of these things is not like the other, one of these things is general. Most of the classes in the PHB can say that they are a Warrior who fights with weapon and armor and does it well.

Seriously, think of the fighter and try to think of something specific about the class. The Champion and Battlemaster, two subclasses are meant to give the class a specific identity fail at this. The Champion could be anything as cn a battle master, I'm pretty sure any class on the list can be a master of battle much better than the Fighter. Edritch Knight comes the closest to giving the Fighter any specific identity but then again the Eldritch Knight goes against everything that the general fighter stands for. They use magic instead of relying on "fighting" which means they are just a watered down version of say a Cleric or Bard.

I hope in 6e they kill off the Fighter, he has had a good run and all but unless they give him a specific identity and base class features to match, we don't need that class mucking up our game. If they can give the Fighter an identity then that would be fantastic but until then, in 5e take the Fighter out of the game and you can balance everything much easier and could possibly allow for classes to not be held back so much.

[JNAProductions]

What kind of identity would you suggest, ChubbyRain? My first thought is to expand on Battle Master, making him a tactical genius (CREEEEEEEED!) and having him truly excel as a leader on the battlefield. Perhaps refluff him as 4E's Warlord.

[ChubbyRain]

What kind of identity would you suggest, ChubbyRain? My first thought is to expand on Battle Master, making him a tactical genius (CREEEEEEEED!) and having him truly excel as a leader on the battlefield. Perhaps refluff him as 4E's Warlord.

Yes, the identity (and abilities) I would give the Fighter would be a straight rip off of the 4e Warlord. Make the base class a leader/striker hybrid much like the Warlock is a Controller/Striker hybrid. Make him a tactical genius, warlord, 5 star general, or whatever else specifically. Give her bonuses based on Intelligence (subclass can turn this into charisma and gives the fighter a small army). Don't step to much on the Paladin's toes though when it comes to what abilities the Fighter gets (like bonuses to saves and such). Maybe fluff the Fighter as someone who is great at fighting, but excels at making others fight better too.

You can keep things simple if you wish and yet stay effective. One thing you must do is stay away from all the Extra Attacks and such that the current fighter has. Extra attack is what makes balancing the Fighter and other classes so hard.

If you want a simple character then choose any class and decide what from that class you will use and what you won't. I've seen new players pick up wizards and run with them, the Fighter doesn't have to be regulated to the simple dude.

Edit:

I'm currently working on my monster stuff but I'm going to take a break and recreate the 5e Fighter into more of a Warlord. I'll probably just copy and paste stuff from the 4e warlord's fluff or maybe some quotes from the "Lord of War" Nick Cage movie.

[georgie_leech]

What kind of identity would you suggest, ChubbyRain? My first thought is to expand on Battle Master, making him a tactical genius (CREEEEEEEED!) and having him truly excel as a leader on the battlefield. Perhaps refluff him as 4E's Warlord.

A while back I toyed with the idea of Fighter as Master of Combat, in that they excelled at shaping the battlefield, reacting to enemy plots, and forcing their enemies to react to them. As oppose to the Barbarian, who charges into battle and cleaves his way through enemies, or the cunning Rogue, who skirts the battlefield before slaying an isolated target, the Fighter is the one who can take any sort of surprise or upset and turn it in their favour. It did things like quickly throwing loose rocks or furniture or bodies into an improvised barricade, a modified called-shot system where they could use attacks to cause ability damage/status effects, and had an expanded list of what provoked Opportunity Attacks. At higher levels it learned how to use mundane objects to thwart common spell effects; a simple example was throwing a loose piece of scrap or a stone or something in the way of incoming rays or other similarly targeted spells.

[ZenBear]

There is nothing wrong with having the option to play the simple man with his simple tools taking on fantastical and terrific challenges. I would be severely disappointed if the Fighter was removed because having a "simple" character doesn't have to mean stupid or easy to play. In fact the Fighter is one of the most difficult to play if playing means doing fantastical things. Every crazy move you want to pull off has to be accomplished through inventive roleplay and lots of creativity instead of, "the book says I can, so I do it." The Fighter has always been around for the same reason the human has always been around; it's relatable. Some people like magic, some like being sneaky, and some like being savage. For those who want none of these things, the Fighter is always there.

