What were the creator's intention for the fighter?

[djreynolds]

I've played every installment of D&D except for 4, and only because I was really too busy. The fighter has been around forever. It used to be if you wanted to swing a sword you played this, it was odd to every get to see a paladin or lucky just to play one. But there was a flip side to this coin, unless you rolled crazy stats, a fighter more than likely had the jump on the paladin in strength, just considering the 17 charisma requirement of the paladin. I find most gamers have soft spot for this class, above all others, because of he could be "us".

Then 3rd edition came out and the fighter was reborn. Weapon specialization and a boat load of feats. Then 3.5 came out and even more specialization and less cherry picking, though still done and me as well.

So now in 5E we have the fighter. If you get to 20th level, he's alright. But the paladin and even IMO the barbarian rule the roost in melee tanking effectiveness and damage output.

So the question is? What did the makers of 5E expect from the fighter class. Aside from multi-classing, which the fighter screams for and has its relative ease to do so for really any class, what is the fighter's area of expertise.

You have fighting styles that are accessible to two other classes. You have heavy armor and so do other classes. And martial weapons, and so do others. There is no more weapon specialization and weapon no longer provide any other "critical" aspects.

So what did the makers foresee when they created this installment of the fighter? And looking on the bright side or the silver lining, it must be its versatility, the fact he does not specialize in just one combat aspect. A fighter can be your second on all most any environment and that could be their intention.

Aside from the eldritch knight, who is his own creature, the battle-master and champion are not real masters of anyone combat or skill area. Now I'm playing a champion fighter and picked a mountain dwarf, more for concept than optimization because you lose out in regards to bonus weapon and armor.

A ranger or bard are better bowman, and both because of spell and class features. Yes, a barbarian does require a fair amount of dexterity for armor class and could use a bow, but lacks archery style (worth 4 points of dexterity or 2 ASI) and rage unfortunately does not add it the equation. A paladin can shoot a bow but loses out with his smite.

Now for melee, a battle-masters maneuvers offer quite a lot of utility and damage. And champion could score the critical hit at anytime. But a paladin can hurt you, heal himself, buff himself, and withstand many save checks. A barbarian's strength check is formidable and will likely never get shoved, knocked prone or disarmed easily because of it; meaning, the fighter must trade blow for blow with this dangerous adversary, who is raging. And a rogue's uncanny dodge makes him very hard to hit and his ability to disengage and high stealth might enable him to achieve multiple sneak attacks by hit and run tactics. And a monk, well he can run the gauntlet and come out unscathed.

But the same fighter, built for melee, with 7 ASI/feats can perform in any combat environment effectively. A champion can take two fighting styles representing melee and ranged. He can switch armor and with remarkable athlete even go on stealth missions and achieve success, while a barbarian could keep up with his high dexterity, a paladin may not be able to this with SPBI. Action surge is a great asset in terms of battlefield control, allowing you to "save" comrades and still attack and is replenished every short rest. Second wind is helpful, though pales in comparison to self healing of the other classes, spells, and the rogue's disengage bonus action. Survivor, though to late for me in terms of levels, is awesome when the enemy is hounding you and you cannot rest.

Yes the fighter is not a master of one area of the game and perhaps this is his strength. But the same fighter can go on any mission and with the right feat selections perform as a tank, archer, bodyguard, etc. You wouldn't leave him off the team because of his versatility.

[Ninja_Prawn]

Well, you're right that the fighter is more versatile. And there's nothing wrong with fighters from a gamist's perspective.

Personally, I think the design intent is twofold. Firstly, the fighter is meant to excel at at-will damage. Yes, the paladin can hurt you with Smite, but that's a limited resource. For the barbarian, Rage is mainly a defensive/tanking feature. For constant damage, all day long, the best classes are fighter and warlock.

Secondly, I think the secret is in the subclasses. Because no one is just a fighter. Champions are athletic powerhouses. Battle Masters have cool manoeuvres no one else gets. Eldritch Knight is your classical arcane fighter. Other classes may be similar (barbarian, ranger, paladin/valour bard), but none are exactly the same.

And fighter is, in my experience, by far the easiest class to homebrew new archetypes for. You can do anything with it!

[djreynolds]

Well, you're right that the fighter is more versatile. And there's nothing wrong with fighters from a gamist's perspective.

Personally, I think the design intent is twofold. Firstly, the fighter is meant to excel at at-will damage. Yes, the paladin can hurt you with Smite, but that's a limited resource. For the barbarian, Rage is mainly a defensive/tanking feature. For constant damage, all day long, the best classes are fighter and warlock.

Secondly, I think the secret is in the subclasses. Because no one is just a fighter. Champions are athletic powerhouses. Battle Masters have cool manoeuvres no one else gets. Eldritch Knight is your classical arcane fighter. Other classes may be similar (barbarian, ranger, paladin/valour bard), but none are exactly the same.

And fighter is, in my experience, by far the easiest class to homebrew new archetypes for. You can do anything with it!

Very True, excellent points. And there was another discussion about classes with only needed attribute and though fighter doesn't exactly fit that, he is the least dependent on good rolls and I guess the easiest character to roll up. He's got enough ASI to get the 20 in he needs in attack and even then constitution.

[Fizban]

You have a third attack (or a fourth at 20th but that hardly matters). Also a floating action (or two all the way at 17th) that can be delivered at the opportune moment, and some options to make it count. Since you don't need any non-physical stats and get more stat increases, you can easily max two or even all three physicals. You can go str/con for melee/thrown with hp at cost of speed, str/dex to switch seamlessly between the best melee and ranged weapons and light armor at cost of hp, or dex/con for hp/speed/range but a drop in melee potential. A paladin has to be melee for smite, a ranger has to be ranged for his arrow spells, but a fighter just attacks, a lot.

Remember that like 3.5 assumes 4 encounters per day, 5e assumes 6 encounters with 2 short rests. Short rests recover all your stuff, but spell slots are sharply limited unless you're a Warlock. At low levels the extra hp from Second Wind is pretty huge, making you as tough or tougher than people trying to make their magic pull double duty, and at higher levels it's still an hp buffer that doesn't use a standard action.

Being a Paladin or Ranger is about managing your resources, but being a Fighter is about fighting. Knowing how to never miss a turn's worth of attacks, when to Action Surge and what you can do with it (the answer can be a lot more than damage), being in the right place at the right time etc. To be a good fighter is to be an opportunist, your chance to exceed other classes in a specialization is by making use of circumstances they cannot. Most obviously, your extra attacks make best use of magic items or spell effects that add a bonus on every hit, and your bonus action is almost always available for things like Haste bonus attacks. Just the fact that you're a team player rather than a loner is good for keeping the team together. There's been a couple threads about the removal of the Delay option from previous editions, which ties in nicely here: a Fighter is a tactical piece that needs to move at the right time, and not being able to Delay hurts it.

When comparing at-will vs limited damage I don't think of it as limited classes running out, since they're always designed to have just enough to get through the day. What makes the at-will class, in this case the Fighter, appealing is that you can't run out: if you're attacked in the middle of the night you're ready, if you can't sleep for 3 days you're still ready (short rests not actually sleeping mind you), if your god is torn from the heavens you're ready, if magic vanishes you're ready, almost no plot the DM could concoct that doesn't involve you already being tied up can limit your ability to Fight. The worst that can happen is losing your weapons and armor, which usually requires being tied up, and only cripples your numbers without removing your ability to act.

[EvanescentHero]

In addition, the fighter is one of the best classes for new players or players who don't want to worry about resource management. Regardless of this forum's optimization leanings and general desire for complexity and versatility, that simplicity has value. Games need simple classes for the uninitiated, and people who just want to play a simple class should have that ability as well.

[Slipperychicken]

Fighters have high at-will damage, and it doesn't run out. That's not so impressive when you're comparing alpha-strike DPS (which action surge actually does quite well), but it's great in a real game (or at least the expected 6-8 fights per long rest). Paladins and barbarians need to budget their dailies for 1-3 important fights each day, but fighters can be good in every fight. Fighters also fare better in extended combats; fighters' sustained damage quickly pulls ahead once the paladin's low on smites and the barbarian's rage expires.

If you only have a one or two short combats in a day, then other classes will be outright better because they can burst all the time. If you have more fights per day, or even just longer fights, then the fighters' strength will become clear.

[TrollCapAmerica]

"Then 3rd edition came out and the fighter was reborn. Weapon specialization and a boat load of feats. Then 3.5 came out and even more specialization and less cherry picking, though still done and me as well."

Fighter also sucked rear in that edition. In 5E Fighters get more attacks than anyone else by up to double built in all the time with all the nice little archtype touches and all the tricks from feats anyone elsr can snag

Its not rocket science dump so dump INT and win

[Sigreid]

Fighters also get the most out of magic weapons. The 3rd and 4th attacks, as well as action serge mean that they can potentially apply any modifiers like a +1 or the flame tongues bonus damage, and even their strength or dexterity modifiers up to twice as often as the other martial classes. In addition they are the best at placing the damage exactly where it needs to be. a 20th level fighter can strike down 4 individual weak opponents in a single round, even if they are spread out, without harming their 6 hostages. I would go so far as to say their shtick is not just steady, reliable damage but damage precisely placed.

[CNagy]

The Fighter was reborn in the AD&D 2e Player's Option books. Meet the Longsword Grandmaster Fighter, dual-wielding for 4.5 attacks per round at 13th level, dealing 1d10+3(+whatever strength, magic, etc)/1d20+all that versus larger creatures. The speed factor on the swords is 0, so all of the attacks occur at the same time and basically are a blur that crits on a 16 or higher. Oh, and he decided to pick up Spell Resistance as a class ability, so he has a flat 2% chance per level of pretending hostile magic doesn't exist on top of excellent saves if he has to shrug off threats the old fashioned way.

Frankly, 3e represented a refreshing step back from the cliffs of powergaming insanity (at least at first.)

I feel like whatever else the class is in 5e, the Fighter is basically made to be the martial multiclass vehicle of choice. It's the only class whose multiclass requirement is an option between two stats. With the most ASIs spread nicely throughout the class, it has multiple good breakpoints for switching classes--it is difficult to make a Fighter/X combination that doesn't end up with at least 5 ASIs. A little bit of Fighter and you've got Class X that can also fight. A lot of Fighter and you've got the Fighter who can also do X. Combine that with backgrounds which give you access to skills normally outside the class and feats which grant access magic--there is a lot of versatility that can be built on the strong foundation that Fighter provides.

[Vogonjeltz]

So now in 5E we have the fighter. If you get to 20th level, he's alright. But the paladin and even IMO the barbarian rule the roost in melee tanking effectiveness and damage output.

Wait...what?

A Paladin might have some added bursty dpr via divine smite, but they're woefully behind when it comes to sustained dpr.

[SharkForce]

Wait...what?

A Paladin might have some added bursty dpr via divine smite, but they're woefully behind when it comes to sustained dpr.

they're not really that far behind. perhaps not quite as high, but it isn't nearly as far as you seem to think. first off, properly built, it's 3 attacks vs 5, not 2 vs 4. secondly, paladins get to add 1d8 to every attack indefinitely starting at level 11. thirdly, paladins also enjoy some fairly sustainable DPR increases. vengeance paladins can cast haste or hunter's mark on themselves, for example. devotion paladins can give themselves +5 to hit (at high levels, once they've maxed cha) for an entire fight per short rest. all paladins can summon a steed to assist them in battle. they all get bless, elemental weapon, crusader's mantle, and divine favor.

a paladin who wishes to deal damage has the tools available to do so, and while some of their damage is perhaps not quite as sustained as a fighter's, some of their resources can also easily last long enough that there is little danger of running out on any day where the fighter won't run out of hit points first.

there is a difference. but it isn't a huge difference.

furthermore, DPR is nice and all, but he didn't say DPR. he said damage output. and frankly, there's definitely something to be said for having damage that can be heavily front-loaded, and targeted entirely on the things you care most about getting rid of.

[djreynolds]

Great stuff. It's nice to see fighter appreciation. For me, weapon specialization changed the fighter from, oh shucks, to that's cool. But I like the 5E versatility. I never feel out of the fight.

[smcmike]

The Fighter was reborn in the AD&D 2e Player's Option books. Meet the Longsword Grandmaster Fighter, dual-wielding for 4.5 attacks per round at 13th level, dealing 1d10+3(+whatever strength, magic, etc)/1d20+all that versus larger creatures. The speed factor on the swords is 0, so all of the attacks occur at the same time and basically are a blur that crits on a 16 or higher. Oh, and he decided to pick up Spell Resistance as a class ability, so he has a flat 2% chance per level of pretending hostile magic doesn't exist on top of excellent saves if he has to shrug off threats the old fashioned way.


Ha, yeah. I don't remember the details (it's been a long time), but I have a vague recollection of building a first level unarmed 2e fighter who got like 4 attacks per round.

[-Jynx-]

What were the creator's intention for the fighter?

Burn and pillage.

[MeeposFire]

Ha, yeah. I don't remember the details (it's been a long time), but I have a vague recollection of building a first level unarmed 2e fighter who got like 4 attacks per round.

Depnding on what set of rules you chose to use and how the work together unarmed fighting was one of the few limitless ways to boost your attacks as afighter since there was no offical cap on how many times you could put a prof into unarmed fighting (punching in this case). Add the cestus, potentially weapon specialization+ with that, tumbling prof (+2 to hit with punching attacks), and all the prof in punching you could spare and that could make for the most attacks with the highest potential bonus to damage.

Only issue is the rarity of magic weapons for you (cesuts is far more rare than long sword).

As for attacks per round using punching specialization with two cesti I can see a 1st level fighter at potentially 3.5 attacks per round (7/2) due to 2 attacks from punching specialization, 1 more for two weapon fighting, and an extra "half" attack from weapon specialization cestus. Granted this assumes you allow the bonus attacks to essentially to stack from weapon specialization and punching specialization which is not a lock.

[UXLZ]

I seem to remember two-weapon fighting making it exceptionally harder to hit things in older editions, though I'm unsure as to 2e.

[Shining Wrath]

A simple to play class that excels at the pillar of play (combat) that is most common in most campaigns.

[MeeposFire]

I seem to remember two-weapon fighting making it exceptionally harder to hit things in older editions, though I'm unsure as to 2e.

IN 2e two weapon fighting gave you -2 to hit on your main hand and -4 with the off hand. This penalty could be reduced with a good dex score and your accuracy could be further improved with your normal bonuses. Taking two weapon fighting style with tumbling (+2 to hit with punching), cestus specialization (+1), and punching specialization (+1) would make you very accurate.

As you level it would easily become a non issue due to how fighter attack progression is so good on top of the ever improving specialization benefits (grand mastery gives up to +3 to hit as I recall and each point you put into punching gives an additional +1).

Notice that this does require a decent number of prof points which is one reason why I say in 2e int is a great stat to have high for a fighter since that gives you more prof to use and they can be very nice if you dig deep enough.

Bonus points if you play the gladiator class from Dark Sun which is even better at this (and possibly even more thematic).

[SharkForce]

I seem to remember two-weapon fighting making it exceptionally harder to hit things in older editions, though I'm unsure as to 2e.

depends. 2nd AD&D (the oldest system i've used), it was -2/-4 (main hand/off hand), but high dex could negate the penalty and rangers took no penalty at all if they had studded leather or less for armour.

3.x had a feat tax, but once paid you could get it down to -2/-2, though only a certain PrC could remove the penalty entirely iirc.

4e... i think it just really sucked in 4e, unless you had a power that required two weapons. then it was ok, but didn't reduce your attack roll in the slightest. i think. not exactly my favourite edition, to be honest, so i don't know it very well.

in any event, i wouldn't characterize it as being exceptionally difficult, and in 2nd AD&D warriors at least quickly reached the point where they were hitting the majority of the time regardless of taking a -2 or -4 to hit.

[Longcat]

The Fighter is not a bad class. In fact, in terms of both melee and ranged damage dealing, he is top notch, assuming feats are in the game. If they are not, the Fighter is obviously subpar, as they are the class that scales best with certain feats and gets more ASIs than every other class.

As the only class that gets 3 ASIs by Level 8, they are able to get a 20 in their primary ability score as well as 1 or 2 (with Variant Human) feats, meaning they reach maximum effectiveness earlier than other classes.

This allows to have the following at Level 8:

Melee: 20 Strength, Great Weapon Master (& Polearm Master)
Ranged: 20 Dexterity, Sharpshooter (&Crossbow Expert)


The -5/+10 feats allow them to consistently deal high damage, and with an additional feat, they get access to a Bonus Action attack that also benefits from the -5/+10 feat.

And that is not even taking into account their class abilities. Action Surge can allow for a strong nova round if needed, and the archetype can further strengthen a particular playstyle.

[Gwendol]

It is still the class that is adaptable and reliable in terms of (weapon) combat. The high number of ASI's/feats, the extra fighting style, not to mention the various abilities given by sub-classes makes it an interesting class. Easy to play, harder to master.

[KorvinStarmast]

Then 3rd edition came out and the fighter was reborn. Weapon specialization and a boat load of feats. Weapon specialization and proficiency goes as far back as AD&D 1e, with the Specialization arriving in the Unearthed Arcana volume.


Yes the fighter is not a master of one area of the game and perhaps this is his strength. But the same fighter can go on any mission and with the right feat selections perform as a tank, archer, bodyguard, etc. You wouldn't leave him off the team because of his versatility.
Indeed.

[Vogonjeltz]

they're not really that far behind. perhaps not quite as high, but it isn't nearly as far as you seem to think. first off, properly built, it's 3 attacks vs 5, not 2 vs 4. secondly, paladins get to add 1d8 to every attack indefinitely starting at level 11. thirdly, paladins also enjoy some fairly sustainable DPR increases. vengeance paladins can cast haste or hunter's mark on themselves, for example. devotion paladins can give themselves +5 to hit (at high levels, once they've maxed cha) for an entire fight per short rest. all paladins can summon a steed to assist them in battle. they all get bless, elemental weapon, crusader's mantle, and divine favor.

a paladin who wishes to deal damage has the tools available to do so, and while some of their damage is perhaps not quite as sustained as a fighter's, some of their resources can also easily last long enough that there is little danger of running out on any day where the fighter won't run out of hit points first.

there is a difference. but it isn't a huge difference.

furthermore, DPR is nice and all, but he didn't say DPR. he said damage output. and frankly, there's definitely something to be said for having damage that can be heavily front-loaded, and targeted entirely on the things you care most about getting rid of.

Yes, they really are that far behind in terms of DPR. They get Extra Attack 1, not 2 or 3.

Sustained DPR requires that only non-expendable resources to be taken into account, what you're describing in using spells to empower attacking is burst damage, not sustained, a distinction that I already made between repeatable reliable damage and using limited resources for burst. I agree, the Paladin has good burst, but their sustained is substantially lower.

I might also add that the paladin's burst is entirely reliant on using the same resource that might otherwise buff them. Ergo, they have an opportunity cost that Fighters do not: Either they get to buff or they get to burst, but they can't buff and output their best possible burst damage.

[SharkForce]

Yes, they really are that far behind in terms of DPR. They get Extra Attack 1, not 2 or 3.

Sustained DPR requires that only non-expendable resources to be taken into account, what you're describing in using spells to empower attacking is burst damage, not sustained, a distinction that I already made between repeatable reliable damage and using limited resources for burst. I agree, the Paladin has good burst, but their sustained is substantially lower.

I might also add that the paladin's burst is entirely reliant on using the same resource that might otherwise buff them. Ergo, they have an opportunity cost that Fighters do not: Either they get to buff or they get to burst, but they can't buff and output their best possible burst damage.

they get extra attack 1, and +1d8 radiant damage to EVERY SINGLE ATTACK THEY EVER MAKE, for starters. not as good as two more attacks in the long run, but then, they only worry about that for one level because for the other 8 the fighter is basically getting absolutely nothing worth mentioning as far as sustainable DPR is concerned (and for 7 of those levels, they're probably not gaining much worth mentioning for any reason, DPR or otherwise). secondly, who cares if the fighter can deal more damage if they are in a 10,000 round fight. it is irrelevant. they will both be dead long before it has even a chance of being relevant. practically speaking, a paladin can trivially sustain one or more of those buffs enough to last through a day that lasts far longer than the expected value.

the thing you are measuring is being done with incredibly poor assumptions. it simply doesn't matter for any reasonable comparison. a paladin can keep some form of damage increase active in basically every single fight they can reasonably expect to get into without blowing any of their highest level spells, leaving them available for smiting if they so choose.

[Ralanr]

Wait how? I thought only smiting was their damage increase ability?

[UXLZ]

No, they get an ability at level 11 called Improved Divine Smite that adds an extra 1d8 radiant damage to all melee weapon attacks.

