The Fighter Problem

[Goran]

Good day everyone, I thought I would make a post to gauge public opinion on a 5e (potential?) issue that's been bugging me.

Comparing the fighter to the barbarian my own experience and feel, as well as threads I find seem to indicate that between the two the fighter performs poorer. Also, his kit is less interactive with the game than the barbarians kit is. These two are intended to be primary tanking/single target busting classes, but the barb seems to outscale the fighter in all aspects from the early to the late game.

Does anybody else feel this is the case?

I hope I get some discussion around this going.
Cheers

[Goran]

Keeping this spot just in case

[Foxhound438]

fighter gets more attacks than barbarian, meaning they ultimately get a lot more damage even with lower scores and no direct damage feature. The four attacks give the fighter a lot of juice from things like Great Weapon Master, and battlemasters have precision attack to fix the accuracy drop, as well as additional tricks.

Barbarian is tankier, but fighter ultimately takes the damage cake, especailly when you look at burst damage. Action surge with 4, 6, and ending at 8 attacks using great weapon master will out-nuke anything a pure barbarian can do any day of the week.

[Gastronomie]

Fighter gets more feats (and Ability Score Improvements). It's easier to build some nasty Sharpshooter and Polearm Master builds, both of which require a lot of Feats.

It is true that the Barbarian as a class is superior to most other classes in terms of tankiness, and is also good at inflicting loads of damage - but part of the feature of the Fighter class is being able to get loads and loads of feats. So it's not really comparable straight-forward.

Also, this shouldn't be in Homebrew, but in the "Roleplaying Games" 5e section.

[Final Hyena]

Hmm lets have a quick look at barb vs fighter. I'm going to do a sword & board style as it's easy and a reasonable option for both classes. Both are assumed to have 16 str/con other racial feats are ignored for ease.

I realise I gave +6 to hit instead of +5, I'm a moron, never the less I doubt it changes much for the bottom line.

Level 1
Barb/Fighter
HP 15/13
AC 17/18
Damage 9.5/9.5
to hit 6/6

additional rage/second wind
or 15 hp/6.5 hp

Fighter hits 11-20 or 50%
avg damage = 4.75
avg kill time = 6.31

Barb hits 12-20 or 45%
avg damage = 4.275
avg kill time = 4.56

Round 1 the barbarian is a fair bit stronger.
You should consider that this is in a straight up fight, over drawn own fights the barbarian who gets a lot more from limited resources will be less powerful.

At this level barbarian can get scale mail reasonably easily.

Level 2
Barb/Fighter
HP 25/22
AC 18/18
Damage 9.5/9.5
to hit 6/6

additional rage, reckless/ wind, surge
Or 25 hp/7.5 hp
or advantage/extra attack

Fighter hits 12-20 or 45%
With advantage 69.75%
avg damage = 4.275
avg advantage damage = 6.6
avg kill time = 10.69
avg kill time advantage = 6.57

Barb hits 12-20 or 45%
With advantage 69.75%
avg damage = 4.275
avg advantage damage = 6.62
avg kill time = 6.9
avg kill time advantage = 4.45

Round 2 the barbarian is a even stronger stronger.
His rage keeps on getting better whereas the fighter gets little in terms to match up to the huge tanking potential.

At this point I'm going to ignore advantage as it doesn't change much. I'm also going to go bear totem, yes frenzy is "better" in this specific context, but is less versatile in an actual campaign.
At this level a Fighter can get splint reasonably easily.

Level 3
Barb/Fighter
HP 35/31
AC 18/19
Damage 9.5/9.5
to hit 6/6

additional rage/ wind, surge, super die
Or 35 hp/8.5 hp

Superiority dice
4 sets of d8 + DC 13 str or trip
given the HP we can assume that the fighter gets a chance to use all 4
18 damage
Barb str + 5
pass on 8-20 or 65%
Chance of tripping barb with at least 1 = 97.85 %
This gives action surge a 69.75% to hit
6.62 avg damage


Fighter hits 12-20 or 45%
avg damage = 4.275
barb hp =70-24.62=45.37
avg kill time = 10.61

Barb hits 13-20 or 40%
avg damage = 3.8
avg kill time = 10.39

At this point they even out due to the huge damage boost of superiority dice, unfortunately the fighter gets nothing that gives such a boost again, as such I'm fairly confident that the barbarian will out perform him for at least a good few levels.