Sometimes your character just wont fit into any of these fleshed out "identities" the other classes have. That's why you need a generalist.

[Malifice]

The Fighter has long lived out its welcome in D&D.

We now longer need such a broad and generalize class, no other class is that generalized except maybe the wizard, but they always have a class feature of some sort to allow them to become a specific type character straight away.


Barbarian: Raging Warrior
Bard: Warrior Caster who Sings
Cleric: Warrior Caster of the Gods
Druid: Warrior Caster of Nature
Fighter: Warrior that Fights
Monk: Warrior of Mystic Energy (ki)
Paladin: Warrior of the God's Oaths
Ranger: Warrior of Nature
Rogue: Skulking Warrior
Sorcerer: Channel of Arcane Energy
Warlock: Warrior Caster of a Patron
Wizard: Studious Caster of Arcane Energy

One of these things is not like the other, one of these things is general. Most of the classes in the PHB can say that they are a Warrior who fights with weapon and armor and does it well.

Seriously, think of the fighter and try to think of something specific about the class. The Champion and Battlemaster, two subclasses are meant to give the class a specific identity fail at this. The Champion could be anything as cn a battle master, I'm pretty sure any class on the list can be a master of battle much better than the Fighter. Edritch Knight comes the closest to giving the Fighter any specific identity but then again the Eldritch Knight goes against everything that the general fighter stands for. They use magic instead of relying on "fighting" which means they are just a watered down version of say a Cleric or Bard.

I hope in 6e they kill off the Fighter, he has had a good run and all but unless they give him a specific identity and base class features to match, we don't need that class mucking up our game. If they can give the Fighter an identity then that would be fantastic but until then, in 5e take the Fighter out of the game and you can balance everything much easier and could possibly allow for classes to not be held back so much.

The Fighter has (in 1,2,3 and 5th edition anyway) always been the weapon and armor master and the king of combat maneuvers.

Weapon specialization, bonus feats, nifty maneuvers, special fighting styles, near exclusive ability to wear any armor and shield and use any weapon, more attacks than any other class etc etc

These have always been a feature of the class in most editions of DnD. I cant speak for 4th edition though. I only played it once or twice.

I think the above alone gives the Fighter an identity. Half of most sessions are taken up by.. well... fighting.

If anything, make the Ranger and Paladin specializations of the Fighter like they were in 1st and 2nd edition. Neither of them could fight as good, but they had minor spell-casting and a few unique abilities to round out the lack of pure combat goodness.

Even then, I think both those classes have since carved out a niche for themselves to stand alone from the Fighter.

[Gwendol]

The Fighter has long lived out its welcome in D&D.
Barbarian: Raging Warrior
Bard: Warrior Caster who Sings
Cleric: Warrior Caster of the Gods
Druid: Warrior Caster of Nature
Fighter: Warrior that Fights
Monk: Warrior of Mystic Energy (ki)
Paladin: Warrior of the God's Oaths
Ranger: Warrior of Nature
Rogue: Skulking Warrior
Sorcerer: Channel of Arcane Energy
Warlock: Warrior Caster of a Patron
Wizard: Studious Caster of Arcane Energy

One of these things is not like the other, one of these things is general. Most of the classes in the PHB can say that they are a Warrior who fights with weapon and armor and does it well.

Seriously, think of the fighter and try to think of something specific about the class.

They get to attack more than anyone else, pick up two styles (switch hitter), are given more feats/ASI's than most, then depending on the choice of archetype, are given a few more tricks.

[campskully]

Another important aspect of the fighter is their multi classing or roleplay. They are there for when you have a very specific class idea that isn't quite a base class. You mix in some fighter to get this unique feel because the fighter is SO customizable with a huge feat list and tack on 10 hit points at the same time.

[Logosloki]

What fighter would of benefited from is a completed maneuvers system. They finally found a way to make a spell-like system work and then promptly don't develop it and stick it to one archetype. If maneuvers were more fleshed out they could of had other classes utilise them and then made battlemaster the wizard of maneuvers (They are granted some and they can learn others).