[Louro]

Fighters? 3 things come to my mind.

1.- Easy. All you need to do is roll.
2.- Reliable. (Indomitable, good HP, Strengh & Con saves, he never runs out of slashes, smashes or punchs to the face)
3.- Action Economy. He doesnt need to do anything other than attack. No time wasted on that stupid chanting to make people belive you are stronger than you actually are. He just goes straight into the fray dealing more sustained damage than any other character. Action Surge to add extra awesomeness.

[Psikerlord]

I've played every installment of D&D except for 4, and only because I was really too busy. The fighter has been around forever. It used to be if you wanted to swing a sword you played this, it was odd to every get to see a paladin or lucky just to play one. But there was a flip side to this coin, unless you rolled crazy stats, a fighter more than likely had the jump on the paladin in strength, just considering the 17 charisma requirement of the paladin. I find most gamers have soft spot for this class, above all others, because of he could be "us".

Then 3rd edition came out and the fighter was reborn. Weapon specialization and a boat load of feats. Then 3.5 came out and even more specialization and less cherry picking, though still done and me as well.

So now in 5E we have the fighter. If you get to 20th level, he's alright. But the paladin and even IMO the barbarian rule the roost in melee tanking effectiveness and damage output.

So the question is? What did the makers of 5E expect from the fighter class. Aside from multi-classing, which the fighter screams for and has its relative ease to do so for really any class, what is the fighter's area of expertise.

You have fighting styles that are accessible to two other classes. You have heavy armor and so do other classes. And martial weapons, and so do others. There is no more weapon specialization and weapon no longer provide any other "critical" aspects.

So what did the makers foresee when they created this installment of the fighter? And looking on the bright side or the silver lining, it must be its versatility, the fact he does not specialize in just one combat aspect. A fighter can be your second on all most any environment and that could be their intention.

Aside from the eldritch knight, who is his own creature, the battle-master and champion are not real masters of anyone combat or skill area. Now I'm playing a champion fighter and picked a mountain dwarf, more for concept than optimization because you lose out in regards to bonus weapon and armor.

A ranger or bard are better bowman, and both because of spell and class features. Yes, a barbarian does require a fair amount of dexterity for armor class and could use a bow, but lacks archery style (worth 4 points of dexterity or 2 ASI) and rage unfortunately does not add it the equation. A paladin can shoot a bow but loses out with his smite.

Now for melee, a battle-masters maneuvers offer quite a lot of utility and damage. And champion could score the critical hit at anytime. But a paladin can hurt you, heal himself, buff himself, and withstand many save checks. A barbarian's strength check is formidable and will likely never get shoved, knocked prone or disarmed easily because of it; meaning, the fighter must trade blow for blow with this dangerous adversary, who is raging. And a rogue's uncanny dodge makes him very hard to hit and his ability to disengage and high stealth might enable him to achieve multiple sneak attacks by hit and run tactics. And a monk, well he can run the gauntlet and come out unscathed.

But the same fighter, built for melee, with 7 ASI/feats can perform in any combat environment effectively. A champion can take two fighting styles representing melee and ranged. He can switch armor and with remarkable athlete even go on stealth missions and achieve success, while a barbarian could keep up with his high dexterity, a paladin may not be able to this with SPBI. Action surge is a great asset in terms of battlefield control, allowing you to "save" comrades and still attack and is replenished every short rest. Second wind is helpful, though pales in comparison to self healing of the other classes, spells, and the rogue's disengage bonus action. Survivor, though to late for me in terms of levels, is awesome when the enemy is hounding you and you cannot rest.

Yes the fighter is not a master of one area of the game and perhaps this is his strength. But the same fighter can go on any mission and with the right feat selections perform as a tank, archer, bodyguard, etc. You wouldn't leave him off the team because of his versatility. The fighter is the blank slate on which you slap custom made feats to birth a vessel of eminent awesomesauce. Enjoy. :smallsmile: Paladins are restricted by their Code. Fighters are not. In games where the Code is not enforced, or doesn't really mean anything, fighters are less desirable.

[Morty]

Seems to me like the main reasoning was that there has to be a class named fighter, because otherwise people will make a fuss. It doesn't have much of a point to it beyond it.

[rollingForInit]

Seems to me like the main reasoning was that there has to be a class named fighter, because otherwise people will make a fuss. It doesn't have much of a point to it beyond it.

It's the most straightforward bruiser class that just hits hard and does lots of damage. No resource management, no magic, no spells, no extra mechanics to keep track of.

[Gwendol]

Seems to me like the main reasoning was that there has to be a class named fighter, because otherwise people will make a fuss. It doesn't have much of a point to it beyond it.

Except for it's reliability, flexibility, etc.

There is a heavy bias against the class though.

[Gettles]

The problem the fighter has is that martial combat in D&D is always pretty lazily designed and instead of coming across as skilled people trying to gain an edge against each other, it is closer to two blindfolded people swinging at pinatas and the winner being whoever get luckier.

[Ralanr]

The problem the fighter has is that martial combat in D&D is always pretty lazily designed and instead of coming across as skilled people trying to gain an edge against each other, it is closer to two blindfolded people swinging at pinatas and the winner being whoever get luckier.

From my experience, any game that utilizes magic in combat will have the non magical options be somewhat lackluster.

At least in tabletops you have better chances to improvise.

[Gettles]

From my experience, any game that utilizes magic in combat will have the non magical options be somewhat lackluster.

At least in tabletops you have better chances to improvise.

It's not even that they are weaker its that there literally is less effort put in. Spellcasters get a spell or several for any possible scenario but for no magic all it is I becomes roll,count see if you succeeded it feel half-assed by comparison

[Morty]

It's the most straightforward bruiser class that just hits hard and does lots of damage. No resource management, no magic, no spells, no extra mechanics to keep track of.

Those aren't a very useful things to design a class around. It's an important option to consider, given D&D's target. But it's not a good identity for a class. "Doesn't do anything terribly special" isn't a helpful definition for a class in a heroic fantasy system.


The problem the fighter has is that martial combat in D&D is always pretty lazily designed and instead of coming across as skilled people trying to gain an edge against each other, it is closer to two blindfolded people swinging at pinatas and the winner being whoever get luckier.

There is certainly that, yes. Not much to work with, no matter which way you twist it.

[Vogonjeltz]

they get extra attack 1, and +1d8 radiant damage to EVERY SINGLE ATTACK THEY EVER MAKE, for starters. not as good as two more attacks in the long run, but then, they only worry about that for one level because for the other 8 the fighter is basically getting absolutely nothing worth mentioning as far as sustainable DPR is concerned (and for 7 of those levels, they're probably not gaining much worth mentioning for any reason, DPR or otherwise). secondly, who cares if the fighter can deal more damage if they are in a 10,000 round fight. it is irrelevant. they will both be dead long before it has even a chance of being relevant. practically speaking, a paladin can trivially sustain one or more of those buffs enough to last through a day that lasts far longer than the expected value.

the thing you are measuring is being done with incredibly poor assumptions. it simply doesn't matter for any reasonable comparison. a paladin can keep some form of damage increase active in basically every single fight they can reasonably expect to get into without blowing any of their highest level spells, leaving them available for smiting if they so choose.

Let's math it out. (Incidentally I think there's a typo in the book, it says +2d8 damage for a 1st level spell, +1d8 per spell level above that capping at +5d8...is that intended to be +6d8 or is the 1st level intended to only be +1d8? Otherwise a 5th level spell slot is giving the same bonus as a 4th level spell slot....) I'll proceed assuming there is no typo.

A paladin's maximum additional damage per day from smiting is +4d8 (18 average) over 2 attacks at 2nd level up to +54d8 (243 ave) at 20th level over 15 attacks. Banishing Smite provides slightly more damage than smite (5d10 vs 5d8) so if we substitute those slots for that we're looking at 44d8 (198) + 10d10 (55) (other smites deal less damage than just using divine smite), for a combined +253 average damage over 15 attacks or ~+16.87 per attack.

After that point the only additional damage a paladin deals is the +1d8 from improved divine smite at levels 11+.

By way of comparison, a battlemaster fighter using maneuvers deals an additional +4d8 (18) per short rest from level 3 to 6, +5d8 (22.5) from 7 to 9, +5d10 (27.5) from 10 to 14, +6d10 (33) from 15 to 17 and +6d12 (39) from 18 on. The fighter also benefits from action surge netting an additional attack action per short rest

At level 3 the fighter's additional damage dice are double a paladin's from only one short rest.
At level 20 it requires 7 short rests to exceed the additional damage dice if we exclude the use of action surges, although the benefit of action surges at 20 is likely to be, at a minimum, +16d6 (56). This means the battlemaster's bonus damage from class abilities exceeds the paladin's after 3 short rests.

So, the fighter is doing ~double damage of the paladin sustained (3 attacks + 1d8 vs 4 attacks) and exceeds burst within 3 short rests.

The paladin can only output their total burst over 15 rounds of attacking. The fighter can do theirs over 2 rounds worth of attacking per short rest.

So in 2 combat rounds the fighter can output: 231 excluding crits
the paladin can output: 192.5 excluding crits.

This costs the fighter 6 combat superiority dice (short rest returns) and 2 action surges (short rest returns)
and it costs the paladin 6 spell slots (2 5th, 3 4th, 1 3rd; long rest returns).

It also requires the paladin's bonus action each turn, which the Fighter could use to make a bonus attack in the case of a critical assuming great weapon master is on the table.

The paladin, even using their best burst abilities, is still behind by ~40 points of damage on average.

A vengeance paladin can reserve their concentration spot (preventing any use of smites for burst) to improve their sustained by +1d6 giving them almost as much sustained as someone with 3 attacks, but still much less than 4. But that costs a spell slot, dropping their burst ability anywhere from 2d8 to 5d10. (Meaning they don't actually accrue any benefit until they make between more than 3 to 6 attacks (depending on the level of the spell slot used).

Worse, Paladin's don't have proficiency in constitution saving throws, so absent any other feature, they're not likely to maintain that spell.

[SharkForce]

paladins have other sources of damage, like I said. once per short rest, a devotion paladin gets +charisma to attack rolls. a vengeance paladin gets haste. no paladin should be using smite spells; just as the fighter should be using polearm mastery or great weapon fighting (and hoping for crits/KOs in case of the latter), so too should the paladin (though probably polearm mastery adds more value for a paladin since they don't have 4 chances to score a crit). the only reason to consider smite spells is for the rider effects.

superiority dice are not part of sustained damage, they're part of burst damage (not that they're bad or anything, they just aren't sustained by any means; you can blow through your whole pool in a turn, pretty much. that is the opposite of sustained damage... though, as I said earlier, burst damage has lots of value anyways, and fighters do get a decent amount of that, though it is unfortunately quite front-loaded).

as to holding their spells up, paladins get +cha to con saves as well. not *quite* as good as con proficiency (and they're frankly less likely to have room for resilient(con) in their build), but still almost as good as anyone else can get.

out of curiosity though, what happens if you instead compare at, say, level 11, 15, or 18? the extra attack the fighter gets at level 20 is not worth nearly as much purely because it doesn't come online until most campaigns are over or nearly over. practically speaking, I strongly suspect the +1d8 radiant damage is perhaps not *quite* as good as a fighter's extra attack at 11, but I bet it's pretty danged close and stays that close right up until level 20.

[Garimeth]

out of curiosity though, what happens if you instead compare at, say, level 11, 15, or 18? the extra attack the fighter gets at level 20 is not worth nearly as much purely because it doesn't come online until most campaigns are over or nearly over. practically speaking, I strongly suspect the +1d8 radiant damage is perhaps not *quite* as good as a fighter's extra attack at 11, but I bet it's pretty danged close and stays that close right up until level 20.

See I agree with this, which is why whenever I finally DM a 5e game I think my "solution" (because my campaign just isn't going to reach level 20, I know it) would be to beef up superiority dice. Haven't mathed it just my hunch.

[SharkForce]

See I agree with this, which is why whenever I finally DM a 5e game I think my "solution" (because my campaign just isn't going to reach level 20, I know it) would be to beef up superiority dice. Haven't mathed it just my hunch.

that helps somewhat for battlemaster. doesn't do much for fighters in general.

the last 9 levels of fighter are problematic on the whole. there isn't a huge amount of stuff to really look forward to. you get abilities, but they generally speaking aren't that impressive, and they *certainly* aren't comparable to high level spells in the same way that a low-level fighter is getting abilities that are generally as valuable as getting low level spells.

at level 17, the wizard can use mass suggestion to get minions for a year. or wish for a simulacrum. and so on. the fighter gets to action surge a second time per short rest, which is a great ability and all, but... not quite the same scale. and that's the best ability the fighter gets in that entire 11-20 stretch (the next best ability, the 4th attack, is as noted not available until level 20).

the fighter from 1-11 has a great identity. they're a strong, tough, adaptable warrior, very capable in battle, that can recover just about everything they do with an hour break. at level 20, they're a bit stronger but mostly exactly the same as they were at level 11, only with more HP. you get way more from 9 levels of just about any other class than you do out of finishing off the rest of your levels in fighter.

[Garimeth]

that helps somewhat for battlemaster. doesn't do much for fighters in general.

the last 9 levels of fighter are problematic on the whole. there isn't a huge amount of stuff to really look forward to. you get abilities, but they generally speaking aren't that impressive, and they *certainly* aren't comparable to high level spells in the same way that a low-level fighter is getting abilities that are generally as valuable as getting low level spells.

at level 17, the wizard can use mass suggestion to get minions for a year. or wish for a simulacrum. and so on. the fighter gets to action surge a second time per short rest, which is a great ability and all, but... not quite the same scale. and that's the best ability the fighter gets in that entire 11-20 stretch (the next best ability, the 4th attack, is as noted not available until level 20).

the fighter from 1-11 has a great identity. they're a strong, tough, adaptable warrior, very capable in battle, that can recover just about everything they do with an hour break. at level 20, they're a bit stronger but mostly exactly the same as they were at level 11, only with more HP. you get way more from 9 levels of just about any other class than you do out of finishing off the rest of your levels in fighter.

Good points all around. I don't really have to worry about my players playing a champion, not their cup of tea at all. I may take some of the champ's athletics based things and make them baseline fighter stuff (AFB atm so not positive just spitballing). For the EK I think simply giving them the ability to channel elements similar to a smite or expanding their spell list would probably do the trick, but not sure.

[Vogonjeltz]

paladins have other sources of damage, like I said. once per short rest, a devotion paladin gets +charisma to attack rolls. a vengeance paladin gets haste. no paladin should be using smite spells; just as the fighter should be using polearm mastery or great weapon fighting (and hoping for crits/KOs in case of the latter), so too should the paladin (though probably polearm mastery adds more value for a paladin since they don't have 4 chances to score a crit). the only reason to consider smite spells is for the rider effects.

Haste requires a spell slot, reducing total potential burst output. Actually the 5th level smite spell does more damage than using the 5th level slot for divine smite, so they should be using that one, in the other cases using the slot for divine smite does more damage than using it for a smite spell of that level, which is exactly how I factored it in. Yes, they were using identical arms and armaments.


superiority dice are not part of sustained damage, they're part of burst damage (not that they're bad or anything, they just aren't sustained by any means; you can blow through your whole pool in a turn, pretty much. that is the opposite of sustained damage... though, as I said earlier, burst damage has lots of value anyways, and fighters do get a decent amount of that, though it is unfortunately quite front-loaded).

I know, and the sustained damage from 4 attacks > the sustained damage from 2 attacks. The point of including the superiority dice was to demonstrate that the Fighter's Burst is greater than the Paladin's.


as to holding their spells up, paladins get +cha to con saves as well. not *quite* as good as con proficiency (and they're frankly less likely to have room for resilient(con) in their build), but still almost as good as anyone else can get.

out of curiosity though, what happens if you instead compare at, say, level 11, 15, or 18? the extra attack the fighter gets at level 20 is not worth nearly as much purely because it doesn't come online until most campaigns are over or nearly over. practically speaking, I strongly suspect the +1d8 radiant damage is perhaps not *quite* as good as a fighter's extra attack at 11, but I bet it's pretty danged close and stays that close right up until level 20.

At 11:
Fighter has 3 attacks at 2d6+5 (36); and +5d10 (27.5) via dice; and can double their attacks for one round every short rest.
Paladin has 2 attacks at 2d6+5 (24); +2d8 (9) via improved divine smite; and 29d8 (130.5) if they burn all their spell slots on divine smite, which requires 5 rounds to actually do. They also only gain this once per long rest.

So at level 11 over 5 rounds (the time it takes the paladin to expend all their resources for the day) the Fighter does 243.5 damage, the Paladin would do 295.5, or +52 which would require a total of 17 rounds to exceed assuming there are zero short rests through the day. If there are, it requires only one round to exceed by 14 points. This isn't taking into account feats, but mostly because the Fighter has the advantage there with 3 ASI vs the Paladin's 2.

At 15:
same as above except: fighter: +6d10 (33) via dice and relentless; paladin: 39d8 (175.5) over 6 rounds
so: fighter (285), paladin (373.5) difference of 88.5 requires 30 rounds to exceed, or six rounds and one short rest; relentless grants +5.5 damage for each combat prior to the short rest.

at 18:
fighter: +6d12 (39), 2 action surges (+72)
paladin: 49d8 (220.5) over 7 rounds

fighter would deal 363, paladin 451.5; the 88.5 damage requires 1 short rest or 30 rounds.

Given that the party will typically take at least 2 short rests per day (more if they're wise), the Fighter should always exceed the Paladin even when the Paladin expends all their resources into damage. Which is not to say that the Paladin doesn't have some cool features or utility, they're just not the better fighter.

[SharkForce]

why would you talk about haste reducing burst output? so what. you don't use it for burst. no kidding. you use it for sustained. just like you can use bless, elemental weapon, etc for sustained. the claim was that the fighter has much higher sustained damage. paladins can get pretty close in sustained. and can probably use spells to up their sustained to a point where it is as good or better for several fights a day, which is to say as many as you should be expecting.

[djreynolds]

Fighters can fill any role without any real changes and I think that's the "plus". Its not so much damage output as it is combat environments. Fighters have plenty of feats and asi, that one can seamlessly go from another environment to another. He can sharpshoot across the ravine and kill with a bow as well as anyone, climb down the cliff side, hold off the troll while the paladin finishes it off with flaming sword. He can stealth with the ranger, because he had enough feats and asi to have 20 strength and 16 dexterity and medium armor master. Maybe he took heavy armor master can "seal" the tunnel while the wizard casts spells. Maybe he took protector style and keeps eating up attacks aimed at the "crazy" warlock and then shoves someone prone and set up the rogue. The same fighter built for strength can do this, especially easy for the champion. Archery is worth 4 points in dex. Yes the barbarian is great tank and striker, same as paladin but with SPBI the fighter can do it all. I'm not saying he's the best in the tanker or striker realm but his presence means he can shore up any fight, hence the name fighter.

[Cybren]

From my experience, any game that utilizes magic in combat will have the non magical options be somewhat lackluster.

At least in tabletops you have better chances to improvise.

In computer RPGs, there's a general rule that the worse the controls are, the worse melee characters are. As an example of a game with great controls and the most satisfying melee combat possible: Dark Souls.

In tabletop RPGs, the same is still true, but the 'controls' become the mechanical options and fidelity. In D&D you don't get to make that many choices. There are no hit locations, 5ft space/reach means there's not much fidelity to position, and there's no facing by default. If what you're after is really detailed melee combat, a game like GURPS is better than D&D, because it is just so much less abstract. (Seriously, GURPS has some really awesome melee combat. They even released just the melee combat before the first edition was completed, because it was fun)

5E addresses this with Shove/Grapples being legitimate combat options, allowing resource management for things like Superiority Dice, and situational manipulation for abilities like Sneak Attack. 5E melee characters are a lot more interesting than 3.5 was at core (and even with a random handful of supplements).

[TwoBitWriter]

Another subtle thing to consider in 5th Edition is that Fighters get a total of 7 levels with Ability Score Improvements. Paladins and Barbarians get 5. This is especially helpful in campaigns where feats are allowed by the DM.

You are looking at a Fighter having higher Ability Score bonuses, or more feats.

[Vogonjeltz]

why would you talk about haste reducing burst output? so what. you don't use it for burst. no kidding. you use it for sustained. just like you can use bless, elemental weapon, etc for sustained. the claim was that the fighter has much higher sustained damage. paladins can get pretty close in sustained. and can probably use spells to up their sustained to a point where it is as good or better for several fights a day, which is to say as many as you should be expecting.


secondly, who cares if the fighter can deal more damage if they are in a 10,000 round fight.

In the first quote you say nobody cares if burst is more important. In the second quote, you say nobody cares if sustained is more important.

The fact is, fighters do more burst AND more sustained, and they can renew those resources many many times over. The Paladin is behind the ball in sustained and he can only begin to close the gap by mortgaging his burst capability. That's why haste using up a 3rd level spell slot matters. Worse, it requires concentration, which the aforementioned paladin is going to fail the check on, and then stuns them for a round when it ends.

[SharkForce]

In the first quote you say nobody cares if burst is more important. In the second quote, you say nobody cares if sustained is more important.

The fact is, fighters do more burst AND more sustained, and they can renew those resources many many times over. The Paladin is behind the ball in sustained and he can only begin to close the gap by mortgaging his burst capability. That's why haste using up a 3rd level spell slot matters. Worse, it requires concentration, which the aforementioned paladin is going to fail the check on, and then stuns them for a round when it ends.

nobody cares about sustained damage that lasts longer than any reasonable amount of combat is likely to last. if you're likely to see 6-7 combats per day, nobody cares what your damage is on the 50th combat of the day. your 6th is most likely relevant, your 10th will be relevant once in a while, and your 12th *might* be relevant once in a blue moon, but your 50th combat doesn't matter even a tiny bit. I don't care if your fighter can theoretically deal more damage indefinitely. the paladin has the tools to deal similar damage indefinitely, and extremely similar or perhaps even slightly superior damage for any reasonable amount of combat that is likely to occur in a single day with enemies that are strong enough to be noteworthy.

and no, the paladin is not particularly likely to fail concentration. proficiency is about the same as what their aura gives as a bonus. higher at low levels, lower at very high levels. unless you assume that eldritch knights are going to be constantly losing concentration on any spell they cast as well, it is not reasonable to assume the same for paladins.

[Mechaviking]

Worse, Paladin's don't have proficiency in constitution saving throws, so absent any other feature, they're not likely to maintain that spell.

Really?! getting your charisma score on all saves is not enough to maintain your spells?


(Incidentally I think there's a typo in the book, it says +2d8 damage for a 1st level spell, +1d8 per spell level above that capping at +5d8...is that intended to be +6d8 or is the 1st level intended to only be +1d8? Otherwise a 5th level spell slot is giving the same bonus as a 4th level spell slot....) I'll proceed assuming there is no typo.

Pretty straightforward it is 2d8 damage for a first level spell slot +1d8 for each level above 1st, capping out at +5d8(4th level spell slot). It also deals +1d8 damage vs undeads since this is after the period I read it that it is +6d8 vs undead and fiends(with a 4th level spell slot). The improved smite is added on top after


your bonus action is almost always available for things like Haste bonus attacks.

Just a slight clarification :D

Haste gives an additional action, you can still take your bonus action each turn.

[Edit]

Also let´s not forget that a paladin can have an arsenal of spells(up to 25) at his beck and call, but that usually doesn´t factor into straight combat math :D

[Edit 2]

**** I also just noticed that a vengeadin with polearm master can potentially kite monsters since, polearm master gives you an opportunity attack when they enter your reach and you can move half your speed after said attack... wtf?!

[UXLZ]

It's even better if you take Sentinel, since if you hit them their move is set to 0. ;D

[djreynolds]

I always find it hard to compare one character to another, but rather one should compare combat environments, and how a strength built fighter can excel on any ground, especially if he took archery. Often overlooked archery is awesome, and you can take it for any build and its worth two asi or 4 points in dexterity. That gives you a lot of versatility.

I love the paladin, its such a cool concept. He could, theoretically, go it alone.

I love the barbarian as well, but it difficult with SPBI, to max out all three of his physical stats. I usually just grab enough dexterity to wear leather armor or scale mail. But I find a lot player get strength up to 16, and then max out dex and con. Advantage on allies while raging is simply awesome.

But for me, the fighter, any environment, and an archery based ranger, give great consistency with damage output, and that's great. The fighter's consistency in battle really glues the group together. Yes they don't have the high spikes of damage a paladin or rogue can inflict, But a fighter's damage is always there.

Also you don't need great roles to play a fighter. I think for a paladin and barbarian, you need good rolls to help them really flourish.

[Strill]

Really?! getting your charisma score on all saves is not enough to maintain your spells?
Nope. That's why Resilient (CON) is such a popular feat for Paladins.

[georgie_leech]

Nope. That's why Resilient (CON) is such a popular feat for Paladins.

Considering that it tends to eclipse Proficiency at all but the highest levels, that's tantamount to saying that no one can maintain their spells. Of course Resilient helps, but it's not everything. The difference is Fighter and Fighter with GWM, not Fighter with GWM and Wizard with stick.

[Strill]

Considering that it tends to eclipse Proficiency at all but the highest levels, that's tantamount to saying that no one can maintain their spells. Of course Resilient helps, but it's not everything. The difference is Fighter and Fighter with GWM, not Fighter with GWM and Wizard with stick.

Resilient (CON) with a +3 proficiency bonus gives you a total of +4 to CON saves, if you planned out your constitution score to be odd, like you should have. I'd hardly call level 5 the "highest levels".

[djreynolds]

Nope. That's why Resilient (CON) is such a popular feat for Paladins.

He's gonna take resilient con because it is just so dirt cheap. One feat and you get +1 con and proficiency in that save. Now you can save the charisma for strength, or dexterity attack, and feats like sentinel or whatever.

A paladin, dex or strength based, is in the enemies' face, IMO. That's the paladin's role, he or she is there to fell the BBG. He's making a beeline to the biggest bad guy and he could kill it by himself. The other's might be facilitating that. The fighter is holding off the cannon fodder, protecting the squishies, or shield bashing the BBG. The rogue is next to the paladin getting in sneak attacks, the barbarian is raging near by allowing the paladin to smite with advantage and fighter to shield bash enemies for the rogue.

A paladin isn't wasting his spells on fodder, he's conserving it for the guy standing behind the horde. Same as the barbarian's rage. But the fighter can eat through them with nothing extra, because his damage is consistent. He has his high attack stat and con and feats, which he gets much earlier on at just 6th level.

[Strill]

A paladin isn't wasting his spells on fodder, he's conserving it for the guy standing behind the horde. Same as the barbarian's rage. But the fighter can eat through them with nothing extra, because his damage is consistent. He has his high attack stat and con and feats, which he gets much earlier on at just 6th level.

Why does a Paladin need to use his spells to do high sustained damage? Their sustained damage is already matching the Fighter's anyway.

[djreynolds]

Why does a Paladin need to use his spells to do high sustained damage? Their sustained damage is already matching the Fighter's anyway.

Yes and no, a SPBI fighter will more than likely have a better attack stat and more feats at his disposal than a SPBI paladin. It's not always the case, but a maybe a norm. Now if you rolled awesome?

[D.U.P.A.]

the fighter from 1-11 has a great identity. they're a strong, tough, adaptable warrior, very capable in battle, that can recover just about everything they do with an hour break. at level 20, they're a bit stronger but mostly exactly the same as they were at level 11, only with more HP. you get way more from 9 levels of just about any other class than you do out of finishing off the rest of your levels in fighter.

I agree, the Fighter becomes rather boring after 11th level, its only features are mostly improvements of existing features, like indomitable and action surge uses, more maneuvers (Battlemaster) or fighting styles (Champion). They are advertised as additional features, but on the other hand, in the class level review in PHB, some other classes' improved features, like Cleric's divine strike are not listed, only the first occurence.

[Louro]

Well, you can add some flavour to the class to make it more interesting, although this is very campaign related.
Things like: a fighter is a dude who is skilled on battle, meaning that as he gains experience he will be able to train troops, operate and build siege machinery, improve fortifications, use proper tactics in battle and so forth (like in AD&D).
This could give fighters something really cool to mess with but requires wars in the campaign.

[djreynolds]

Well, you can add some flavour to the class to make it more interesting, although this is very campaign related.
Things like: a fighter is a dude who is skilled on battle, meaning that as he gains experience he will be able to train troops, operate and build siege machinery, improve fortifications, use proper tactics in battle and so forth (like in AD&D).
This could give fighters something really cool to mess with but requires wars in the campaign.

I like that. A fighter is someone anybody can work for. You may not want to work for a paladin because of faith and tenants and such you probably have to have the same alignment and/or god. A ranger only gets wilderness types. But anybody could work for the fighter.

The thing with fighters, and somewhat with rogue and ranger, and unlike the barbarian and paladin, is that the three former classes scream multiclass and in a sense multiclass well together. No one is gonna question 13's in dex, str, or wis because they are all major saves and affect hit points, initiative, defense and attack stats.

If someone gets to 11th level in fighter, I wouldn't bat an eye at them grabbing rogue or ranger levels. A ranger at 11th could go to 15th and if a hunter get either uncanny dodge or evasion, or grab rogue til 7th and get a whole bunch more. And in some ways the ease of being able to multiclass is another strength of the fighter. A 12th level battle-master 8th level assassin is a nasty adversary. Ranger screams give me some rogue levels or cleric levels for extra healing and utility.

But fighter doesn't scream take me 20 levels. But barbarian and paladin going to get 20 levels is good.

[Malifice]

they get extra attack 1, and +1d8 radiant damage to EVERY SINGLE ATTACK THEY EVER MAKE, for starters. not as good as two more attacks in the long run, but then, they only worry about that for one level because for the other 8 the fighter is basically getting absolutely nothing worth mentioning as far as sustainable DPR is concerned (and for 7 of those levels, they're probably not gaining much worth mentioning for any reason, DPR or otherwise). secondly, who cares if the fighter can deal more damage if they are in a 10,000 round fight. it is irrelevant. they will both be dead long before it has even a chance of being relevant. practically speaking, a paladin can trivially sustain one or more of those buffs enough to last through a day that lasts far longer than the expected value.

the thing you are measuring is being done with incredibly poor assumptions. it simply doesn't matter for any reasonable comparison. a paladin can keep some form of damage increase active in basically every single fight they can reasonably expect to get into without blowing any of their highest level spells, leaving them available for smiting if they so choose.

A paladin can do burst damage. You forget a fighter can also get impressive burst damage via action surge. The fighter can also get burst ranged damage with action surge (where the paladin cannot) get burst mook clearance with the same and can use action surge to get into position, grapple, or do a million other things.

At 17th level using standard rest pacing you're looking at up to 8 action surges per day, tacking on 24 sup dice on the top via BM. That more than keeps up with the Paladins burst damage, can be used with bows, and enables all sorts of other shenanigans.

Even on the single encounter day, the high level BM fighter can nova along with the best of them. A single round of 6 great weapon attacks with superiority dice tacked on to knock your enemy to the ground, frighten him and deal around 150 points of damage is nothing to sneeze at.

[djreynolds]

A paladin can do burst damage. You forget a fighter can also get impressive burst damage via action surge. The fighter can also get burst ranged damage with action surge (where the paladin cannot) get burst mook clearance with the same and can use action surge to get into position, grapple, or do a million other things.

At 17th level using standard rest pacing you're looking at up to 8 action surges per day, tacking on 24 sup dice on the top via BM. That more than keeps up with the Paladins burst damage, can be used with bows, and enables all sorts of other shenanigans.

Even on the single encounter day, the high level BM fighter can nova along with the best of them. A single round of 6 great weapon attacks with superiority dice tacked on to knock your enemy to the ground, frighten him and deal around 150 points of damage is nothing to sneeze at.

That's an excellent point, a paladin and barbarian, unfortunately and perhaps not fairly, are limited to melee in regards to rage and smiting. The fighter can kill you at any range. This is often forgotten, killing one's adversary at range without a fireball is nice.

[Malifice]

That's an excellent point, a paladin and barbarian, unfortunately and perhaps not fairly, are limited to melee in regards to rage and smiting. The fighter can kill you at any range. This is often forgotten, killing one's adversary at range without a fireball is nice.

Even at 11th level and no sharpshooter feat, an action surging fighter dropping sup dice on a BBEG in a ranged nova strike is pretty impressive. A switch hitting fighter (and they have the feats to pull it off) can do considerably more.

When played within the six encounter/ 2 short rest paradigm they absolutely have a place. They can also do effective nova damage (and have arguably the greatest range of nova options for a martial) in a pinch also.

They have solid passive defences (Hp, AC, generally slightly better than average stats) and at higher levels also gain indominatable which can be a lifesaver.

They're a great class.

Action surge has a lot of options outside of just 'double attacks' too. Using the action to dash for mobility, dodge for defence and a million other options too.

They're always gonna have a niche, and they certainly have one in my campaign.

[djreynolds]

You know I started the thread, because sometimes it takes players seeing classes from different perspectives. People are either obsessed with DPR or nova. But I find "in a pinch" is a great way of seeing a fighter. Melee and range are areas that all characters have to address, and it can be a simple as delegating it to one guy, and fighters in a pinch can fill any role, archer, tank, striker, control, even healer with feats and potions.

It's nice to have expert views, so players see possibilities.

[SharkForce]

Even at 11th level and no sharpshooter feat, an action surging fighter dropping sup dice on a BBEG in a ranged nova strike is pretty impressive. A switch hitting fighter (and they have the feats to pull it off) can do considerably more.

When played within the six encounter/ 2 short rest paradigm they absolutely have a place. They can also do effective nova damage (and have arguably the greatest range of nova options for a martial) in a pinch also.

They have solid passive defences (Hp, AC, generally slightly better than average stats) and at higher levels also gain indominatable which can be a lifesaver.

They're a great class.

Action surge has a lot of options outside of just 'double attacks' too. Using the action to dash for mobility, dodge for defence and a million other options too.

They're always gonna have a niche, and they certainly have one in my campaign.

as I've said, I have no problem with fighter from 1-11. from 1-11, the fighter is a good class.

from 12-20, it is basically the same as the fighter 11 except with more hit points. *that* is what I dislike about fighter. yes, they can do some pretty respectable burst, and yes, they have pretty good DPR (but not massively higher than paladin, which enjoys huge advantages in a variety of other ways to compensate for their marginally lower damage).

if fighter 12-20 had something other than an extra action surge and the 4th attack after the campaign is basically finished, it would probably be fine. as it stands, they do a teensy bit more damage than a paladin, and that is about it. that is the biggest problem I have with fighters. there's half of a class there, but it's sitting in the same amount of space as a full class.

[djreynolds]

as I've said, I have no problem with fighter from 1-11. from 1-11, the fighter is a good class.

from 12-20, it is basically the same as the fighter 11 except with more hit points. *that* is what I dislike about fighter. yes, they can do some pretty respectable burst, and yes, they have pretty good DPR (but not massively higher than paladin, which enjoys huge advantages in a variety of other ways to compensate for their marginally lower damage).

if fighter 12-20 had something other than an extra action surge and the 4th attack after the campaign is basically finished, it would probably be fine. as it stands, they do a teensy bit more damage than a paladin, and that is about it. that is the biggest problem I have with fighters. there's half of a class there, but it's sitting in the same amount of space as a full class.

But they do multicast so well with 8 levels of rogue. WHY is that? Battlemaster 12/ assassin 8

[georgie_leech]

But they do multicast so well with 8 levels of rogue. WHY is that? Battlemaster 12/ assassin 8

Because those levels of Assassin give them actually interesting class features. The complaint is that after 11 Fighter really only gives you 'more.' More attacks, more actions, more hp, but nothing different to actually do.

[D.U.P.A.]

11+ features are basically on the defensive with various indomitable, ASI and some class features against powerful magic effects, but they are rather meager with limited uses.

However Fighter does good job for some MAD builds, like Eldritch knight or some builds via Magic initiate to grab Eldritch blast or some other good cantrip and you can max those attribute much faster than other gish MAD classes.

[Malifice]

as I've said, I have no problem with fighter from 1-11. from 1-11, the fighter is a good class.

from 12-20, it is basically the same as the fighter 11 except with more hit points. *that* is what I dislike about fighter. yes, they can do some pretty respectable burst, and yes, they have pretty good DPR (but not massively higher than paladin, which enjoys huge advantages in a variety of other ways to compensate for their marginally lower damage).

if fighter 12-20 had something other than an extra action surge and the 4th attack after the campaign is basically finished, it would probably be fine. as it stands, they do a teensy bit more damage than a paladin, and that is about it. that is the biggest problem I have with fighters. there's half of a class there, but it's sitting in the same amount of space as a full class.

Over the 6 encounter/ 2 short rest adventuring day I disagree the paladin is outstripping the fighter with either sustained or nova DPR. Arguably the paladin can stack smite with smite spells for a bigger nova (and can dip fighter for action surge and superiority dice for an even bigger nova strike) but the two classes seem fine when played together.

I'm also not sure I agree with your assertion that Fighters get 'nothing' past 11th level. An extra ASI/ feat, an extra action surge (which alone is massive), indominatable, archetype features (greater crit, regeneration, 4th level spells, more and higher superiority dice etc) and finally a 4th Attack are nothing to sneeze at.

[Vogonjeltz]

nobody cares about sustained damage that lasts longer than any reasonable amount of combat is likely to last. if you're likely to see 6-7 combats per day, nobody cares what your damage is on the 50th combat of the day. your 6th is most likely relevant, your 10th will be relevant once in a while, and your 12th *might* be relevant once in a blue moon, but your 50th combat doesn't matter even a tiny bit. I don't care if your fighter can theoretically deal more damage indefinitely. the paladin has the tools to deal similar damage indefinitely, and extremely similar or perhaps even slightly superior damage for any reasonable amount of combat that is likely to occur in a single day with enemies that are strong enough to be noteworthy.

and no, the paladin is not particularly likely to fail concentration. proficiency is about the same as what their aura gives as a bonus. higher at low levels, lower at very high levels. unless you assume that eldritch knights are going to be constantly losing concentration on any spell they cast as well, it is not reasonable to assume the same for paladins.

It's a mere 30 rounds or 5 rounds per combat.

If the paladin has maximized charisma they will be slightly worse than if they had proficiency if they were capable of maximizing all three attributes required by this comparison. However, the paladin has only 5 ASI, which is insufficient to reach 20 in three stats.

Eldritch Knights have proficiency in constitution saves and they have 7 ASI. Of all the casters in the game, the Eldritch Knight is far and away the most suited to combat casting. Paladins don't come with the innate competency that EK do.


Really?! getting your charisma score on all saves is not enough to maintain your spells?

No, no it's not. The Charisma bonus caps out at +5 if and only if charisma is maximized, if that's the case and Strength is maximized (otherwise the Paladin's weapon attack rolls and damage are reduced) their constitution score will not be maximized, giving them a +7 modifier. This means a basic check will fail on a roll of 1 or 2, which translates to 1 in 10 attacks. Any concentration spell that is intended to last more than 10 rounds is likely to fail early in the best case scenario where the paladin has not deliberately hamstrung their weapon attacks and defense (15 str minimum required for the best armor).

Conversely, an Eldritch Knight only requires 16 in constitution to auto-succeed on concentration against any attack that deals less than 22 points of damage. Which is not only possible, it's probable.

[Mara]

It's a mere 30 rounds or 5 rounds per combat.

If the paladin has maximized charisma they will be slightly worse than if they had proficiency if they were capable of maximizing all three attributes required by this comparison. However, the paladin has only 5 ASI, which is insufficient to reach 20 in three stats.

Eldritch Knights have proficiency in constitution saves and they have 7 ASI. Of all the casters in the game, the Eldritch Knight is far and away the most suited to combat casting. Paladins don't come with the innate competency that EK do.



No, no it's not. The Charisma bonus caps out at +5 if and only if charisma is maximized, if that's the case and Strength is maximized (otherwise the Paladin's weapon attack rolls and damage are reduced) their constitution score will not be maximized, giving them a +7 modifier. This means a basic check will fail on a roll of 1 or 2, which translates to 1 in 10 attacks. Any concentration spell that is intended to last more than 10 rounds is likely to fail early in the best case scenario where the paladin has not deliberately hamstrung their weapon attacks and defense (15 str minimum required for the best armor).

Conversely, an Eldritch Knight only requires 16 in constitution to auto-succeed on concentration against any attack that deals less than 22 points of damage. Which is not only possible, it's probable. My eldritch Knights end up with 18 con and the war caster feat.

Until 16 she'll only have 14 con and the war caster feat comes at 6. I max int after str.

[djreynolds]

Its the old fighter vs paladin argument and I love it. Fighters are not flashy, but the fact is, is the fighter can fight in any combat environment and win. Weather augmenting ranged attacks with precision, or the champion taking archery at 10, the fighter with dexterity build or strength build can kill anywhere. Killing is exciting.

And I like killing things in different ways. A fighter is better at range than a paladin, and that is huge. The paladin must get to the archers and casters. He must cross no-man's land. Can he do it? Of course, but he must waste resources. The fighter doesn't cause he can just hang back and shoot arrows.