Maneuvers such as leap attacks (FF dragoon style), that moment where the badass fighter drops to the ground like the fist of an angry god - complete with the ground buckling and cracking from this assault against nature, the classic binding opponents blades to yours and then sweeping them all from their hands while you temporarily turn yourself into a blender. What about throwing a javelin at an enemy then racing towards them, slashing an opponent on the way with your arming blade and plucking the javelin from the first opponent only to turn around and plunge it into the heart of another.

I also believe, given the examples that people seem to be enamored with what they perceive as a fighter, is to make fighter the demi-god class (at level 11+).

[Cazero]

I hope in 6e they kill off the Fighter, he has had a good run and all but unless they give him a specific identity and base class features to match, we don't need that class mucking up our game. If they can give the Fighter an identity then that would be fantastic but until then, in 5e take the Fighter out of the game and you can balance everything much easier and could possibly allow for classes to not be held back so much.

Wait, what? You can't remove the fighter class without leaving a big fighter-shaped hole in the game.

Without the fighter, there would be no knight, no samuraï, no swashbuckler, no musketeer. There would be no Gimli, no Sarevok, no Zorro. There would be no Roy Greenhilt nor General Tarquin. All of them have their place as interesting characters and are relevant to their stories. None of them could be built as rogue, paladins, rangers, barbarian or monks, not even with made up subclasses. The fighter class is mandatory to the game, much more than we need a warlock (glorified sorcerer subclass), a bard (singing at people? how did that one made it into the game again?), or a druid (shapeshifting nature cleric). A world where the champion fighter does not exists is really missing something, and that something is the parangon of martial supremacy.

If you think the fighter class is badly designed, the correct answer is not to tear holes in the game by ripping it out. 5e brought a wonderful tool to repair it's own design problems with subclasses. Make a warlord subclass, apply it, you get your warlord.

[ChubbyRain]

A lot of what people are saying still doesn't just apply to the fighter.

Because the fighter has no identity we give the fighter some basic generic abilities like extra attack. This causes the fighter to be created differently than other classes and causes the fighter to be hard to balance. It also causes us to make the fighter weaker on every other front just because they are good strikers.



Wait, what? You can't remove the fighter class without leaving a big fighter-shaped hole in the game.

Without the fighter, there would be no knight, no samuraï, no swashbuckler, no musketeer. There would be no Gimli, no Sarevok, no Zorro. There would be no Roy Greenhilt nor General Tarquin. All of them have their place as interesting characters and are relevant to their stories. None of them could be built as rogue, paladins, rangers, barbarian or monks, not even with made up subclasses. The fighter class is mandatory to the game, much more than we need a warlock (glorified sorcerer subclass), a bard (singing at people? how did that one made it into the game again?), or a druid (shapeshifting nature cleric). A world where the champion fighter does not exists is really missing something, and that something is the parangon of martial supremacy.

If you think the fighter class is badly designed, the correct answer is not to tear holes in the game by ripping it out. 5e brought a wonderful tool to repair it's own design problems with subclasses. Make a warlord subclass, apply it, you get your warlord.

There will be no fighter shaped whole because what you would be removing is easily filled by every other class. If you give the fighter a real identity I would agree but as it is now... The Fighter is just a nuisance.

We don't have any of those things now from the Fighter. You don't have a samurai, a knight, or a musketeer. What you have is a dude with general abilities that pretends to be those things.

A Samurai will have Bushido abilities, a Knight will have protection abilities, and the swashbuckler will be a daring individual.

The Fighter doesn't give you any of that. The fighter gives you some generic abilities and those aren't even effective.

What type of swashbuckler can only be daring 1-4 times before they need to rest for an hour? What type of samurai doesn't have Bushido abilities? What type of knight can't effectively protect others? The fighter may give you the sense of playing these other classes that do have identities but you have the wool pulled over your eyes.

The Fighter has no place in 5e.

Oh, random note. Roy Greenhilt is a fighter with an identity. Because of the story or system he is in he is able to be an effective martial and tactical warlord in ways the the 3.5/5e fighter can never be. Mostly because the gaming systems are stacked against using skills in such a way. Tarquin is already a 4e Warlord.