I like multiclassing. But a 20th level fighter, with SBPI and built for strength even with a champion build can have two methods of attack that are +11. And have feats. And maxed strength and constitution. And resilient in wisdom. Combat versatility.

I like both classes. Paladins are great and we can go back forth about who kills better. And who you would like in your party. But if that ranger is wounded, who can pick up his bow and fire more effectively. The fighter. Now if the cleric goes down the paladin can cover and if the bard goes down the paladin can do the talking.

A fighter, with SPBI, can take mounted, sharpshooter, and sentinel and still have 4 ASI to play with. No one else can fight like that. Aside from rogue, no one has options like that. A paladin has 5 ASI. And at level 12 has three ASI and a fighter 4 ASI, and at 14 will have 5 ASI.

[SharkForce]

It's a mere 30 rounds or 5 rounds per combat.

If the paladin has maximized charisma they will be slightly worse than if they had proficiency if they were capable of maximizing all three attributes required by this comparison. However, the paladin has only 5 ASI, which is insufficient to reach 20 in three stats.

Eldritch Knights have proficiency in constitution saves and they have 7 ASI. Of all the casters in the game, the Eldritch Knight is far and away the most suited to combat casting. Paladins don't come with the innate competency that EK do.



No, no it's not. The Charisma bonus caps out at +5 if and only if charisma is maximized, if that's the case and Strength is maximized (otherwise the Paladin's weapon attack rolls and damage are reduced) their constitution score will not be maximized, giving them a +7 modifier. This means a basic check will fail on a roll of 1 or 2, which translates to 1 in 10 attacks. Any concentration spell that is intended to last more than 10 rounds is likely to fail early in the best case scenario where the paladin has not deliberately hamstrung their weapon attacks and defense (15 str minimum required for the best armor).

Conversely, an Eldritch Knight only requires 16 in constitution to auto-succeed on concentration against any attack that deals less than 22 points of damage. Which is not only possible, it's probable.

conversely, an eldritch knight is not a battlemaster and never can be, and therefore those damage numbers you were talking about before drop considerably, plus an eldritch knight has slower casting progression, plus an eldritch knight has a very restricted spell list and can't change spells once they choose them.

the eldritch knight is pretty decent at keeping the spells they can cast active. unfortunately, the eldritch knight is also pretty awful at actually getting spells worth keeping active.

[Vogonjeltz]

conversely, an eldritch knight is not a battlemaster and never can be, and therefore those damage numbers you were talking about before drop considerably, plus an eldritch knight has slower casting progression, plus an eldritch knight has a very restricted spell list and can't change spells once they choose them.

the eldritch knight is pretty decent at keeping the spells they can cast active. unfortunately, the eldritch knight is also pretty awful at actually getting spells worth keeping active.

I actually haven't run the damage numbers for an Eldritch Knight, so the jury's still out. Then again, I also didn't bring up the Eldritch Knight in the first place, you did:


and no, the paladin is not particularly likely to fail concentration. proficiency is about the same as what their aura gives as a bonus. higher at low levels, lower at very high levels. unless you assume that eldritch knights are going to be constantly losing concentration on any spell they cast as well, it is not reasonable to assume the same for paladins.

That being said, the single-target damage is reduced comparative to the Battlemaster, although it has higher damage potential using aoe. It's other strengths are defensive/utility spellcasting (blade ward, shield, counterspell).

[Fighting_Ferret]

Versatility and dependability. Someone has to be the metric by which other's abilities are judged... welcome to the fighter. There is nothing wrong with the class or any of it's archetypes. They operate with whatever the DM gives them... and are effective in every conceivable encounter. The most effective, probably not. Barbarians are better at soaking up damage, paladins can have more novas, and casters get high level spells, and rogues get more useful skills. Dependable isn't flashy, but gets the job done.

[Malifice]

I actually haven't run the damage numbers for an Eldritch Knight, so the jury's still out. Then again, I also didn't bring up the Eldritch Knight in the first place, you did:



That being said, the single-target damage is reduced comparative to the Battlemaster, although it has higher damage potential using aoe. It's other strengths are defensive/utility spellcasting (blade ward, shield, counterspell).

It gets defensive combat buffs from (shield, mirror image) and single target offence via (haste, scorching ray). Mook clearance via fireball.

[Mato]

Q: What were the creator's intention for the fighter?
A: An apology for 3rd's unpowered fighter by shooting for OP.


I actually haven't run the damage numbers for an Eldritch Knight, so the jury's still out. Then again, I also didn't bring up the Eldritch Knight in the first place, you didOverall, it's behind the battle master, mostly because you can use the +1d12 to attack rolls to pay for great weapon master. The increased chances to hit, not to mention +80 (or more) total damage when using action boost, ranking it's dpr above an ek when you factor AC.

But the intent of the ek isn't pure numbers, it's versatility. Sort of like 3rds wizard vs sorcerer debates, the master has more raw power but the ek isn't a slouch and can solve more problems. And something like this actually came up in another thread I was in, thanks to the wizard list containing a vastly wider range of spell types, the ek's combined actions allowing casting & attacks, ASIs to reduce MAD and pick up both melee and casting related feats, and forced disadvantage on saves the ek is a better caster than a paladin.

[DemonSlayer6]

In 5e, the Fighter has a few things going for it.

First, the Fighter is supposed to be a simple class. The Barbarian has rage to keep track of, the Paladin has spells that must be chosen and spell slots to take notice of. The Fighter has none of those things in and of itself. You want to do very little aside from swing a giant sword, pick a Fighter.

This is one of the reasons the Basic Rules provide the Champion Fighter, who is literally so simple that every ability makes it better at hitting things when it swings its giant sword.

-----

Second, note that there are Mental abilities (Intelligence, Wisdom, Charisma) and Physical abilities (Strength, Dexterity, Constitution).

Most characters combine one from each group so as to be simple but not flat. In terms of the Fighter

The standard Fighter can focus on either Strength or Dexterity; it needs no Mental ability.
The Cleric can focus on Wisdom and either Strength or Dexterity.
The Monk and Ranger focus on Wisdom and Dexterity.
The Paladin focuses on Strength and Charisma.
The Bard focuses on Dexterity and Charisma.
The Eldritch Knight archetype is a Fighter "path" that allows someone focused on Strength to also focus on Intelligence.


So if you want someone who just swings a sword, you can pick a Fighter. But you can also pick a Fighter if you want someone who swings a sword while being able to cast spells and actually knows things.

-----

Now, this said, I haven't compared the Fighter directly to either the Barbarian or the Paladin. Such a comparison should not need to be made since the overarching distinction between the usefulness of classes is between Raw Power and Versatility. The Barbarian is no doubt more powerful, being able to rage. And the Paladin is also more powerful, being heavily armored by default and possessing powerful divine abilities.

But the Fighter is way more versatile. Heavy armor, or light bordering on none. Heavy hitter, or useful unsuspected tactics that can cripple the strongest battle strategies, or a wide range of spells that ensures every situation can be solved one way or another.

A champion fighter scoring critical hits 15% of the time and hitting four to five times a round could possibly out-DPR a raging barbarian. An Eldritch Knight's fireball could possibly out-perform any paladin against hordes and swarms. Etc, etc. But the paladin and barbarian are still going to be desirable for what they can offer (hitting heavy) and the consistency they can offer what they can offer (namely, hitting heavy a lot).

[R.Shackleford]

As someone who started with 4e, the only thing I can think of when I see the 5e Fighter, is that the creators needed/wanted something they could throw out there and and call a Fighter just so they can have a Fighter.

The 5e Fighter a not a Fighter. They swing a sword and wear armor but they have nothing going for them that isn't done better elsewhere. More attacka is a boring and pathetic class feature. I'm severely disappointed in this iteration of the Fighter and with non-magic overall. I just bought the 5e PHB last weekend and I'll be sending it back.

I really like the core of what 5e offers and I've been looking to see how players have been using the game but... I don't think think this is the game for me, way too restrictive on what a Fighter can become and way too loose with what Cleric/Wizards/Magic can become or do.

I hope others have a good time, the core is good, but not having a decent Fighter is a huge turn off.

[Mato]

Now, this said, I haven't compared the Fighter directly to either the Barbarian or the Paladin. Such a comparison should not need to be made since the overarching distinction between the usefulness of classes is between Raw Power and Versatility. The Barbarian is no doubt more powerful, being able to rage. And the Paladin is also more powerful, being heavily armored by default and possessing powerful divine abilities.So you've never compared them but according to you the barbarian is without a doubt superior.

[Mara]

As someone who started with 4e, the only thing I can think of when I see the 5e Fighter, is that the creators needed/wanted something they could throw out there and and call a Fighter just so they can have a Fighter.

The 5e Fighter a not a Fighter. They swing a sword and wear armor but they have nothing going for them that isn't done better elsewhere. More attacka is a boring and pathetic class feature. I'm severely disappointed in this iteration of the Fighter and with non-magic overall. I just bought the 5e PHB last weekend and I'll be sending it back.

I really like the core of what 5e offers and I've been looking to see how players have been using the game but... I don't think think this is the game for me, way too restrictive on what a Fighter can become and way too loose with what Cleric/Wizards/Magic can become or do.

I hope others have a good time, the core is good, but not having a decent Fighter is a huge turn off.

Those who started in 4e will have trouble with 5e. Have you heard of tiers? Contrary to what you may have heard 4e had one tier of classes. 3.5 had 7 (0-6), PF has 5 (1-5), and 5e had two tiers (full casters - others). For someone who cut their teeth in 4e two tiers seems grossly imbalanced. The rest of us were lucky to play in a game where everyone was within two tiers of each other. So 5e is wonderfully balanced while keeping the spectrum of mechanics we've grown accustomed too. Most of us didn't want a "powers" fighter. Battlemaster comes close to crossing the line and turning people off.

[georgie_leech]

Those who started in 4e will have trouble with 5e. Have you heard of tiers? Contrary to what you may have heard 4e had one tier of classes. 3.5 had 7 (0-6), PF has 5 (1-5), and 5e had two tiers (full casters - others). For someone who cut their teeth in 4e two tiers seems grossly imbalanced. The rest of us were lucky to play in a game where everyone was within two tiers of each other. So 5e is wonderfully balanced while keeping the spectrum of mechanics we've grown accustomed too. Most of us didn't want a "powers" fighter. Battlemaster comes close to crossing the line and turning people off.

Eh, as much as I'm a fan of 4e, most players peg the 4e classes as all falling somewhere in the Tier 3-5 range, if you go by Jaronk's system. There are some real outliers that are actually quite bad at their job. And I find the idea that Pathfinder doesn't have a Tier 0 the same way 3.5 did kind of funny actually. Sacred Geometry says hi.:smallwink:

[R.Shackleford]

Those who started in 4e will have trouble with 5e. Have you heard of tiers? Contrary to what you may have heard 4e had one tier of classes. 3.5 had 7 (0-6), PF has 5 (1-5), and 5e had two tiers (full casters - others). For someone who cut their teeth in 4e two tiers seems grossly imbalanced. The rest of us were lucky to play in a game where everyone was within two tiers of each other. So 5e is wonderfully balanced while keeping the spectrum of mechanics we've grown accustomed too. Most of us didn't want a "powers" fighter. Battlemaster comes close to crossing the line and turning people off.

I know all about tiers and I've looked into 3e and 5e. I've tried playing 3e and 5e, coming from 4e, and they are really no different. One is a bit more extreme and breaks faster but in the end you have the same problems.

The broken comes from the fact you have two sets of classes. You have classes that can be any role, they can be made to perform as well or better in the situation the player wants them to. The wizard can defend just as well as the Fighter, can have more effective HP, and can keep up in damage. Whatever the cleric"s player wants to do, they can do it. Maybe not all at once like in 3e, but a player can say "I want to defend" or "I want to do damage" or "I want to support" and they can do it. A Fighter in 5e has one choice in order to be effective and that is to do damage.

Can a player cover every role at once? Well maybe the bard... Or cleric... But generally no. But that isn't the problem. The problem is that you get one choice with a Fighter (Striker) and you get any choice with Magic classes.

This game is not balanced in the slightest when you actually look at the game.

Have fun with the game, but the way people see 3e is the way friends and I see this game. The disparity of the classes is nothing more than 3e with a pretty bow.

I can't wait to see what they do with 5.5 or 6e, maybe by then they won't have such a lazy (borderline hateful) approach to non-magic.

You can make a Fighter without" powers" and have a balanced class, they didn't need to just throw out some crappy unbalanced Non-Playe Charatcer class in the guise of a Player Character class. There are some wonderful homebrew on this and other forums, and those people didn't get paid to make them.

All they did, and I'm not joking one bit, was that they took the Essentials Fighter and Rogue and changed them over to the 3e look. This is perhaps the laziest attempt at making a class that I've ever seen. What's worst is that they have people believing they put effort into it :(.

Seriously, go look at the re Essentials Fighter and Rogue.

[Mara]

Eh, as much as I'm a fan of 4e, most players peg the 4e classes as all falling somewhere in the Tier 3-5 range, if you go by Jaronk's system. There are some real outliers that are actually quite bad at their job. And I find the idea that Pathfinder doesn't have a Tier 0 the same way 3.5 did kind of funny actually. Sacred Geometry says hi.:smallwink:

LOL sacred geometry caps at your maximum level able to cast. It's strong, but no more so than using rope trick after each fight.

3.5 tier 0s were gods or something very close to Gods. They could not be defeated through normal means and snapped the game in half.

[Mara]

I know all about tiers and I've looked into 3e and 5e. I've tried playing 3e and 5e, coming from 4e, and they are really no different. One is a bit more extreme and breaks faster but in the end you have the same problems.

The broken comes from the fact you have two sets of classes. You have classes that can be any role, they can be made to perform as well or better in the situation the player wants them to. The wizard can defend just as well as the Fighter, can have more effective HP, and can keep up in damage. Whatever the cleric"s player wants to do, they can do it. Maybe not all at once like in 3e, but a player can say "I want to defend" or "I want to do damage" or "I want to support" and they can do it. A Fighter in 5e has one choice in order to be effective and that is to do damage.

Can a player cover every role at once? Well maybe the bard... Or cleric... But generally no. But that isn't the problem. The problem is that you get one choice with a Fighter (Striker) and you get any choice with Magic classes.

This game is not balanced in the slightest when you actually look at the game.

Have fun with the game, but the way people see 3e is the way friends and I see this game. The disparity of the classes is nothing more than 3e with a pretty bow.

I can't wait to see what they do with 5.5 or 6e, maybe by then they won't have such a lazy (borderline hateful) approach to non-magic.

You can make a Fighter without" powers" and have a balanced class, they didn't need to just throw out some crappy unbalanced Non-Playe Charatcer class in the guise of a Player Character class. There are some wonderful homebrew on this and other forums, and those people didn't get paid to make them.

All they did, and I'm not joking one bit, was that they took the Essentials Fighter and Rogue and changed them over to the 3e look. This is perhaps the laziest attempt at making a class that I've ever seen. What's worst is that they have people believing they put effort into it :(.

Seriously, go look at the re Essentials Fighter and Rogue.

And for those of us coming from 3.5 and Pathfinder, you are making mountains out of molehills. 3.5 didn't have two sets of classes it had 7. 5e only having two is a great leap forward. We didn't like 4e. I know I read it. It seemed solid as a game just not for my d&d. I didn't like it. 5e could be more balanced but it would have to do that without becoming 4e.

[georgie_leech]

LOL sacred geometry caps at your maximum level able to cast. It's strong, but no more so than using rope trick after each fight.

3.5 tier 0s were gods or something very close to Gods. They could not be defeated through normal means and snapped the game in half.

On mobile and Internet just ate my post. Suffice to say that what amounts to free metamagic on all of your spells is quite powerful, and the math has been done to show that you're nearly guaranteed to get it at the appropriate levels, and even just a single spell level less is guaranteed. It is an extremely powerful feat that mitigates one of the biggest drawbacks that metamagic feats can have.

[Mara]

On mobile and Internet just ate my post. Suffice to say that what amounts to free metamagic on all of your spells is quite powerful, and the math has been done to show that you're nearly guaranteed to get it at the appropriate levels, and even just a single spell level less is guaranteed. It is an extremely powerful feat that mitigates one of the biggest drawbacks that metamagic feats can have.
Yes but it is not tier zero.

My buddy in 3.5 would persist time stop to craft epic spells that abused those rules to turn himself into a 1000hd dracolich vampire, which was only slightly more monstrous than his build before that happened. Wizard x/binder 1/metaphysical spell shaper from the book of erotic fantasy, which allowed him to pay for meta magic with attribute damage while binder let him heal it back up. Throw in endless spell combos and you have a char that nearly solo'd age of worms. All that is still not tier zero. Dispel magic and supernatural save or sucks still worked on him and he nearly died several times. PunPun and omnificer were tier zero. His build became tier zero only at level 21, which is very tame by 3.5 standards.

[R.Shackleford]

And for those of us coming from 3.5 and Pathfinder, you are making mountains out of molehills. 3.5 didn't have two sets of classes it had 7. 5e only having two is a great leap forward. We didn't like 4e. I know I read it. It seemed solid as a game just not for my d&d. I didn't like it. 5e could be more balanced but it would have to do that without becoming 4e.

Coming from a game that proves you can have low power to high power and be balanced those molehills are an eyesore. It's like having a beautiful yard and having molehills all over the place... Or having a clear face one day and then wakingnup to a facefull of oily pimples all over your face.

5e is that pimple you get right before an important meeting, interview, or social event. You can't help but are it. You know you have clear skin under there somewhere but all you can see is that oily bump.

3.5 had three sets of classes. Garbage, tier 4 and tier 3, and gods. Pathfinder is really no better, but at least they *tried* to simplify their system (though they didn't... And they copied and pasted all the really stupid stuff along with the good parts... I'm looking at healing by drowning lol).

I really really want to like 5e and I wish I did, but this slap in the face is too much :/.

[DemonSlayer6]

So you've never compared them but according to you the barbarian is without a doubt superior.

Mato, more power DOES NOT NECESSITATE that it's "without a doubt superior". As I explicitly stated, 5e focuses on offering players a choice between Versatility, or the ability to do more things more often or Raw power, or the ability to succeed more often at the few things that you can do.

A Fighter (roughly speaking, given the class features and intentions behind the archetypes) offers more in the way of Versatility, while a Barbarian (roughly speaking, given the class features and intentions behind the archetypes) offers more in the way of Raw Power.

-----

Also note that while this describes the overarching differences, this does not actually issue a comparison. It doesn't state how much damage a Fighter does or a Barbarian does; it doesn't say whether a Fighter is less likely to get hit than a Barbarian; it doesn't see where the Fighter archetypes weigh compared to the Barbarian archetypes.

What I state is explicitly bare-bones: "The fighter is intended for this. The Barbarian (an example brought in the original post and continued as an example) is intended for that. Both have bad things, both have good things, and neither is necessarily better than the other."

[Yakk]

Those who started in 4e will have trouble with 5e. Have you heard of tiers? Contrary to what you may have heard 4e had one tier of classes.
Not quite true.

At extreme optimization, some 4e builds could:
1) Kill before they acted any published monster, including ones designed to challenge 5 PCs.
2) Mind control for a combat everyone in a room before they can act, multiple times every 5 minutes, with nearly zero chance of resisting it.
3) Pick up a city. Then slam it into the ground. As an action.
4) Be completely unkillable.

The next tier down where generally able to be as powerful as an entire group of ~5 "expected" characters.

The next tier where "expected" power level.

The last tier where unable to keep up with the required power level.

Now, sometimes this wasn't "class based" as much as it was "build based"; you could reach "expected power level" through charge-cheese with any class.

These 4 tiers may not span the same range as the 7 tiers of 3e, but fitting them all in the same tier in 3e doesn't work either. Some of the abilities transition to abilities out of combat, but this is to a lesser degree.

[Mato]

Now, this said, I haven't compared the Fighter directly to either the Barbarian or the Paladin. Such a comparison should not need to be made since the overarching distinction between the usefulness of classes is between Raw Power and Versatility. The Barbarian is no doubt more powerful, being able to rage. And the Paladin is also more powerful, being heavily armored by default and possessing powerful divine abilities.
So you've never compared them but according to you the barbarian is without a doubt superior.
Mato, more power does not necessitate that it's "without a doubt superior". As I explicitly stated, 5e focuses on offering players a choice between Versatility, or the ability to do more things more often or Raw power, or the ability to succeed more often at the few things that you can do.

A Fighter (roughly speaking, given the class features and intentions behind the archetypes) offers more in the way of Versatility, while a Barbarian (roughly speaking, given the class features and intentions behind the archetypes) offers more in the way of Raw Power.I know what you explicitly stated, without actually observing either class you assumed that one's versatility automatically made it weaker than another class and then based on that very inaccurate assumption you asserted that beyond any doubt the barbarian is more powerful.

And I am trying to give you an opportunity to help your self. Like barbarians are not about raw power or versatility but out lasting it's opponent. That is it's real power is measured on a third axis, defense, and it's one you haven't even considered even has you brush over things like battle master giving both power and versatility at once even through you think those two aspects are mutually exclusive.

[Malifice]

The 5e Fighter a not a Fighter. They swing a sword and wear armor but they have nothing going for them that isn't done better elsewhere.

Spoken by someone that hasn't actually played a 5e campaign with a Fighter.

[Mara]

Spoken by someone that hasn't actually played a 5e campaign with a Fighter.

inb4 wizards are better fighters because they can turn into dragons at lvl 17.

[djreynolds]

I think versatility is underrated. A paladin and barbarian, without SPBI, may rule the day in melee, may. But that same fighter with the archery style and built for strength can fight anywhere and that is huge. A dexterity based fighter is crazy good anywhere. And that for me is awesome.

I love the paladin and barbarian, they are great builds once again. Paladins can lay down smack and barbarians can soak up damage and two make a great prom couple. But the fighter can do their job and more.

I was working in the laboratory, and with SPBI, it is difficult for a paladin and barbarian to achieve high stats and get all the feats they want. But a fighter needs only two stats, strength and con, and can grab a feat for every combat environment ranged, melee, and mounted. A human champion fighter, who many consider the weakest fighter, starts out with 15,14,13,12,10,8 meaning his stats are:
Str 16
Con 15
Dex 14
Int 11
wis 13
cha 9

I took great weapon fighting as my style, at 4 my strength is 18, and at 6 I take great weapon master, at 8 I took another 2 in strength for 20. I hit at 8th level for +8 with a heavy weapon or a versatile weapon. At 10 I took archery style, and even with a 14 in dex, I hit now with +8 with bow or +9 with a melee strength weapon. Not bad so at 12 I took sharpshooter. At 14 I took resilient in wis. At 16 I took mounted combatant. And at 19 I took a +1 in con and int, why not.

My stat line with SPBI at 20 is 20st, 14 dex , 16 con, 14 wis, 12 int, 9 chr. With a melee weapon I hit with +11 with strength, and +10 with a bow.

Though not optimized with a better race selection or stat placement, I still can fight anywhere. I have 165 hit points, standard number, I have 3 proficient saves. And I can hurt with the bow or sword. Now others may roll well, and perhaps don't need their ASI. I took three ASI and 3 combat feats and 1 save feat. A paladin and barbarian have great saves, better than a fighter. But a barbarian is going to have a difficult time achieving a 20 in str, dex, and con and getting any feats with SPBI.

Are you playing with SPBI? If not this will change your view of the fighter. And that is often the case. Yes all a fighter does is fight. But he has the feats or ASI to fight anywhere. That's huge, he's versatile. He does not specialize as a paladin does in the big smack down, rogue sneak attacks, or a barbarians rage, or a ranger's arrow assault. He doesn't have to, he has to fill all of these roles when needed, without buffs. I believe that this was the intention.

[wayfare]

<Fighter's are being besmirched>

FOOLS, YOU HAVE AWAKEN ME FROM MY LONG SLUMBER

<obliterates mountaintop prison, along with mountaintop>

Ahem.

Hey folks, I am Wayfare, one of GiantITP's longtime fighter apologists. There are a lot of good points here, and a few bad, so I thought I'd take a moment to share my perspective.

Fighters have been on both ends of the OP accusations in their D&D history. Contrary to a surprisingly popular belief, fighters were not saved from obscurity by 3e and it's variants. While melee itself could do ridiculous levels of damage, high damage was just about the only thing a fighter could do, and even then full casters probably had an easier way of accomplishing the same goal. Ultimately, the Fighter was relegated to a 2 or more rarely 4 level dip to fill out Attack Bonus and get some shiny feats -- which really speaks to what the fighter was intended to be, a versatile character you could "build and forget". That is to say, you had a ton of different builds that could be derived from a fighter, but few required resource management. Unfortunately, only a few were viable, and those were really better on other character who maybe dipped fighter to pick up some tricks. For a 3.X fighter, 2e and 4e look like a golden age. 4e granted more direction, while 2e just gave you the saves and plenty of optional rules abuse to make you a living tank.

In 4e, fighters were given the defender role (later you could play an essentials striker) and really excelled in this position. This, however, rubbed many players from 2e and 3.X the wrong way because fighters seemed tactically limited. After all was said and done, I don't think this is a very fair criticism, though it has its points. Fighters were essentially a walking debuff/zone effect that could make any opponent miserable. They excelled in this role, and had decent enough damage potential that folks wondered if they were broken in early 4e. For a 4e player, the 3.5 fighter will look like a chaotic mess, completely lacking direction. The 2e fighter is mostly a blank slate with a bunch of attacks, and would probably seem boring to a 4e player.

Now that we are at 5e, it's easy to see the Fighter as a hybrid between it's 4e and 3e iterations. The 5e fighter has roles that give it direction (like the 4e Fighter), while having versatility (like the 3.5 fighter wanted to have, but never achieved). I have rarely met a 3.X player who has looked at the new fighter and has not seen an improvement. The 5e fighter is well designed, and has real staying power. You can play one without dips and still feel like you are contributing to the party. With the right skills, you even have good tactical flexibility with grapples, or you can go battlemaster and do a lot of battlefield control. Its good times, unless you were a ToB player, who rightly claims that the 3.5 Fighter still lacks the tactical flexibility of a Warblade or a Swordsage.

For 4e players, the 5e fighter will still seem like it is lacking direction and theme. 3.X fans who avoided 4e will point to greater flexibility as a major selling point. I only played a 4e fighter once, but it seemed perfectly well designed, if formulaic and a bit too much like playing an MMO tank for my liking. There a plenty of people who agree with me, and plenty who don't.

At the end of the day, I think you have to look at the 5e fighter as a compromise class. It blends features of the 3.X and 4e traditions into something that is playable and flexible. 5e also did something amazing by giving one of the best class features in the game to the Fighter -- Action Surge breaks action economy, but in a cool and reasonable way. It also still marks the fighter as a great low-investment dip, but you can now also build centrally around the fighter until ~11 and still be aiming at an optimized build. Thsi makes the fighter a class that plays really well with other classes when making your build. It's friendly, it's useful, and you can build in a fair bit without dropping off the Op wagon.

One final note -- on boards of this type, it is very easy to look at optimization as the be-all end-all. I'm not here to tell you that the Op community is bad, but I will tell you that it is just a single community in a vast sea of players. A lot of folks venture into Op, but many don't, and much of 5e is designed for those who don't. The Fighter is a friendly class for those who don't want to optimize, but don't want to be a burden on a party that does. It has a place for players of all skill levels (and lets be honest, how many optimizers won't multi for a good feature?)

[djreynolds]

Very true on all points. I mentioned before, in AD&D you might play a paladin also, but doing so came at a cost sometimes unless you rolled crazy stats, that 17 was in charisma. You can play a fighter will average rolls and still he is there. And now that paladins can be of any alignment and aren't MAD anymore, I see a lot of variations there instead of competition. I've always seen the fighter as your number 2 in any environment, like an American linebacker, he can rush or cover, not the best but not inadequate, ever.

And I love multiclassing, fighter/rogue just screams from the pages. 12/8, 3 attacks, and plenty of feats and asi, and they can be SAD.

Excellent points, thank you.

[Morty]

4e gave the fighter a very important thing - a job. It was a martial defender and it did its job well. If there was a problem, it was that other forms of martial combat weren't adequately covered - rangers and rogues came with a lot of baggage. Other editions don't give the fighter an identity beyond "the person who fights in a manner that's not special enough for another class", which means very little.

Mind you, 4e didn't escape other traps associated with the fighter, such as a general lack of out-of-combat expertise. Many of its powers still boil down to "hit things and apply a status effect". But it was progress.

Optimization doesn't enter into it. I don't see my desire to play a competent warrior, as opposed to a bag of hit points and attacks, "optimization".

[D.U.P.A.]

4e gave the fighter a very important thing - a job. It was a martial defender and it did its job well. If there was a problem, it was that other forms of martial combat weren't adequately covered - rangers and rogues came with a lot of baggage. Other editions don't give the fighter an identity beyond "the person who fights in a manner that's not special enough for another class", which means very little.

Mind you, 4e didn't escape other traps associated with the fighter, such as a general lack of out-of-combat expertise. Many of its powers still boil down to "hit things and apply a status effect". But it was progress.


Other classes had little to do outside combat too. There were rituals, but they were very expensive.

[wayfare]

4e gave the fighter a very important thing - a job. It was a martial defender and it did its job well. If there was a problem, it was that other forms of martial combat weren't adequately covered - rangers and rogues came with a lot of baggage. Other editions don't give the fighter an identity beyond "the person who fights in a manner that's not special enough for another class", which means very little.

Mind you, 4e didn't escape other traps associated with the fighter, such as a general lack of out-of-combat expertise. Many of its powers still boil down to "hit things and apply a status effect". But it was progress.

Optimization doesn't enter into it. I don't see my desire to play a competent warrior, as opposed to a bag of hit points and attacks, "optimization".

In 3.X you could build an extremely competent warrior fairly easily with a fighter. You could be a spiked chain hopper, a trip master, a grappler (if you had the splat and spell support), or you could just grab a 2h weapon and power attack and go to town. The problem wasn't being a competent warrior, the problem was that folks wanted to dip 3 and grab all the goodies, then port them onto another chassis. Dipping Fighter 3 was probably THE most popular class choice for Martials until ToB came around, and even then you were likely to at least dip Fighter 2 for feats. As much crap as the "Fighter is a bag of feats" design got, everybody who wasnt slinging spells wanted a part of it. In short, the fighter could be a great warrior, but that bar for entry was so low that you could add a combat specialization to almost ANY class with a dip. Because of the sheer versatility of other classes in 3.X, being a great fighter wasnt enough to really pull your weight, even when your easily dropping hundreds of damage each round.

5e needs feats to make a tactical fighter work, that's absolutely true. Its also true that you can only actualize that ideal as a Battlemaster, or as a slightly MAD Eldritch Knight. But you can put together a very flexible and competent fighter in 5e - you dont have to choose between GWM and PM and SM, you just take it all and go to town.

[Morty]

Other classes had little to do outside combat too. There were rituals, but they were very expensive.

True, I suppose, but at least other classes had utility powers that were useful for problem-solving. Fighters just had combat powers that didn't rely on attacks, most of the time.


In 3.X you could build an extremely competent warrior fairly easily with a fighter. You could be a spiked chain hopper, a trip master, a grappler (if you had the splat and spell support), or you could just grab a 2h weapon and power attack and go to town. The problem wasn't being a competent warrior, the problem was that folks wanted to dip 3 and grab all the goodies, then port them onto another chassis. Dipping Fighter 3 was probably THE most popular class choice for Martials until ToB came around, and even then you were likely to at least dip Fighter 2 for feats. As much crap as the "Fighter is a bag of feats" design got, everybody who wasnt slinging spells wanted a part of it. In short, the fighter could be a great warrior, but that bar for entry was so low that you could add a combat specialization to almost ANY class with a dip. Because of the sheer versatility of other classes in 3.X, being a great fighter wasnt enough to really pull your weight, even when your easily dropping hundreds of damage each round.

No, the problem was that you spent all your character building resources to do one thing round after round. That's optimization, but it's not competence. An oft-overlooked difference.



5e needs feats to make a tactical fighter work, that's absolutely true. Its also true that you can only actualize that ideal as a Battlemaster, or as a slightly MAD Eldritch Knight. But you can put together a very flexible and competent fighter in 5e - you dont have to choose between GWM and PM and SM, you just take it all and go to town.

Battlemaster is a sad shadow of what the expertise dice could have been. I wouldn't call it "very" flexible and competent, but it's at least better than a 3e fighter.

[UXLZ]

Besides the extra attacks, all the other martials classes are basically just as good at fightering as the fighter is. It could have had a slight niche as the only class proficient with all armor and weapons, but the Paladin has access to Martial Ranged as well.

[wayfare]

Besides the extra attacks, all the other martials classes are basically just as good at fightering as the fighter is. It could have had a slight niche as the only class proficient with all armor and weapons, but the Paladin has access to Martial Ranged as well.

Pallys don't get the Archery combat style, though, which makes the Sharpshooter feat less of a risk and ups dpr. A battlemaster archer has great control, great ranged damage. Plus you can switch over to polearm master for defense. Its a lot harder to make that versatility work with a Pally. Pally kicks butt in burst damage, no doubt. But fighter is laying down control and decent damage every round

I homebrewed a class very similar to this fighter a few years ago for 3.5 and i agree tge fighter had more potential. But it is very usable in 5e. Heck, allowing superiority to refresh after every battle would be a huge boost

[UXLZ]

To the BM and neither of the other two archetypes.

The Pally not having Archery can easily be solved by starting off as a fighter.

[Hawkstar]

5e needs feats to make a tactical fighter work, that's absolutely true. Its also true that you can only actualize that ideal as a Battlemaster, or as a slightly MAD Eldritch Knight. But you can put together a very flexible and competent fighter in 5e - you dont have to choose between GWM and PM and SM, you just take it all and go to town.
Ehh... I'd contest this. Yeah, the feats make the fighter MUCH better, but even a champion with nothing but ASI's gets a lot of mileage out of athletics proficiency (Really a shame that the Champion's 7th-level class feature hardly even counts as a ribbon), Action Surge, certain fighting styles, weapon selection, second wind, and all their attacks.

[djreynolds]

A champion fighter built for strength with a just 12 dex and archery style can fight with sword and bow. He can have shield master, sharpshooter, sentinel, or pull out that greatsword with GWM. And he still has three feats for ASI. GWF allows the use of a versatile weapon and you can use the cleave portion of GWM. A lot of options.

Paladins are stuck with melee and spells, and barbarians may not be able to afford feats. And both classes are MAD to a degree, at least when compared to the fighter. Aside from CON, a fighter only needs his attack stat. And with champion, dex of 12 with archery style is now a 16. That's pretty big in terms of versatility.

In combat, I will take the option which will conserve resources and/or hit points.

Its great conversation and expert insight from everyone

[D.U.P.A.]

True, I suppose, but at least other classes had utility powers that were useful for problem-solving. Fighters just had combat powers that didn't rely on attacks, most of the time.


With the advent of skill powers, anyone could get some utility powers for problem solving. Then you had themes, paragon paths, feats, which could give your fighter also more utility powers. However utilities in general were not really that powerful and impacting even spellcaster class specific. Optimized builds opted mainly for combat options.

[Morty]

I did forget about the skill powers. I suppose the 4e fighter doesn't have that much less out-of-combat utility than other classes. Incidentally, skill powers are a good and underutilized idea that would work well if integrated into the skills system. But the 5e designers never considered that.

[Hawkstar]

I did forget about the skill powers. I suppose the 4e fighter doesn't have that much less out-of-combat utility than other classes. Incidentally, skill powers are a good and underutilized idea that would work well if integrated into the skills system. But the 5e designers never considered that.

The problem with skill powers was they competed with combat-useful resources without generally providing ways to avoid combat, and the rest of the system was so simple compared to the combat that it felt tacked-on. Combat is the game in 4e, not merely a resolution mechanic.

[R.Shackleford]

Spoken by someone that hasn't actually played a 5e campaign with a Fighter.

Yeah, actually, I have thank you very much. The 5e Fighter is a NPC class masquerading as a PC class. Sorry for wanting to hold wotc to some sort of standard for the fighter.

[Malifice]

Yeah, actually, I have thank you very much. The 5e Fighter is a NPC class masquerading as a PC class. Sorry for wanting to hold wotc to some sort of standard for the fighter.

Come again? You're alone there. What's wrong with the Fighter?

To be precise you claimed they 'have nothing going for them that isn't done better elsewhere'

This to me clearly shows you havent played with a 5e Fighter.

Who exactly is beating a 5e Fighter for sustained and consistently high DPR (and spike damage) over your 6-8 encounter/ 2-3 short rest AD? Who gets more feats/ ASI's? Who get more attacks? Who breaks the action economy better?

[Gwendol]

Besides the extra attacks, all the other martials classes are basically just as good at fightering as the fighter is. It could have had a slight niche as the only class proficient with all armor and weapons, but the Paladin has access to Martial Ranged as well.

Care to back that up? What metric do you use for that assessment? The fact that the fighter gets the most feats/ASI's alone is enough to let them pull ahead of the "basically just as good" category. Add the fact that most other martial classes (definition needed) are MADer than the fighter, and in practice they will pull even further ahead. Finally, action surge is one of the most potent novas, not replicable by other classes.

[Malifice]

Human BM fighter 5
Str 18, Con 14, Dex 14, Int 8, Wis 10, Cha 12
Class features: Extra attack, Fighting style (GWM), Second wind 1d10+5, ASI, Action surge, Manouvers (precise strike, trip attack, menacing attack; 4xd8)
Feat: Great weapon master
Equipment: Full plate, Great sword, Longbow

Swings (GWM on) using precise strike if he misses - or trip attack if he hits. Repeats (with advantage to cancel out the -5 for GWM). Gets a bonus action attack if he kills or crits anything. Has action surge up his sleeve if he needs 2 more attacks.

This dude pumps out around 50 DPR reliably most turns with big nova action surge attacks capable of dealing 100+

He has an AC of 18, 44HP and (based on 2 short rests) a 3d10+15 points of healing up his sleeve.

Assuming Soldier background, is proficient in Athletics (shove, grapple) Perception, Insight, Persuasion and intimidate.

How is this guy 'crap' for his level, not good at fighting, or doing something that anyone else does better?

[Morty]

The problem with skill powers was they competed with combat-useful resources without generally providing ways to avoid combat, and the rest of the system was so simple compared to the combat that it felt tacked-on. Combat is the game in 4e, not merely a resolution mechanic.

Well, yes. They were introduced late and didn't fit the 4e design paradigm. But the concept is sound.

On a side note, I'm amused every time I see the term "sustained DPR" used. I thought it was 4e that was "too MMO-like"?

[Fizban]

On a side note, I'm amused every time I see the term "sustained DPR" used. I thought it was 4e that was "too MMO-like"?
Checked up on this thread again on a whim but I've got a response for that. It's because 4e forced you to be an MMO character, as someone said above it felt like that was basically the whole game rather than an aspect. People used DPR in 3e and probably every game with combat and damage mechanics, but in 3e the game was clearly not written with that in mind at all, it was emergent. 4e looked like an MMO hotbar just reading the PHB. 5e does an excellent job of hiding the balancing, but the DMG still notes that monster CR is rated by party DPR in the first 3 rounds, and the nature of bounded accuracy and spells all relying on similar damage even for "death" spells all poke through the veil. Because it puts up that front and acts friendly, it doesn't feel like you're being forced into an MMO (and it helps that you don't have a pile of cooldown bar abilities).

I get a similar annoyance every time someone uses the word "ribbon." The terms used by the community to describe the relative abilities and emergent results of the game should not be dictated by the maker of that game. By using the word "ribbon," you buy into the idea that WotC actually knows that they're doing and stop evaluating things based on the results. I'm of a firm belief that they really don't. Didn't 4e have a community playtest? 5e certainly had a long one, and reading the books I can almost feel the exact points where someone went in and told them exactly why something needed to be fixed. The Unearthed Arcana articles have already shown the exact same trends they've always had (tons of spellcaster support, "ribbon" mechanics with massive implications, etc), and the community should be clearheaded in evaluating them rather than swallowing buzzwords.

I'm also a little irked at seeing acronym abbreviations this early in the edition. There is literally only one book with a couple dozen feat in it, they don't need to be abbreviated at all. Feats never needed abbreviations anyway, those are for book titles and Iron Heart Surge.

Oh, uh, go 5e fighters, versatility woo!

[D.U.P.A.]

Yeah, actually, I have thank you very much. The 5e Fighter is a NPC class masquerading as a PC class. Sorry for wanting to hold wotc to some sort of standard for the fighter.

Maybe that is true for Champion, which was designed for beginners or when an improvised character for a short campaign is needed. But Battlemaster is quite interesting, although his maneuvers are mostly for combat, but he gets also some interesting noncombat abilities.