There is already a Fighter shaped whole in 5e, when they killed the 4e fighter (who had the identity of a martial defender that no one else could replicate) it left a big whole. Bit because of how they described the new fighter, many other classes can take that spot just fine.

People seem to see the fighter class and think in such narror minded ways even though it is the most generalized class.

Gimli is a ranger, heavy armored feat, melee focused, doesn't use his spells (possibly because he forgets he has them).

Zorro and Swashbucklers are rogues, this is how they really always been. Now that Rogue's are super mobile it is even more apparent.

The list goes on.

Making new subclasses won't help the fighter because the fighter for one is already booked when it comes to class design and two anything good made will be out of balanced with what is already there. Plus every other class gets their identity from their base class, and their role through that identity from their subclass you will be once again making the fighter work differently by giving the fighter an identity through a subclass.

No more of this crap called the fighter. No extra attacks or more ASI/feats. Give this dude an identity then allow her subclasses to define the role in which she uses the main abilities.

The fighter must die so that d&d can flourish.

Look at all the arguments about fighter versus X. They are everywhere. The problem with the game isn't all the X's but the one constant, fighters. Fighters are the ones built differently and the ones causing the balance issues. We don't know what the fighter is, so we can't balance the fighter.

If you want gimli and other warriors like that, then make a specific class for characters like that. Don't make a generalize class that people might turn into gimli. No other class works that way. No other class is so generalized.

If WotC can't figure out a class then they shouldn't have put it in their book. I really believe the only reason this slop fest lazy class is in the book is not because they wanted it in there but because it was expected to be in there. But all we really have is some faceless NPC warrior class that doesn't belong with the PC classes.

[themaque]

Chubbyrain, love the handle by the way. One of my all time favorite movies.

I feel you are wrong in this case, however. You don't need a special class with unique manuvers to be a samurai. You just need to be able to fight.

The fighter fulfills an archetypical role without forcing characterization upon it. I feel this is a strength, you obviously see it as a weakness.

[ChubbyRain]

Chubbyrain, love the handle by the way. One of my all time favorite movies.

I feel you are wrong in this case, however. You don't need a special class with unique manuvers to be a samurai. You just need to be able to fight.

The fighter fulfills an archetypical role without forcing characterization upon it. I feel this is a strength, you obviously see it as a weakness.

Everyone in the game can fight. Again this is like saying "The human is a human that does human things". It is circular logic at best.

The fighter, because of lack of identity, causes the game to have issues. The extra attacks makes the fighter's DPR unbalanced. What do you give a fighter? Oh extra attacks because that worked out so well before (3.5 had martials " balanced" around the fact they could attack more often, this lead to casters getting abilities to "make up" for their lack of Bab and such).

If you want a build your own class, then there are systems out there for that. D&D is not a build your own class system and putting one class in there that is screws with the balance. D&D is a "here is your specific class, choose a specific subclass".

No other class is asked to change what the base class is when they take on a subclass. Imagine if the rogue was asked to change its identity when you picked a subclass. People would flip out.

What I'm asking for is one of two things.

1: Get rid of the fighter as it currently is, because it unbalances the game and has an identity crisis.

2: Give the Fighter an identity and stop giving it generalized unbalanced class features.

Extra attack causes so many problems it isn't funny.

[Gwendol]

If you want gimli and other warriors like that, then make a specific class for characters like that. Don't make a generalize class that people might turn into gimli. No other class works that way. No other class is so generalized.

If WotC can't figure out a class then they shouldn't have put it in their book. I really believe the only reason this slop fest lazy class is in the book is not because they wanted it in there but because it was expected to be in there. But all we really have is some faceless NPC warrior class that doesn't belong with the PC classes.

I disagree with the base of your argument. The fighter is not that "special". In 3.5 the fighter was essentially just full BAB and a lot of bonus feats, but not so in 5e where the class has been given class features. It is still highly customizable, but I find that to be a feature and not a bug. Being generic makes it multi-class friendly, which also is a plus.
You don't like the fighter, but it has a place in the game as it is one of the most reliable ways of putting the best of statuses on the enemy: dying.

[themaque]

If you want a build your own class, then there are systems out there for that. D&D is not a build your own class system and putting one class in there that is screws with the balance. D&D is a "here is your specific class, choose a specific subclass".

No other class is asked to change what the base class is when they take on a subclass. Imagine if the rogue was asked to change its identity when you picked a subclass. People would flip out.

I tend to find the identity of a thief vs an assassin to be pretty diffrent.

Hunter vs beastmaster?

The three forms of Paladin?

Any of the schools of wizardry?

Each of these have are pretty diffrent depending on their alternate path.

Feature not bug.

I'm sorry if I'm not as clear as I normally try to be. Waiting in Doctor's office.

[Giant2005]

Gimli is a ranger, heavy armored feat, melee focused, doesn't use his spells (possibly because he forgets he has them).
This here is the entire point of the Fighter.
Without that class you have to make stupid work-arounds like what you suggested for Gimli. In a system without the fighter class, poor Gimli has to be a Ranger except he has to write off the class abilities that a Ranger requires to be balanced and he has to waste an ASI/feat on something that would otherwise be given to him for free. Without the Fighter subclass, Gimli isn't the badass we all know and love, he is barely more than a commoner.

[Grand Warchief]

I disagree with a lot of what you say chubbyrain. To say the fighter has no place is an opinion, one that you are more than entitled to. But I would have to say you are wrong. And that's not just my opinion. If the majority of people agreed with you, I don't think the fighter would have made an appearance in 5e.

You say the fighter has no identity. But isn't that an identity in and of itself? It is the vague class that can become anything with the proper role playing, the thing that DnD is based around. Especially 5e, where they focus on the theater of the mind and inspiration for good character development.

As a side note, gimli is not a ranger, Aragorn is. gimli is a fighter. He did not "forget" he has spells and he does not have a close attunment with nature or the wilderness like a ranger.

I didn't play 4e, but I was hoping that when 5e came out they would have included the warblade or other ToB classes as they had tons of personality and identity. They tried to give the fighter this with the battlemaster, but I will say they failed. The maneuver list is small and not epic enough for my taste. Honestly, and I don't know how many will get this reference, but I would love to see the battlemaster turn more into Lan from the Wheel of Time, with his martial prowess and leadership abilities. I guess that's the warlord?

But the fighter is perfect just the way he is. He allows for people to hit things and hit them harder than any other class. He fills the role that the people want without removing the core concepts of the other classes like the spellcasting features and oaths/nature of the Paladin/ranger. It needs to be in there, and I'm sorry, but I would bet my left testicle that it will never ever go away.

[Submortimer]

This whole arguement is pointless.

Fighters aren't going away. They will always be in D&D. They're always gonna be the class that, at level 20, is wearing the full plate, hefting the great sword, and tearing through the enemy lines without the aid of magic tricks. Muscle, grit, and sheer determination win the day.

People want to play that. There are a lot of people that don't give a crap about how awesome wizards get at higher levels, they want to play a guy that hits things with a big sword, really well. I'll give it to you that the battlemaster needs some better high level abilities, but the eldritch knight is fun, and the champion is fantastic for those new to the game. Also, Based on the dev's tweets, the Improved and Superior critical abilites don't just mean you deal critical damage on those numbers, you AUTO HIT on this numbers. That's 100% insane and awesome, and no other class in the game can do anything like it.

[charcoalninja]

The Fighter has long lived out its welcome in D&D.

We now longer need such a broad and generalize class, no other class is that generalized except maybe the wizard, but they always have a class feature of some sort to allow them to become a specific type character straight away.


Barbarian: Raging Warrior
Bard: Warrior Caster who Sings
Cleric: Warrior Caster of the Gods
Druid: Warrior Caster of Nature
Fighter: Warrior that Fights
Monk: Warrior of Mystic Energy (ki)
Paladin: Warrior of the God's Oaths
Ranger: Warrior of Nature
Rogue: Skulking Warrior
Sorcerer: Channel of Arcane Energy
Warlock: Warrior Caster of a Patron
Wizard: Studious Caster of Arcane Energy

One of these things is not like the other, one of these things is general. Most of the classes in the PHB can say that they are a Warrior who fights with weapon and armor and does it well.