[georgie_leech]

Checked up on this thread again on a whim but I've got a response for that. It's because 4e forced you to be an MMO character, as someone said above it felt like that was basically the whole game rather than an aspect. People used DPR in 3e and probably every game with combat and damage mechanics, but in 3e the game was clearly not written with that in mind at all, it was emergent. 4e looked like an MMO hotbar just reading the PHB. 5e does an excellent job of hiding the balancing, but the DMG still notes that monster CR is rated by party DPR in the first 3 rounds, and the nature of bounded accuracy and spells all relying on similar damage even for "death" spells all poke through the veil. Because it puts up that front and acts friendly, it doesn't feel like you're being forced into an MMO (and it helps that you don't have a pile of cooldown bar abilities).

For what it's worth, class roles aside (and even there only loosely) I never found that 4e felt very MMO-like. If you go beyond the surface level of the PHB, everything plays out like a regular D&D game. The Fighter still gets into the middle of things and fights (and was perhaps the best they've been at that), the Rogue still disables traps while stabbing anything that stops looking at them for a moment, the Wizard blows up enemies with arcane power while using subtler magics to debilitated powerful foes, the Cleric heals and buffs their allies whilst remaining tough enough to lay the smack down if needed. Protecting your allies, killing your enemies, messing with your enemies, buffing and healing your allies... those are all roles that have been present in D&D long before 4e.

The 'cooldowns' haven't gone away either. 1/encounter is (slightly more than) 1/short rest, and 1/day is 1/long rest. In any edition though, they don't come across as a cooldown so much as a pacing mechanic. Compare it with the stories; I'll use Salvatore because he's relatively well known. At-wills are the basic techniques to fall back on, Drizzt's sudden flurries, Regis attempting to kneecap something. Keeps things moving, nothing flashy. Encounters are signature moves, something that they always use but not spam, like Wulgar throwing his hammer to open fights, nearly invariably dropping his target. They show things are being taken seriously. The dailies are the once a scene, fight changing abilities. Drizzt's perfectly executed and unique parry and counter of the double low thrust. They are the inspiring speeches that rally the team after morale begins to fail, the moment when the warrior focuses a moment and cleaves through all of the opponents before him in a single blow, the Wizard chanelling arcane powers to destroy the bridge, casting the demon into the pit below. Are novels and movies now like MMO's?

[Cazero]

For what it's worth, class roles aside (and even there only loosely) I never found that 4e felt very MMO-like.
To be fair, a MMO character forced to forget a skill to learn a different one will always learn a strictly superior skill or be given unlimited (sometimes costly) opportunities to change the skill again.
A better example is pokemon : narrow set of moves, have to forget one to learn another, leading to difficult choices to be made with varied tactical options, and 'evolve' for a sudden power boost and more possible moves when a treshhold is met.


If you go beyond the surface level of the PHB, everything plays out like a regular D&D game.
Yet that is still very true. So what we learnt today is that pokemon is kinda like D&D. MMOs are kinda like D&D too, you just need to get off the rails with the right mindset. (the problem being that said mindset often require to ignore official lore and the grind-heavy power curve prevents you to get off the rails until you've played through the same modules a dozen times)

[georgie_leech]

Yet that is still very true. So what we learnt today is that pokemon is kinda like D&D. MMOs are kinda like D&D too, you just need to get off the rails with the right mindset. (the problem being that said mindset often require to ignore official lore and the grind-heavy power curve prevents you to get off the rails until you've played through the same modules a dozen times)

I think that if your repeating the same quest/modules over and over, then you're playing an MMO, yeah. I guess I've been fortunate enough that my DM's have never felt the need to make us repeat adventures.

[UXLZ]

@Gwendol:

Mechanically speaking, the fighter is fine, I guess. The issue I have with it is that the fighter, master of arms and armor... Just doesn't seem like it. At least, the Eldritch Knight and Champion don't.

I just don't get the impression that the fighter is particularly more skilled with its equipment than any of the other classes. Sure, the Battlemaster has all these cool superiority dice things but I feel like that should have been integrated into the base Fighter. (Though really a lot of those maneuvers sound like things that any martial class should be capable of anyway.)

The best way to explain how the Fighter feels to me is like if you took a Wizard, stripped away all his spellcasting, gave him a few extra proficiencies and more attacks. It's just hollow.

[Hawkstar]

The best way to explain how the Fighter feels to me is like if you took a Wizard, stripped away all his spellcasting, gave him a few extra proficiencies and more attacks. It's just hollow.

Huh? That doesn't make any sense. The Fighter has access to all fighting styles, and can do everything twice. They also get more feats to become masters of their weapons and armor. The champion ends up with two fighting styles, a (Offensively Pathetic) boost to all physical abilities, and greater chance of double-hitting and auto-striking enemies.


Your wizard analogy makes no sense at all.

[Fizban]

If you go beyond the surface level of the PHB, everything plays out like a regular D&D game.
The one 4e game I was going to participate in never went anywhere so I couldn't say myself.

The 'cooldowns' haven't gone away either.
It's still a presentation thing. As I remember it, every single ability including simple attacks in 4e was in a tiny little heavily abbreviated block of text, with the recovery time on one of those lines just like a 1/4s or 5s on an MMO power. 5e's short rests require you to intentionally stop and rest, and 3.5's Tome of Battle maneuvers have varied recovery mechanics you can activate rather than just waiting until next fight. Choice and intent is built into the system rather than automated. 4e looks like an MMO even if it doesn't play like one, while 3.5 clearly is not and 5e has hidden it's balancing scales. Using an MMO term to describe 3.5 or 5e mechanics doesn't feel weird because it's clearly a reader construct, while in 4e it looks like that's exactly what they want you to do.

I haven't actually read any Salvatore, but the way you've described his combat scenes actually turns me off. Compared to say, Dresden Files, in which every fight isdifferent if for no other reason than Dresden's equipment options have changed (he's a brute force blaster who can tech up to sufficiently prepared wizard and solves many fights through environmental leverage), that's downright boring. I don't remember much about the fight scenes in the Sword of Truth series, but Wheel of Time portrayed high level sword fights as basically a series of rock/paper/scissors with it's named sword forms where you'd win through chess-like prediction or being too fast to counter, no signature moves that only appear once per scene. I'd also say that quoting a DnD based book to defend DnD mechanics isn't the most effective move, even though I'm sure that style would be present in all his books regardless of edition.

A better example is pokemon : narrow set of moves, have to forget one to learn another, leading to difficult choices to be made with varied tactical options, and 'evolve' for a sudden power boost and more possible moves when a treshhold is met.
That is hilarious. And also makes an excellent point against, since when you're playing pokemon you are personally controlling up to 6 characters rotating through battle, but in DnD you only get to play one character. Having a long list of available moves and then a harshly limited moveset is not good if you only get one moveset to play with. Yes this exists in other editions, but as always the presentation of 4th make it harsher. Much like reading a list of level-up and TM moves for a pokemon and knowing you can only have 4.

To bring that back to the intent of the 5e fighter, well like Malifice was saying, sustained DPR. The base fighter (ignoring subclass choice) always fights at full strength, every round, at any range. He is sustained DPR. It's just not as visible because you have to strip off the layers of shielding that insulate some of the mechanical choices.

[Morty]

4e is still fundamentally a D&D game and nothing else. It uses assumptions, terms and design paradigms no other game ever has. It's still more similar to other editions of D&D than any other system or game.


(Though really a lot of those maneuvers sound like things that any martial class should be capable of anyway.)


It's certainly true that part of the problems with the fighter class in 3e and 5e alike does not come from the class itself, but the combat system being primitive. The fighter gets hit the hardest because by default, it interacts with the combat subsystem more directly. But being the best at something thoroughly mediocre leaves you, well... mediocre. I don't know about anyone else, but I find it hard to be excited about consistently delivering the same boring numbers everyone else delivers.

[Gwendol]

@Gwendol:

Mechanically speaking, the fighter is fine, I guess. The issue I have with it is that the fighter, master of arms and armor... Just doesn't seem like it. At least, the Eldritch Knight and Champion don't.

The best way to explain how the Fighter feels to me is like if you took a Wizard, stripped away all his spellcasting, gave him a few extra proficiencies and more attacks. It's just hollow.

Except that the fighter isn't like that at all. Take the champion, most maligned of the archetypes:
The champion gets the fighter staple abilities
7 ASI's
Extra attacks
2nd wind
Indomitable (failed save re-roll)
Action surge

And archetype abilities:
Improved crit: you crit on a 19 and on a 20, and later also at 18. What's not to like? Since a crit is always a hit, this will increase the damage done regardless of target AC
Remarkable athlete: it's not expertise, but still good for improv work
2nd fighting style: this is a great boon, coupled with the number of ASI's or feats available
Survivor: late in the game, but still a great ability. Best of all: it requires no action.

If you look at the actual class instead of how you feel about it (the stripped Wizard example above), you'll see a simple-structured class, that delivers on being adaptable, resilient, and reliable. Thanks to the choices of fighting styles and ASI's it is also highly customizable.

[djreynolds]

One class can never do it all and excel in all. I personally love the dex based paladin. But the fighter definitely requires great role play. Every other class because of their choice in class has something. Why are you a paladin? And so.

But the fighter, is someone any of us could be and we all can be blah, or cool.

I wouldn't go as far to say the fighter is hollow. But he's not recognizable unless you put in effort. With no effort, he's Ted the glaive guy. With effort, he's Yamato, the great samurai. And you're going to have to put in work. Is your fighter the gate guard? Is he Beowulf? Is he Boromir? Is he Audie Murphy?

But I use my multiple attacks and "my" intelligence to lead and maneuver comrades, and kill and loot. I use my wits and skill. No magic, no gods, no anger-management issues, no tantrums. I value teamwork, and appreciate other strengths, and boss everyone around.

Read a history book and be inspired. Sounds silly, but try to "classify" the characters. Is the explosives guy a wizard, the guy on point a ranger, the supply guy a thief.

When you play a fighter you are sometimes playing you, more so than any other class.

[Vogonjeltz]

Now, this said, I haven't compared the Fighter directly to either the Barbarian or the Paladin. Such a comparison should not need to be made since the overarching distinction between the usefulness of classes is between Raw Power and Versatility. The Barbarian is no doubt more powerful, being able to rage. And the Paladin is also more powerful, being heavily armored by default and possessing powerful divine abilities.

Fortunately for us all, you don't have to go through the trouble, as I made the comparison between the Fighter and Paladin already in this very thread. The Fighter has a higher damage output, both for burst and sustained.

Barbarian has: Extra attack, Brutal Critical (+3 damage dice on crit), and +4 rage damage, and +4 str score

Brutal Critical is interesting, but maximizing it requires the use of the d12 greataxe rather than the 2d6 greatsword (otherwise you're getting a measily +1d6)

Barbarian at 20, two attacks at 1d12 + 11 (17.5) (43.5 damage on average on crit thanks to brutal crit raises this to a maximum of 18.8 average per attack assuming all die rolls result in a hit) a net dpr of 37.6 assuming of course that all attacks hit.
If a frenzy barbarian, using their bonus action to get an attack nets 56.4; although this is mutually exclusive with the bonus attack from gwm, the damage from that ups total output by 20 to 76.4 dpr.

The Fighter at 20 is dealing 2d6+5 (12) (19 on crit, 12.35 averaged if all rolls hit) for four attacks, or 49.4 dpr, exceeding barbarian output by 11.8 dpr.
If a champion fighter, passive crit range increase nets 52.2; gwm ups this by +40 to 92.2 dpr, excluding the potential extra damage from a bonus attack off crit (115.25 dpr) and I haven't included the fighting style that Fighters get but Barbarian's don't (which increases the average damage of greatsword from 12 to 13.333 (21.666 on crit, 14.58295 averaged if all rolls hit) raising the dpr to 122.91475, or 46.51475 higher than a Barbarian is even capable of.






Spoken by someone that hasn't actually played a 5e campaign with a Fighter.
Yeah, actually, I have thank you very much. The 5e Fighter is a NPC class masquerading as a PC class. Sorry for wanting to hold wotc to some sort of standard for the fighter.

Come again? You're alone there. What's wrong with the Fighter?

To be precise you claimed they 'have nothing going for them that isn't done better elsewhere'

This to me clearly shows you havent played with a 5e Fighter.

Who exactly is beating a 5e Fighter for sustained and consistently high DPR (and spike damage) over your 6-8 encounter/ 2-3 short rest AD? Who gets more feats/ ASI's? Who get more attacks? Who breaks the action economy better?


No other class approaches the Fighter. They don't have a ton of quirky features (technically they have exactly as many as anyone else) but they can do damage better than anyone else barring none.

[Hawkstar]

One class can never do it all and excel in all. I personally love the dex based paladin. But the fighter definitely requires great role play. Every other class because of their choice in class has something. Why are you a paladin? And so.

But the fighter, is someone any of us could be and we all can be blah, or cool.

I wouldn't go as far to say the fighter is hollow. But he's not recognizable unless you put in effort. With no effort, he's Ted the glaive guy. With effort, he's Yamato, the great samurai. And you're going to have to put in work. Is your fighter the gate guard? Is he Beowulf? Is he Boromir? Is he Audie Murphy?

Is this a bad thing in any way?
The rogue is similarly open-ended.

[TrollCapAmerica]

Fortunately for us all, you don't have to go through the trouble, as I made the comparison between the Fighter and Paladin already in this very thread. The Fighter has a higher damage output, both for burst and sustained.

Barbarian has: Extra attack, Brutal Critical (+3 damage dice on crit), and +4 rage damage, and +4 str score

Brutal Critical is interesting, but maximizing it requires the use of the d12 greataxe rather than the 2d6 greatsword (otherwise you're getting a measily +1d6)

Barbarian at 20, two attacks at 1d12 + 11 (17.5) (43.5 damage on average on crit thanks to brutal crit raises this to a maximum of 18.8 average per attack assuming all die rolls result in a hit) a net dpr of 37.6 assuming of course that all attacks hit.
If a frenzy barbarian, using their bonus action to get an attack nets 56.4; although this is mutually exclusive with the bonus attack from gwm, the damage from that ups total output by 20 to 76.4 dpr.

The Fighter at 20 is dealing 2d6+5 (12) (19 on crit, 12.35 averaged if all rolls hit) for four attacks, or 49.4 dpr, exceeding barbarian output by 11.8 dpr.
If a champion fighter, passive crit range increase nets 52.2; gwm ups this by +40 to 92.2 dpr, excluding the potential extra damage from a bonus attack off crit (115.25 dpr) and I haven't included the fighting style that Fighters get but Barbarian's don't (which increases the average damage of greatsword from 12 to 13.333 (21.666 on crit, 14.58295 averaged if all rolls hit) raising the dpr to 122.91475, or 46.51475 higher than a Barbarian is even capable of.

[quot=Malifice]

Come again? You're alone there. What's wrong with the Fighter?

To be precise you claimed they 'have nothing going for them that isn't done better elsewhere'

This to me clearly shows you havent played with a 5e Fighter.

Who exactly is beating a 5e Fighter for sustained and consistently high DPR (and spike damage) over your 6-8 encounter/ 2-3 short rest AD? Who gets more feats/ ASI's? Who get more attacks? Who breaks the action economy better?


No other class approaches the Fighter. They don't have a ton of quirky features (technically they have exactly as many as anyone else) but they can do damage better than anyone else barring none.[/QUOTE]

Pretty much this. Ok sure raging Barbs get awesome tankabilty and Paladins get great support but Fighters just keep hitting things for high damage all day and still get neat perks like AS Indomitable or superiority die (aka I think ill just make my -5/+10attack hit)

[djreynolds]

I get it. I understand. The fighter can look boring. He has no options and nothing flashy. Now whether this was bad design, lack of design, or someone forgetting, the fighter can be forgettable. And I agree. The player has to find historical sources and flesh him out.

The fighter now comes off as the warrior class from 3 & 3.5, a bit boring. The fighter, in previous editions, was the class that you played if you didn't qualify for ranger or paladin. Paladin, for a time until cavalier, ranger and barbarians were under the fighter umbrella. Every class now, with proficiency and no BAB, fights and for possibly one attack without any extras can fight through out his character's "career." There's nothing to look forward to except combat. Like at 12th level the fighter cannot branch off and become a weapon master, or grand archer. There is no more weapon specialization to set the fighter apart as "this is my realm" and "I'm the best at connecting with this weapon."

The fighter attacks. Some say you should have fighters, and then paladin, barbarian, and even ranger as you archetypes and may-be even a man-at-arms. I do agree and "feel ya" there. But the fighter now encompasses all the historical archetypes. Perhaps they should create a "historical archetype." But you can do that now, especially with champion and battle-master. You have the feats to really flesh out a samurai or mounted knight and can excel is two attack realms, melee, ranged, or mounted. But you could do that with a paladin, barbarian, or ranger.

Now mathematically, the 5E fighter can lay down the smack as well as any martial class. Healing, you can go over to the merchant and buy potions and the same for disease. Skills, well the backgrounds enable a lot of variety. A champion can tag along with a ranger or rogue, he shouldn't be on point.

So what appeal does the fighter have. He has extra attacks, it doesn't come across as significant. I mean a monk with flurry of blows can go "Fist of the Northstar" on you. Damage, everyone can do that. Tank, IMO, three classes can do it better- paladin, barbarian, and druid.

So the fighter, what is his appeal. Simplicity. No, that's not good enough. Even for "new" players, its not good enough. A blank canvas, maybe. Most of the other classes will steer you down a thematic path, the fighter doesn't.

So for most players, this is the "rub". It's not DPR and feats. It's an image, a concept. Something that says, this is what I do best and only I can do. As above, its not damage or tanking. Other classes at least are within ear shot of the fighter, at least close enough to say you're not clearly the best. It's not weapons anymore. Its not armor or weapons.

I cannot stress enough, that it is versatility in combat and creation and concept.

Combat is fought from melee, short range, and distance. Even monks carry something ranged. A fighter can compete on all three and excel simultaneously.

And creation. Not just image. But actual rolling of the dice. You can roll poorly and still make a competent fighter and play and contribute.

But concept is where it is. What is your fighter? And that is where players are stuck. Other classes sort of push towards a thematic concept, and you can be that or go against the curve and be something different. The fighter doesn't push anywhere, it doesn't lead you anywhere. You're no longer the master of any particular realm. And that's tough, perhaps they should have a weapon master archetype of the champion. But play wise, fighters have freedom. Why are you a fighter? Who trained you? Trained in what type of warfare? From a farm, a village, a tribe. A person playing a fighter must be creative and resourceful, and that is it. A fighter is the everyman. He's the kid who's farm is pillaged. He's the fisherman who leaves his village for adventure. He's the rich lord becoming a knight or the serf who became a squire and then a knight. He's not special. He's main character. He's you. Ask yourself, what you would do in that circumstance. I play a fighter because he is most like me, and I play a wizard because I'd like to be one. I'd play a paladin because I'd like to try it out. But I know how to play a fighter. I can't stealth, I can't cast spells, but I can practice something and get better at it.

If all your fighter does is attack, that is not the game's fault. If you look at fighter and only see your reflection, it is because you are the dragon warrior... no I'm just kidding.

[djreynolds]

Is this a bad thing in any way?
The rogue is similarly open-ended.

It is if you're lazy. Some players are lazy. When I play, for me it is a break from the battle of real life.

[Cazero]

You have the feats to really flesh out a samurai or mounted knight and can excel is two attack realms, melee, ranged, or mounted. But you could do that with a paladin, barbarian, or ranger.

I don't understand how anyone can say that with a straight face. The fighter is a badass normal. The barbarian is a berzerker. The paladin is a magical knight. The ranger is a magical hobo. How can you assert that such a major theme change doesn't matter to character concept?

[djreynolds]

I don't understand how anyone can say that with a straight face. The fighter is a badass normal. The barbarian is a berzerker. The paladin is a magical knight. The ranger is a magical hobo. How can you assert that such a major theme change doesn't matter to character concept?

Really, IMO, the paladin now can really have a lot of looks. A paladin, single classed doesn't need a 13 in strength and fight in leather and rapier and can look very Jedi like. And even with a 13 in strength, which is one for one, you can make a samurai really with devotion, like Bushido. A ranger hunter can make a mounted samurai archer. A barbarian, can wear medium armor, and can call his rage, KI or whatever term, and be a ronin.

I can see your opinion, but a dexterity based paladin is awesome and can built even with the 27 point buy in and be a Jedi or mystic type wanderer. A paladin doesn't have to be a cavalier, though he certainly can be. But he can multiclass with assassin and kill those who offend his church. Is a paladin of vengeance killing in the open or in the shadows. Paladin's have great spell selection too, he can go the "Lancelot" route or Obi One. The 13 in strength isn't an huge obstacle to achieve in terms of multiclass requirements and have good scores in dexterity, charisma, and con. Paladins can multiclass well and don't have to wear heavy armor.