Seriously, think of the fighter and try to think of something specific about the class. The Champion and Battlemaster, two subclasses are meant to give the class a specific identity fail at this. The Champion could be anything as cn a battle master, I'm pretty sure any class on the list can be a master of battle much better than the Fighter. Edritch Knight comes the closest to giving the Fighter any specific identity but then again the Eldritch Knight goes against everything that the general fighter stands for. They use magic instead of relying on "fighting" which means they are just a watered down version of say a Cleric or Bard.

I hope in 6e they kill off the Fighter, he has had a good run and all but unless they give him a specific identity and base class features to match, we don't need that class mucking up our game. If they can give the Fighter an identity then that would be fantastic but until then, in 5e take the Fighter out of the game and you can balance everything much easier and could possibly allow for classes to not be held back so much.


Barbarian: Raging Warrior
Bard: Warrior Caster who Sings
Cleric: Warrior Caster of the Gods
Druid: Warrior Caster of Nature
Fighter: Warrior of Skill.
Monk: Warrior of Mystic Energy (ki)
Paladin: Warrior of the God's Oaths
Ranger: Warrior of Nature
Rogue: Skulking Warrior
Sorcerer: Channel of Arcane Energy
Warlock: Warrior Caster of a Patron
Wizard: Studious Caster of Arcane Energy

Fixed it for you. The fighter's identity is just that, of the non magical folk hero, martially driven warrior. He looks nowhere but to himself for his abilities relying on his training and skill at arms to get the job done. He has no mystic connection, no divine sponsor, no arcane tricks. He isn't a ninja, nor is he a scout or spy. He's the backbone of a phalanx, the mounted Cavalry, the consumate archer, the Eddard Stark of D&D.

Argue that his current abilities do not match his identity, that's fine and I would agree with that. If the Battlemaster was given a deeper pool of Superiority dice so they could do their maneuvers more often, and if they had some more powerful, higher cost abilities I feel 5e fighter would be in the right place. But to claim the fighter has no identity is unfounded and false. His very identity is his complete dependance on his own martial abilties.

I feel the Fighter doesn't have enough abilities to properly meet that, and feel that 4e had it down perfectly for Fighter, but the 5e Fighter only needs a few tweaks to be exactly the mundane folk hero soldier taking on magical baddies that his origins demand.

[NoseFeratu]

Fighter: Warrior that Fights


Best description of a Fighter I've heard so far.

[Rush]

The fighter is the most used class at my table, precisely because he "lacks an identity". My players enjoy the versatility granted to the fighter. Frankly, I think the game would benefit most not from the fighter's absence, but from other similarly generalised classes. Playing a fighter allows a character to be realised as any sort of martial or mundane character you can imagine. I've got classic gruff Dwarven warriors, kind-hearted and charismatic nobles, and I myself played a swashbuckling Zorro-type. Admittedly, Zorro can probably be encapsulated just as well, if not better, by the Rogue, but I wanted to emphasise my swordsmanship with that build.

The fighter is my favourite class to play, as well. I enjoy being the self-reliant warrior type, I enjoy cutting through foes like some contemporary Beowulf or Odysseus, some Roland or Siegfried, and I enjoy realising my imagination in the form of the fighter. The fighter is in a lot of ways the most essential class, as it allows us to fulfill the most ideas. Not to mention the fact that the fighter is simply fun to play, and immediately rewarding.

Yeah, all of the other classes can fight, but the distinct versatility of the fighter, his default independence of spellcasting, sneakiness, or raging the **** out, allows him to fight in a way the others simply don't. There is a flavour that belongs to the fighter as such, that defines him as the martial class.

This coupled with his potential to do all of those things (spellcasting, etcetera) whether through his class abilities, skill proficiencies, or multi-classing (which, as it has been noted a few times, the fighter exceeds at), makes the fighter simply one of the most fun classes to play by virtue of his flexible identity. The fighter is what I want him to be in a way that even the rogue can never be.

-

As for the fighter being difficult to balance, or other classes being held back by him, I haven't felt these issues at the table. As far as balance, the fighter does not seem to outshine or fall behind any of the other players, and I'm in the camp that feels 5e is exquisitely balanced while admitting for difference. The issue of the other classes being held back, such that caster supremacy is less of an issue is, sure, something you can take issue with. However, I feel that the player base of this edition is mostly happy for the change, because it enables us to play what we want without being too concerned for being left behind. This is a change that lets me play the fighter, and it’s not detrimental to the rest of the game. The Wizard at my table is not hurting for being one.

If you're just begrudging the fighter the generally lowered power level of this edition, that's a design choice that I'm personally very happy with. It allows us to realise characters that don't need to warp reality to be effective, and it provides a tone to the game which many enjoy. When I played 3.5, I was only ever willing to play at low levels, because I felt the playing experience became absurd at higher levels. I know this isn’t a universal experience, but it's a stylist change that makes the game more fun for me and the people at my table, regardless of what class they choose to play.


I would be remorse to see the fighter vanish from the game, because the versatility you (ChubbyRain) condemn him for is what makes him excellent. Within the martial identity of the fighter, a variety of separate identities are possible in a way they are not within the other classes. You're right, being something like a Wizard is an identity in itself: that's why I don't play them that often. Playing the fighter gives me more agency over who I want to be as a character than any other class, and something as simple as picking different fighting styles allows me to embody the Archer, the Swordsman, the Knight. It's true that no other class offers you this kind of versatility, and that does make the fighter the odd one out.

Which is why I'm glad to have him.


(Sorry this post is so long. I suppose I got a little carried away once I started writing.)

[themaque]

Warlock as a fighter?

How hard would it be to re-skin the Warlock as a Battlemage? Do you think it is more of a Warrior Class than your typical caster?

[NoseFeratu]

Warlock as a fighter?

How hard would it be to re-skin the Warlock as a Battlemage? Do you think it is more of a Warrior Class than your typical caster?

I was mainly making a joke about another thread about Warlocks that became dominated by talk about Fighters.

However, come to think of it, 5e's Bladelock certainly has potential, as does an Eldritch Glaive based 3rd edition Warlock.

[NoseFeratu]

Fighters aren't going away. They will always be in D&D. They're always gonna be the class that, at level 20, is wearing the full plate, hefting the great sword, and tearing through the enemy lines without the aid of magic tricks. Muscle, grit, and sheer determination win the day.



I was under the impression that was called a "Dwarf".

[Gwendol]

Well, once that was a class.

[Submortimer]

I was mainly making a joke about another thread about Warlocks that became dominated by talk about Fighters.

However, come to think of it, 5e's Bladelock certainly has potential, as does an Eldritch Glaive based 3rd edition Warlock.

Bladelocks make excellent fighters, especially after they take a couple levels of fighter. :-)

[Morty]

Fighter had a place when the other classes were Magic-User, Thief and Cleric. Then its sub-classes grew into their own classes, new classes appeared and it was stranded as a relic of a bygone era. The concept of a supremely skilled warrior in a world full of magic and wonder is there to stay. But the Fighter class does a lousy job at representing it, because everything more specific than "hits things a lot" isn't generic enough and doesn't belong in it. 4e gave the Fighter a concrete job - martial defender. And it did the job well. The problem was that other aspects of martial combat weren't sufficiently explored, since Rogues and Rangers were saddled with a lot of baggage.

[Finieous]

The 5e fighter is great and is by far the most popular class in my experience. I've seen archers, men-at-arms, pikemen (okay, halberdiers), mounted knights, eldritch knights, swashbucklers, and various multiclass concepts, including assassins (fighter-rogue) and warrior-priests (fighter-cleric). They all seemed to have different playstyles, different strengths and weaknesses, different cool tricks.

I don't think you need a new class, and I'm not even convinced you need a new subclass: You can have your warlord by giving battlemaster some more tactical maneuvers, including perhaps a maneuver that generates fresh superiority dice to make that resource-management component a little more engaging.