There's a guy making a thread about a barbarian/rogue and it's cool. A barbarian doesn't have to be Conan. He can be a tribal warrior. But because he can rage in medium armor, he makes for an impressive Samurai and can his rage can be called something else. Or he can be a classic armor clad Viking with battle axe and shield. A Scotsman with a kilt and claymore, he might be barbarian/rogue performing hit and run tactics. You don't need a 20 in strength to wield a heavy weapon, it may not be the optimized path. You can strength wield daggers or shortswords and get sneak attacks.

Though it helps, the mounted combatant isn't necessary to use a mount in combat. And with medium armor, a barbarian, doesn't have to have an outlandish dexterity and constitution and fight unarmored. I mean what is a barbarian, thematically, it might be a Celtic berserker type unclad and in tattoos. But in Norse mythology, you wore armor usually and with Bear totem you can rage in heavy armor.

A ranger can wear medium armor, Aragorn would were heavier armor during a siege. A strength based ranger is a viable build, and can easily multiclass with a war domain cleric or fighter for plate armor or just take the feat. The questing knight or the green knight may have been rangers or the green knight could have been an oath of the ancient paladin, and I don't visualize that version of the paladin in heavy armor even though. I see him in bark armor.

A ranger killing dragons might ride a horse in plate armor, which he grab via multiclass or with a feat. You can track in heavy armor because your quarry demands the highest AC. And if you don't multiclass, you don't need a 13 in dexterity or wisdom. Volley could be ruled to work with thrown weapons like a javelin, you just have so many to throw unlike a quiver full of arrows.

But the fighter, because he needs either a 13 in strength or dexterity and the other appropriate stat is the easiest to multiclass. Though not always the most optimized, say warlock/paladin vs warlock/fighter, either one makes for a "sith" type lightly armored gish type. You can follow the class themes, but the classes are open to change. What is a Jedi? Who does Bane send to assassinate a enemy clergyman and make a statement. A paladin/rogue is viable build, so is a paladin/warlock/assassin.

[Cazero]

Missing the point. The point is not about other classes having options, it's about other classes being conceptually different.
The fighter is a badass normal. Without magic, paladins and rangers are worthless compared to him. And that theme is strong enough to justify a class.

Following your samurai example. The fighter is the samurai who follows the bushido because he believes that's what true warriors do and those who don't are wussies too weak to fight properly. That samurai is not a paladin, because having him being magically empowered by belief and magical fairies breaks the core of the concept. He is not a barbarian because his mind is perfectly clear and focused wich contradict the core rage mechanics. He is not a ranger because he doesn't live in the woods or whatever your mounted archer example was about. He is not a monk because he doesn't run on water or whatever other stupidly specific stuff they put in the monk class. He is martial perfection made man. He is a fighter, as no other class fit the character concept.

That concept must be available to players. Wether the fighter is a mechanically satisfying class or not is a completely different question. You can argue that it should have been made as a paladin, ranger or barbarian subclass, to wich I would answer that warlocks and druids have even less reason to have their own class.

[R.Shackleford]

Cazero

It is way easier to take away a Fighter's toys than it is to take away magic. Take the toys away from Ranger or Paladin and they have other features that make them better than a fighter without toys.

(take away armor and weapons and the ranger/Paladin comes out ahead, take away magic and there is no adventure as the ranger and Paladin want to rest... Though they are decent enough without magic that they could go on ahead with the party with no problem.)

The Fighter's identity is that it doesn't have one, that isn't an identity, that is laziness.

Every identity that the Fighter could have such as soldier, huntsman, or thug is done by another class better.

Most of the time in D&D you will have access to all or most of your features, judge characters off that, not all hypothetical fringe situations.

If you want to make a Fighter that has identity, look no further than Tome of Battle and 4e. Not only do they have the fluff identity but mechanics to back up their fluff.

[Gwendol]

Right. So we can now conclude that in a game weapon and armor don't exist, the fighter is not an optimal class. Thanks for enlighting us on the topic.



Most of the time in D&D you will have access to all or most of your features, judge characters off that, not all hypothetical fringe situations.


So the fighter, who's general class features are mostly always available, and who in general is the best damage dealer in the game somehow doesn't measure up?

A class is a framework on which to build a character; it is not a character in itself. I don't see how the fighter is different from any other class in that respect. But maybe that is more a reflection of the imaginative powers of the player?

[djreynolds]

Missing the point. The point is not about other classes having options, it's about other classes being conceptually different.
The fighter is a badass normal. Without magic, paladins and rangers are worthless compared to him. And that theme is strong enough to justify a class.

Following your samurai example. The fighter is the samurai who follows the bushido because he believes that's what true warriors do and those who don't are wussies too weak to fight properly. That samurai is not a paladin, because having him being magically empowered by belief and magical fairies breaks the core of the concept. He is not a barbarian because his mind is perfectly clear and focused wich contradict the core rage mechanics. He is not a ranger because he doesn't live in the woods or whatever your mounted archer example was about. He is not a monk because he doesn't run on water or whatever other stupidly specific stuff they put in the monk class. He is martial perfection made man. He is a fighter, as no other class fit the character concept.

That concept must be available to players. Wether the fighter is a mechanically satisfying class or not is a completely different question. You can argue that it should have been made as a paladin, ranger or barbarian subclass, to wich I would answer that warlocks and druids have even less reason to have their own class.

I hear what your saying. Really I do. I love the fighter and its why I started the thread. They're my favorite class.

But other classes can do what other classes can do. Sounds weird, but a paladin of devotion, to master and land, can just be called Bushido. It doesn't have to be a god he follows, but a way of life. Perhaps this paladin is the leader of a group of samurai.

A group of samurai have specialists. You'll have a guy who can track, guy who can tank, and list goes on. A ranger doesn't have to be Legolas or Aragorn. He used to be a specialist in killing giants and such. And that can be fluffed or changed to specific warfare in specific regions. He's your archer and samurai scout. In fact a samurai is just elite warrior class, and in Japan there are criminal class that includes fighters and paladin. Samurai use intimidation in combat, and it may look like a barbarian flipping out. Unfortunately, there are some that when magic is said, it stops the conversation.

Does magic piss me off, when discussed with fighters yes. But a fighter isn't going to turn away a wizard or healer. He values teamwork. He loves rogues and setting up sneak attacks.

For me, the fighter's strength is his versatility to fight in any combat environment without any real tweeking to his chassis. The champion with GWF and archery can be built with SPBI and for strength and fight anywhere, really. The fighter to me, is the perfect warrior, because no true warrior is just a sniper or swordsman. He can literally fill in for any other martial concept or character. HE can scout, he can tank, fight with any weapon platform, from melee to range and do it all with a strength build. And because he doesn't have to focus on some many abilities he can dedicate ASI points or feats to social skills to intimidate, or medicine, or deception with the right background and fill in for the party face. My fight has history as one of his skills, he should know past battles and tactics. He can take intimidate and persuasion, for good cop bad cop. He doesn't need a 20 charisma, or 20 wisdom, or 20 intelligence. But he can take the skilled feat. He's got 7 ASI/feats.

[Morty]

The fighter has no good reason to exist, but it's erroneous to assume that rangers, paladins or barbarians are adequate replacements. The "martial" classes of 3e and 5e have no rhyme or reason to them and none of them deserves to be a class in its own right.

Now, the concept of a warrior who focuses on martial skill first and foremost is an important one. Does the fighter do an adequate job at representing it? Of course not, and it never has (insert "in my opinion" where appropriate). In fact, the concept does not even require a single class to represent it, and trying to cram it down one class is part of the reason why fighters are so mediocre. We can have two warriors who fit the archetype of a consummate weaponmaster that shuns magic and does not excel at any other skills, but their combat styles are so different that they have no business being members of the same class.

[EvilAnagram]

{scrubbed}

[R.Shackleford]

Right. So we can now conclude that in a game weapon and armor don't exist, the fighter is not an optimal class. Thanks for enlighting us on the topic.



So the fighter, who's general class features are mostly always available, and who in general is the best damage dealer in the game somehow doesn't measure up?

A class is a framework on which to build a character; it is not a character in itself. I don't see how the fighter is different from any other class in that respect. But maybe that is more a reflection of the imaginative powers of the player?

Agreed. However the Fighter class doesn't help character creation, but hinders it. The Fighter class only gives half assed features and when you do get enough of them (extra attack 3-4) you are at a level no one really plays at.

What's worst is because the inclusion of this lazy class design, other classes are set to a certain balance level that only exists so the Fighter doesn't get left behind.

You can make a mechanically/conceptually better Samurai (or other character) by using the Wizard (or using other class), than you can by using the Fighter. Some refluffing will be in order, no doubt, but having ancestral ghost powered armor on a samurai sounds nothing short of awesome (mage armor).

[Gwendol]

No, you can't. As has been showed repeatedly, if the purpose is to do a lot of weapon damage, be it sustained or burst, the fighter provides the best chassi.

[R.Shackleford]

No, you can't. As has been showed repeatedly, if the purpose is to do a lot of weapon damage, be it sustained or burst, the fighter provides the best chassi.

And those are misleading. A Fighter doesn't go all day, the Fighter goes as long as the party goes. So if the party wants to rest then the fighter rests. The fighter wants to go off alone? Dead fighter.

Strength Based melee rogue (shield master) does a great job with keeping up with sustained damage as getting advantage from themselves or an ally is really really really easy.

Plus, with the way 5e is created, you don't need to be top tier damage dealing by yourself as everyone is a mid to top tier damage dealer WHILE having other features that support that or other facets of the game.

Being able to do 100 damage/round is nice, except when everyone else is each doing 75 damage per round. The Fighter's sustained or burst damage isn't one versus one, it is one (fighter) versus the party in which case the fighter will lose.

[Gwendol]

False logic: the party goes as long as the DM wants. Second: the fighter has features that recharges on a short rest.

Having someone in the party who can deliver damage, lock down enemies, etc, reliably and under a wide range of circumstances is highly valuable.

That you fail to see the elegant simplicity of the class is not really relevant for the discussion.

[Cazero]

Most martials aren't raging berzerkers. Most martials aren't empowered by the strength of their convictions. Most martials aren't sneaky bastards. Most martials aren't kung-fu monks. Most martials aren't samurais. Most martials aren't swashbucklers.
No matter how may times you cut a specific identity out of the fighter, you still need to keep it for all those identities that don't have a dedicated class. Because dedicated class identity is too strong. The argument that a simple soldier can be made better as something else than a fighter is false because of these strong class identities.

Yes, the fighter fluff is unspecified and generic. His 'class identity' is rather weak. That's the whole point.
If you are designing a class-based system, having a class where the fluff is not too restrictive is mandatory. Without it, there will be character concepts that don't fit any of the classes you designed. That's what the fighter is supposed to be for character that mostly fight with weapons.

And that was for fluff alone.
If you add mechanics reflecting fluff into consideration, you can make a needlessly complicated hellfest of hundreds of fighting styles mechanics, one for each of the unique possible character identity, each one sufficiently different to justify a separate class, and yet needing to be balanced against each other. Or you can make a generic, clean, streamlined fighting system that applies to everyone and remove the need for such an inane number of variations of the same 'I hit him' entirely because they mostly share the same simple, generic and fluff-lite fighting tools like extra attacks. Hey, that's exactly the generic, fluff-lite tool they choose to boost for the generic, fluff-lite martial class who lacks other fluff-specific tools.

The fighter has a damn strong case to defend his right to exist as a class, and there isn't a single mechanical issue about it's current implementation that will change that fact.

[R.Shackleford]

False logic: the party goes as long as the DM wants. Second: the fighter has features that recharges on a short rest.

Having someone in the party who can deliver damage, lock down enemies, etc, reliably and under a wide range of circumstances is highly valuable.

That you fail to see the elegant simplicity of the class is not really relevant for the discussion.

False, DM can't make players do anything. Players want to stop, they will figure a way to stop.

Fighter can only damage, has no way of doing anything else better than other classes.

Simplicity doesn't have to mean lazy and broken.

[djreynolds]

Very good points. The fighters job is to fight, and whatever task that maybe, he can do it. I like all the classes, but the fighter can do all combat arenas. High AC, high hit points, and flexibility in any environment. You have one stat you need to boost, excluding con which is a requirement for everyone. 20 cap in the stat. You got 5 feats to customize this chassis. Sentinel, polearm master, gwm, resilient, mage slayer, and on and on. That's the perk, from 12-16 you get three feats to go with the 3 feats you got from 4-8. Your attack stat is maxed out or 19 by 4th. That's 5 feats you have. That's a huge perk.

[Gwendol]

False, DM can't make players do anything. Players want to stop, they will figure a way to stop.

Fighter can only damage, has no way of doing anything else better than other classes.

Simplicity doesn't have to mean lazy and broken.

Couple of points here:


The fighter class benefits from short rests as well, however, many class features are always there making the class function at peak efficiency pretty much always.

Fighters excel at doing damage. There's a bit of a difference even if you choose not to acknowledge it. As for the "anything else" part, you may be right, but it has little bearing on the discussion since the intention of the creator is clearly a class that is good at fighting.

True, and since the fighter class is far from broken we can agree and move on.

[djreynolds]

Couple of points here:


The fighter class benefits from short rests as well, however, many class features are always there making the class function at peak efficiency pretty much always.

Fighters excel at doing damage. There's a bit of a difference even if you choose not to acknowledge it. As for the "anything else" part, you may be right, but it has little bearing on the discussion since the intention of the creator is clearly a class that is good at fighting.

True, and since the fighter class is far from broken we can agree and move on.


Here, here. Right on.

[Malifice]

Cazero

It is way easier to take away a Fighter's toys than it is to take away magic. Take the toys away from Ranger or Paladin and they have other features that make them better than a fighter without toys.

(take away armor and weapons and the ranger/Paladin comes out ahead, take away magic and there is no adventure as the ranger and Paladin want to rest... Though they are decent enough without magic that they could go on ahead with the party with no problem.)

The Fighter's identity is that it doesn't have one, that isn't an identity, that is laziness.

Every identity that the Fighter could have such as soldier, huntsman, or thug is done by another class better.

Most of the time in D&D you will have access to all or most of your features, judge characters off that, not all hypothetical fringe situations.

If you want to make a Fighter that has identity, look no further than Tome of Battle and 4e. Not only do they have the fluff identity but mechanics to back up their fluff.

Eslin! You're back!

[Waazraath]

For me, this is a really weird discussion. Having played mostly 3.5, the fighter had very little there. Now, in fifth, one of their subclasses has regeneration, als only class! They can heal themself, reroll saving throws, have subclasses that can use maneuvers (for buff, debuff or battlefield control) or cast spells... hell, they are the only class that can seriously mess up the action economy in this edition with action surge... and people say 'all they can do is damage'???

Seriously weird.

(intention of the class seems obvious, it's even in the description: offering a class that can be used for a different kinds of martial archtypes, be it "questing knights, conquering overlords, royal champions, elite foot soldiers, hardened mercenaries, and bandit kings" (phb 70) - with all possiblie types of weapons and armor. Think the designers did a very fine job.)

[R.Shackleford]

I absolutely love hearing the phrase "peak efficiency" with regards to the fighter. This is like saying that a 4 cylinder tiny car is comparable to all other vehicles because it gets to run at "peak efficiency" longer due to gas mileage. Peak efficiency is an absolutely crap way to determine a object's relative worth or ability compared to other objects. A small 4 cylinder car (toyota corolla) won't help you at all when dealing with anything outside of its narrow focus. Off-road? Hauling? Speed? Clearance? Bad weather? Yeah that corolla is going to suck (i had a 2012).

A Fighter running at peak efficiency is still not good enough of a class.

A Fighter running at PE can do absolutely one thing *special* (which you can replace with a minimal amount of commoners), which is damage, something that no one else has a problem doing. Everything else can be done as well or better by any other class running at low efficiency.

Classes should give you interesting, effective, and useful options. Nothing that the Fighter gives you out of extra attack (lazy) fits any of those criteria.

Second Wind: Used during a short rest, starts ok but then falls way short.

Indomitable looks fantastic, but in actual play it sucks. Trying to perform a second Int save doesn't help all that much.

EK and BM both look like they have utility (and EK has the most) but all of their choices justs sets you up to +do damage+. If the BM had decent maneuvers or a decent recharge system then I would give them credit... But because the Fighter gets so many attacks the BM has to have weak maneuvers.

Both however were lazily designed. The champion is 4e essentials fighter, the BM is a horrendous example of the ToB fighter, and the EK is a sad attempt at making a arcane version of the ranger or Paladin.

Anyone's who likes the 5e Fighter ought to give 4a Essentials a try, at least in that game they don't have to worry about failing 3 or 4 out of 6 saves consistently.

Side note: Who the hell is Eslin?

[Malifice]

Cazero

It is way easier to take away a Fighter's toys than it is to take away magic. Take the toys away from Ranger or Paladin and they have other features that make them better than a fighter without toys.

(take away armor and weapons and the ranger/Paladin comes out ahead, take away magic and there is no adventure as the ranger and Paladin want to rest... Though they are decent enough without magic that they could go on ahead with the party with no problem.)

The Fighter's identity is that it doesn't have one, that isn't an identity, that is laziness.

Every identity that the Fighter could have such as soldier, huntsman, or thug is done by another class better.

Most of the time in D&D you will have access to all or most of your features, judge characters off that, not all hypothetical fringe situations.

If you want to make a Fighter that has identity, look no further than Tome of Battle and 4e. Not only do they have the fluff identity but mechanics to back up their fluff.


I absolutely love hearing the phrase "peak efficiency" with regards to the fighter. This is like saying that a 4 cylinder tiny car is comparable to all other vehicles because it gets to run at "peak efficiency" longer due to gas mileage. Peak efficiency is an absolutely crap way to determine a object's relative worth or ability compared to other objects. A small 4 cylinder car (toyota corolla) won't help you at all when dealing with anything outside of its narrow focus. Off-road? Hauling? Speed? Clearance? Bad weather? Yeah that corolla is going to suck (i had a 2012).

A Fighter running at peak efficiency is still not good enough of a class.

A Fighter running at PE can do absolutely one thing *special* (which you can replace with a minimal amount of commoners), which is damage, something that no one else has a problem doing. Everything else can be done as well or better by any other class running at low efficiency.

Classes should give you interesting, effective, and useful options. Nothing that the Fighter gives you out of extra attack (lazy) fits any of those criteria.

Second Wind: Used during a short rest, starts ok but then falls way short.

Indomitable looks fantastic, but in actual play it sucks. Trying to perform a second Int save doesn't help all that much.

EK and BM both look like they have utility (and EK has the most) but all of their choices justs sets you up to +do damage+. If the BM had decent maneuvers or a decent recharge system then I would give them credit... But because the Fighter gets so many attacks the BM has to have weak maneuvers.

Both however were lazily designed. The champion is 4e essentials fighter, the BM is a horrendous example of the ToB fighter, and the EK is a sad attempt at making a arcane version of the ranger or Paladin.

Anyone's who likes the 5e Fighter ought to give 4a Essentials a try, at least in that game they don't have to worry about failing 3 or 4 out of 6 saves consistently.

Side note: Who the hell is Eslin?

You're wrong. It's been pointed out to you a number of times in many different ways, but you keep coming back to the same point (which has been thoroughly debunked).

[R.Shackleford]

You're wrong. It's been pointed out to you a number of times in many different ways, but you keep coming back to the same point (which has been thoroughly debunked).

On faulty ideas.

Saying that the Fighter can "go all day" means absolutely nothing if they don't have a party to go with. Having primarily short rest mechanics looks nice, but when no one else does it just makes you the odd person out.

Besides, the game was designed to work in such a way that the casters have enough daily abilities that once they hit like level 4 or so that running out isn't really a problem. Not as much as people like to pretend.

[Malifice]

Assume a short rest every 2 encounters, and a 6 encounter day. 5th level.

More than happy to compare a BM fighter at that level to any other martial class (or any other class for that matter).

Anyone dissing the fighter hasn't played with one.

[R.Shackleford]

Assume a short rest every 2 encounters, and a 6 encounter day. 5th level.

More than happy to compare a BM fighter at that level to any other martial class (or any other class for that matter).

Anyone dissing the fighter hasn't played with one.

Played them plenty. All they can do is +do damage+. Everyone can do enough to keep up with the game. It isn't Fighter versus Not-Fighter, it is Fighter versus Monster X AND Not-Fighter versus Monster X.

And really it isn't even just that as both gets a party to help.

Every time I see a defense for the fighter they always want to make the game a one player solo type when D&D is a team game.

As a class it doesn't give you anything else outside of damage. It doesn't even give you anything conceptually that can't be picked up elsewhere.

Edit

Anything else they do can be done by anyone else. They have nothing special and have no reason to exist in their current form.

[TrollCapAmerica]

You're wrong. It's been pointed out to you a number of times in many different ways, but you keep coming back to the same point (which has been thoroughly debunked).

Ive seen people on this board argue that Champion is awesome Frenzy isnt worthless and that element monk is good because of base Monk features are still useable or that savage attacker is a great feat. Ive seen complete autistic idiots argue that casters arent that good in 3.5. Ive seen grognards argue that 2nd ed "Ruined D&D"

Some people can be like that

[Hawkstar]

The fighter only has two problems - Indomitable is on a long rest instead of short rest schedule, and the Champion's level 7 feature is offensively mediocre.

Otherwise, they're awesome.

Cazero

It is way easier to take away a Fighter's toys than it is to take away magic. Take the toys away from Ranger or Paladin and they have other features that make them better than a fighter without toys.If you take away a fighter's toys, he can and will just take them back. Or grab new ones.


(take away armor and weapons and the ranger/Paladin comes out ahead, take away magic and there is no adventure as the ranger and Paladin want to rest... Though they are decent enough without magic that they could go on ahead with the party with no problem.) It doesn't matter if the rest of the party 'wants' to rest - they don't have time to do so without being ambushed, or burning a wizard's 2nd-level spell slot he doesn't have (and then being ambushed when they try to leave), because they're in the middle of a dungeon or wilderness and 5e's adventures are easy enough to prep, wing, and play out that you can easily have enough encounters to pace out the day properly.


The Fighter's identity is that it doesn't have one, that isn't an identity, that is laziness.No it isn't. The Fighter's identity is it's the guy who kicks ass and takes names without any need for mystical bull****.


Every identity that the Fighter could have such as soldier, huntsman, or thug is done by another class better.Nope. No other class does any professional soldier better.


Most of the time in D&D you will have access to all or most of your features, judge characters off that, not all hypothetical fringe situations.So assume the fighter has his top 3 weapons of choice, and at least chain or scale armor.


If you want to make a Fighter that has identity, look no further than Tome of Battle and 4e. Not only do they have the fluff identity but mechanics to back up their fluff.Unless you want to play an English Longbowman. Though 5e's kinda bad in that regard due to a lack of strength synergy in longbows.


It is if you're lazy. Some players are lazy. When I play, for me it is a break from the battle of real life.So play Gary the Glaive Guy, and be awesome with him - no other class will be as awesome at being The Glaive Guy as the Fighter. Grab a background at random to give you the other half of the character and identity.

... dammit, now I'm gonna have to make an all-random fighter.

Fighters also have Style going for them - those extra feats and ASIs really help in that regard.

[Cazero]

Every time I see a defense for the fighter they always want to make the game a one player solo type when D&D is a team game.
Then you ignored everything I said.


Anything else they do can be done by anyone else. They have nothing special and have no reason to exist in their current form.
Why aren't you complaining about the rogue?
They get features to deal more damage, take less damage, get better save, get more reliable skill checks and break action economy. Anything they do can be done by someone else. They have nothing special and, according to you, have no reason to exist in their current form.

[Malifice]

Played them plenty. All they can do is +do damage+. Everyone can do enough to keep up with the game. It isn't Fighter versus Not-Fighter, it is Fighter versus Monster X AND Not-Fighter versus Monster X.

And really it isn't even just that as both gets a party to help.

Every time I see a defense for the fighter they always want to make the game a one player solo type when D&D is a team game.

As a class it doesn't give you anything else outside of damage. It doesn't even give you anything conceptually that can't be picked up elsewhere.

Edit

Anything else they do can be done by anyone else. They have nothing special and have no reason to exist in their current form.

You're ignoring my post.

Assume a 6 encounter/ 2 short rest AD. Combats last on average 3.33 rounds.

20 rounds. 6 medium to hard encounters. 2 short rests.

Show me a 5th level character that invalidates the Fighter at that level and at that encounter frequency. Particularly with respect to single target DPR, burst damage, action economy manipulation and sustained DPR. Or a 12th level one that does so.

I'll happily stat up a human BM GWM fighter and run them side by side.

[Anonymouswizard]

Ive seen people on this board argue that Champion is awesome Frenzy isnt worthless and that element monk is good because of base Monk features are still useable or that savage attacker is a great feat. Ive seen complete autistic idiots argue that casters arent that good in 3.5. Ive seen grognards argue that 2nd ed "Ruined D&D"

Some people can be like that

Okay, first off, can we not have the autism hate, most people with high-functioning autism (enough to post on here) are of at least average intelligence, and probably have the maths to work out why casters are good in 3.5 once they get past the 'spell slots are less limited then they appear'. I personally don't see a massive problem with Savage Attacker, although I think it would be better as a half-feat and haven't actually played with it. I wouldn't say that the Champion Fighter is awesome but I think it's solid and would be willing to play one (although possibly multiclassed with Bard at first, because I want to play a Heavy Metal Bard). I don't think that Element Monk is bad, just lacking in the number of disciplines it gets and in need of more powers (ideally less attack powers which take your action and a good number of bonus action utility powers or action free movement powers).

Now I've got that out of my system, carry on. I intend to pop over to homebrew at some point and cough up some support for the Fighter and Monk. Ideally a couple of more specialist subclasses to fighter (I'm thinking a grappler, tactician, and weapon master at the moment), because I think that the direction of the Eldritch Knight towards a concept makes it more interesting subclass than Champion and Battlemaster, even though I love the adaptability they can have.

[R.Shackleford]

Why aren't you complaining about the rogue?
They get features to deal more damage, take less damage, get better save, get more reliable skill checks and break action economy. Anything they do can be done by someone else. They have nothing special and, according to you, have no reason to exist in their current form.

This is an easy one.

The Rogue has an identity and features that support that identity. The Rogue has features that allow it to be a class and support types of characters.

Now after level, let's say 10 or so, they fall off the wagon and stop growing unlike many other classes in the game. However for the first 8 or so levels the Rogue is almost perfectly designed.

Want to have a lazy sword n board guy? The Rogue + shield master makes a great Knight.

Want to be sneaky? Take off that armor and sneak. You can have a moderate dex + expertise and still come out ahead.

Cunning Action is amazing. Level 9 arcane trickster feature is down right awesome too.

Getting down to it, the Rogue is damn all effective in more than one area, because of their class and not just because it is something anyone can be good at.

[Vogonjeltz]

And those are misleading. A Fighter doesn't go all day, the Fighter goes as long as the party goes. So if the party wants to rest then the fighter rests. The fighter wants to go off alone? Dead fighter.

Strength Based melee rogue (shield master) does a great job with keeping up with sustained damage as getting advantage from themselves or an ally is really really really easy.

Plus, with the way 5e is created, you don't need to be top tier damage dealing by yourself as everyone is a mid to top tier damage dealer WHILE having other features that support that or other facets of the game.

Being able to do 100 damage/round is nice, except when everyone else is each doing 75 damage per round. The Fighter's sustained or burst damage isn't one versus one, it is one (fighter) versus the party in which case the fighter will lose.

1) Players can only benefit from one long rest per 24 hour period. So the party does go all day before they can refresh those long rest resources (e.g spells). The DM is the one who determines if/when encounters happen, not the players. The players can expect 6-8 medium to hard encounters per day, whether that's planned ones, or random encounters for anytime the players stop to rest.

2) A rogue only has 1 melee attack. Their melee damage absent sneak attack is 8.675 average assuming any roll hits and 45.425 assuming any roll hits and is a sneak attack. Even with guaranteed sneak attack they're putting out 1/2 the sustained damage of a Barbarian and 1/3 the sustained of a Fighter.

3) Everyone is not 'mid to top tier' for sustained damage (in the same way everyone is not above average). The Rogue's output without the best circumstances is literally the worst of any class (even a Wizard deals more with cantrips at 1st level), it's straight up bottom of the barrel, and even with those best case scenarios it's doing middling damage. To make up for this combat deficiency, the Rogue gets some nice quirky abilities.


Fighter can only damage, has no way of doing anything else better than other classes.

Well that's just wrong, the Fighter can do alot of things, and anything that uses a contest is done better by a Fighter than any other class because they can repeat the check many many times over in a single round with extra attack (and many more using action surge).

For example, over 2 rounds a Fighter could make 16 attempts to take an item from another creature (grab contest). Over that same timeframe the Rogue could only make 2 attempts.


Unless you want to play an English Longbowman. Though 5e's kinda bad in that regard due to a lack of strength synergy in longbows.

Point of fact, the Warblade didn't even have a ranged weapon proficiency. Even if not for the fact that almost all the manuevers then required some kind of melee weapon or other.

[Cazero]

Want to have a lazy sword n board guy? The Rogue + shield master makes a great Knight.
While Sir Stabsalot makes for a mechanically effective character and might even be an interesting concept, it's not exactly what I would call a knight. A knight is supposed to be competent against standing opponents, not to start crying because he can't proc a sneak attack.
You should let a real fighter use that sword, kiddo. Or at least a paladin, for crying out loud.


Want to be sneaky? Take off that armor and sneak. You can have a moderate dex + expertise and still come out ahead.
That is equivalent to saying 'Want to kill a monster? Pick up a weapon and use the Attack action'. Everyone can do it. The edge Expertise and Reliable Talent give is similar to the numerous attack boosts the fighter has. They are bland, boring class features adding litteraly nothing new to the character toolbox, and yet are both incredibly effective and necessary for the core concept of the class.
The protection fighting style is a more interesting class feature because it gives you a new tool that create in-game decisions, yet it's more often than not considered to be a waste due to how resticted it's use is. Guess who can afford to pick that thing. Yup, the Champion Fighter. The Fighter subclass often considered to be the most decision-less existing in the game can pick a dump fighting style that's mechanically more interesting than two of the Rogue's class features.


Cunning Action is amazing. Level 9 arcane trickster feature is down right awesome too.Cunning Action and Extra Attack do the same thing : they break action economy. If more Extra Attacks are lame, Cunning Action is lame too.
And if you start putting subclasses features in the lot, may I introduce you the 'make a physical contest, get an attack for free!' battlemaster maneuvers and the unique Survivor regeneration? Or a class feature that can redefine the class by itself, namely spellcasting?


I was expecting you to name Uncanny Dodge. That class feature is awesome. It's a potent defensive tool unique to the Rogue class. Fluff-wise, it is strongly tied to the concept of an uncatchable opponent the Rogue represents. It is a reaction ability that have an interesting tactical impact on action economy, survivability and DPR. And ultimately, like Action Surge, it does nothing unique. It's just the HP flow going slower or faster. But, like Action Surge, it can and will make a godamn huge difference when you use it, because how fast HP drop can change everything in a fight.

[Hawkstar]

This is an easy one.

The Rogue has an identity and features that support that identity. The Rogue has features that allow it to be a class and support types of characters.What identity does it have? Is it the cunning archeologist? The private detective? a guy down on his luck? The prince of a distant kingdom? A cat burglar? A masked vigilante? The Dread Pirate?


Want to have a lazy sword n board guy? The Rogue + shield master makes a great Knight.This doesn't work at all. Rogues can't take Shield Master until they have Medium Armored, and they can't fight with any decent weapons.


Want to be sneaky? Take off that armor and sneak. You can have a moderate dex + expertise and still come out ahead.What armor? The studded leather rogues wear isn't exactly great.


Cunning Action is amazing. Level 9 arcane trickster feature is down right awesome too.Not as amazing as Action Surge and multiple attacks.


Getting down to it, the Rogue is damn all effective in more than one area, because of their class and not just because it is something anyone can be good at.So is the fighter.

[Mechaviking]

You forget monsters that are arbitrarily immune to most spells, requiring the excessive use of big honking weapons :D

[SharkForce]

the rogue is more versatile than the fighter purely because the thing the rogue is good at (skills) are more versatile than the thing the fighter is good at (attacking).

not sure i can agree with some of the other points (i don't feel like the fighter's lack of identity is a problem, nor do i feel that they are not better at something than others... i would readily agree that they aren't enough better to justify their rather narrow focus, and that they fall off in a big way after level 11, though).

[Malifice]

the rogue is more versatile than the fighter purely because the thing the rogue is good at (skills) are more versatile than the thing the fighter is good at (attacking).

The Fighter is more useful that the Rogue because he's better at Fighting (dealing with those 6-8 medium hard combat encounters per day).

You know a third of the core of the game (the Monster manual) is dedicated to monsters that need to be killed; its the default primary way PC's can advance in skill and power, and every day of an adventurers life not spent resting in town is going to be beset by an average of 6-8 medium to hard combat encounters.

Id say within that meta, Fighters have a place. You know, when Fighting. It's one of the core pillars of the game.

When you pick up and play a Fighter, you want a class that Fights better than everyone else. And that's exactly what you get.

[wasgreg]

When you pick up and play a Fighter, you want a class that Fights better than everyone else. And that's exactly what you get.Well said.

[djreynolds]

This has been a great thread. Just the thought and detail put in by everyone, has been great. It's nice to see players championing the fighter, as well as those who don't like the class. Its been a good discussion, with excellent points for and against.

I'm currently playing a champion and he seems to work just fine, and his lack of what some call utility, others may call it "hogging all the fun", makes him focus on what he does best, combat. I took protection and archery and it allows me a lot of options in game play. That second fighting style is really overlooked and for me it was a change in my fighter's career and new feat selection. As monsters got tougher, I took to softening them up with a little artillery first and then charging into the fray, works for me. Protection has saved a lot of comrades from doom. I do find it tough when to judge to use action surge though.

Is there stuff I miss. Of course. I miss, like some do, the crazy number crunching of 3.5 and whether you want to fight with a scimitar (Damm you Drizzt) or a scythe, but I always found the war hammer to work just fine. The weapon master and specialization was certainly cool. And I used to wait to become that.

But I find this installment of the fighter very fun to play. I find his ASI and feats just as "juicy" as another classes "class" features and I get to choose what I want. I may even take skilled, just because I have so many feats. I mean really the background and skill choices and remarkable athlete at least give me a credible roll to accomplish tasks and even just help the expert out.

I certainly understand the negatives against fighter and even find myself drawn into your views, which is the point of these threads. But I have never felt out of the fight. Perhaps I play the fighter well, or the DM is taking it easy on us, who knows. Your class should call to you. I'm a military guy myself, can't say more, so of course I take a shine to the fighter. But I'm really enjoying my wizard right now as well. And I can't wait to try out warlock for the first time.

[R.Shackleford]

When you pick up and play a Fighter, you want a class that Fights better than everyone else. And that's exactly what you get.

Call me when that happens, I would love to see a Fighter that can Fight better than other classes.

Also, don't tell people what they want, ok maybe I want a Fighter that is competent at Fighting and can do more than just damage? A Fighter that can support their allies in a Fighter outside of the standard help action? Fighters can do damage and that is it, anyone can do enough damage to keep up with the game.

[Gwendol]

Call me when that happens, I would love to see a Fighter that can Fight better than other classes.

Also, don't tell people what they want, ok maybe I want a Fighter that is competent at Fighting and can do more than just damage? A Fighter that can support their allies in a Fighter outside of the standard help action? Fighters can do damage and that is it, anyone can do enough damage to keep up with the game.

You keep saying things without any support. In this very thread are given numerous actual examples to support the position that the intent of the fighter is providing a framework to create a multitude of warrior/soldier type characters, and that the design intent is largely successful.
Not liking what you see is up to you, but trying to push an unsupported idea that the fighting can be done just as well with any other class, you will have to back up with actual examples or get written off as being a loudmouth.

[Anonymouswizard]

Call me when that happens, I would love to see a Fighter that can Fight better than other classes.

Also, don't tell people what they want, ok maybe I want a Fighter that is competent at Fighting and can do more than just damage? A Fighter that can support their allies in a Fighter outside of the standard help action? Fighters can do damage and that is it, anyone can do enough damage to keep up with the game.

The Fighter is actually the BEST at exploiting non-magic support options, due to extra attack (2) and (3). This is because most combat support replaces only one attack.

A fighter can run through a small group of enemies and knock them all prone, slowing them down and granting allies who go before the enemies advantage. He can push enemies off ledges or grapple them so that they can't attack squishy party members. With a single feat he can discourage enemies from moving into a certain part of the battlefield (and he'd be great at it if we had combat reflexes in this edition). When you use the expanded combat options in the DMG he's the one who benefits most.

For the 5e fighter you can't expect him to have a little action bar telling you exactly what abilities he has and how long until they cool down, that's for the spellcasting classes. The fighter has a different niche: the exploits the existing combat system.

Yep, that's right, the main thing of the Fighter has been changed to exploiting what was already there, not having a little menu he can select 'damage+status' powers from. This is not 4e, and the fighter is not meant to be sticky. He is meant to be the skilled combatant willing to exploit options he sees, either to control the battlefield, keep his allies safe, or deal more damage. If you want a combatant with a little menu of powers, the Paladin is back to what a Paladin should be and is AWESOME this edition.

[SharkForce]

Call me when that happens, I would love to see a Fighter that can Fight better than other classes.

Also, don't tell people what they want, ok maybe I want a Fighter that is competent at Fighting and can do more than just damage? A Fighter that can support their allies in a Fighter outside of the standard help action? Fighters can do damage and that is it, anyone can do enough damage to keep up with the game.

the fighter in general *is* very good at combat, better than most really, in some ways (more of a striker-ish way if we were to use 4e terminology, very little control. then again, most 4e controllers also didn't have much control compared to any other edition of D&D). that isn't the problem. really, in terms of damage, the only one that iirc beats the fighter is the barbarian.

the problem is that the fighter isn't very much better than many other classes, and those other classes tend to get a lot of other cool stuff on top of being almost as good in that one specific area of combat the fighter is really good at (and no, having decent defence doesn't bring much to the table when you have no way to force anyone to attack you instead of the people with bad defence).

for example, the rogue was mentioned as being less useful in a fight than a fighter. i can't entirely agree with that. a rogue can be about as hard to kill, and while the damage is generally lower (unless the rogue has a method of getting sneak attack on someone else's turn reliably with blowing someone else's entire action), it isn't lower by a huge amount. meanwhile, the rogue is much stronger in the other 2 pillars of the game, by virtue of actually having multiple rather good abilities that work in those pillars (and please, don't try and convince me that champions being halfway-competent at the physical skills you didn't care enough to be proficient in is an amazing ability. it isn't nothing, but if you cared about being able to do those things, you'd be proficent).

[D.U.P.A.]

Call me when that happens, I would love to see a Fighter that can Fight better than other classes.

Also, don't tell people what they want, ok maybe I want a Fighter that is competent at Fighting and can do more than just damage? A Fighter that can support their allies in a Fighter outside of the standard help action? Fighters can do damage and that is it, anyone can do enough damage to keep up with the game.

You can. As Battlemaster grab Rally, Commander's strike and Maneuvering strike as your maneuvers and you just became a support character. Eldritch knight can learn some support spells too. And the Champion is ... well, a champion, the very name tells you that it is about individualistic character exceling at what he does best. Fighter can be very versatile, I would dare it can be more versatile than Barbarian or Monk.

[Anonymouswizard]

You can. As Battlemaster grab Rally, Commander's strike and Maneuvering strike as your maneuvers and you just became a support character. Eldritch knight can learn some support spells too. And the Champion is ... well, a champion, the very name tells you that it is about individualistic character exceling at what he does best. Fighter can be very versatile, I would dare it can be more versatile than Barbarian or Monk.

The Battlemaster could have been so much more. I still like it, but it could have been better. It could have been the class.

Does anybody think that letting the BM regain 1 Superiority Die with a Bonus Action is too game breaking, especially if the Eldritch Knight gets the ability to cast a non-damaing cantrip as a BA and the Champion gets something that I need to think off.

[Hawkstar]

The Battlemaster could have been so much more. I still like it, but it could have been better. It could have been the class.

Does anybody think that letting the BM regain 1 Superiority Die with a Bonus Action is too game breaking, especially if the Eldritch Knight gets the ability to cast a non-damaing cantrip as a BA and the Champion gets something that I need to think off.

With a bonus action? Yes. With an action... possibly not, if it's only a single die at a time (And the 17th level ability would need to be changed so it's not useless again))

[Vogonjeltz]

The Battlemaster could have been so much more. I still like it, but it could have been better. It could have been the class.

Does anybody think that letting the BM regain 1 Superiority Die with a Bonus Action is too game breaking, especially if the Eldritch Knight gets the ability to cast a non-damaing cantrip as a BA and the Champion gets something that I need to think off.

Yeah, kind of, the status effects are extremely powerful for a group, especially when the character not only doesn't have to give up an attack to use them (as other classes would) but they actually get to do more damage at the same time.

Plus it would defeat the purpose of having them return on a short rest, because the Battlemaster would effectively regenerate all of them within seconds.