Edit; I feel I should point out that the barbarian is supposed to be the tankiest tank, he is focussed against melee opponents, so it's hardly crazy that he's so good at his job.

[R.Shackleford]

Good day everyone, I thought I would make a post to gauge public opinion on a 5e (potential?) issue that's been bugging me.

Comparing the fighter to the barbarian my own experience and feel, as well as threads I find seem to indicate that between the two the fighter performs poorer. Also, his kit is less interactive with the game than the barbarians kit is. These two are intended to be primary tanking/single target busting classes, but the barb seems to outscale the fighter in all aspects from the early to the late game.

Does anybody else feel this is the case?

I hope I get some discussion around this going.
Cheers

The issue is that the Fighter relies on his archetypes to do what he does while the Barbarian primarily relies on his base class.

You aren't playing a Fighter, you are playing a champion, battle master, or Eldritch knight. When you play a barbarian you are always playing a barbarian.

This distinction is subtle of course but it's there.

My biggest question is that If we already have a class that does massive damage (and I think the Frenzy Barbarian has the top spot, not the Fighter) then why do we have another class who's main tool is to do massive damage?

The other damage dealers all have a roll within their class in addition to dealing damage.

The core class of Rogues, Rangers, Monks, and Paladins all dish out damage in their own way but they each have an identity that allows them to have other features along with dishing damage.

The core class of the Fighter doesn't really revolve around anything. You can say he or she is a person that fights but... So is a rogue, ranger, monk, barbarian, and paladin. Hell, clerics, bards, wizards, sorcerers, and warlocks all fight too. Blade pact fiend warlocks are great at fighting, they keep up in damage quite well.

So with no real identity for the core class and. No features within the core class that make them distinct... You have your fighter issues.

Everything the core fighter does is something a commoner can do. Maybe not as *fast* but will be able to do.

Swing a sword 1, 2, 3, or 4 times? Yup. Fighter may get to do it more times in a turn but a commoner can still pull it off.

Feats/ASI aren't a Fighter feature, they are a character feature. Everyone gets feats and ASI. Commoners can, at least theoretically, gain feats and ASI. This "feature" has the same problem as the 3.5 Fighter.

Attempt to make a saving throw? Yup, a commoner can attempt to make a saving throw. Indomitable let's atempt a saving throw we failed, but a lot of saving throws allow you to try again in your next turn. Plus indomitable doesn't actually help you pass the next save, -1 to +2 versus DC 16 - DC 19 doesn't give you a great chance to succeed.

Action Surge could have been that defining feature but all you can do with it is thing a you could already have done. Doing multiple commoner things is still being very commoner. 0 x 3 = 0.

Fighting styles are another problem with the fighter. The only one that is something you couldn't already do is the Defending Style. The problem with that is that you have to rely on enemies doing something instead of you getting to decide when to use your feature. It would be like a barbarian needing to wait to get hurt or whatever before they can rage or use reckless attack.

Champion and Battle Master fall under this same problem of fighters doing commoner things. Know your enemy would be fantastic... As a low level feature that takes an action to perform... Studying someone for a minute is just a whole heaping pile of no. It takes an action to true polymoph or shapechange yet my Fighter (BM) can't just look at someone and tell some stats about them? Sigh...

The Fighter is an outlier in 5e and unless they do something awesome with the class like they did in 4e the class will stay this way.

I don't think it takes all that much, you just have to stop treating the Fighter like a commoner and start treating it like a Player Character Class.

[Amnoriath]

The issue is that the Fighter relies on his archetypes to do what he does while the Barbarian primarily relies on his base class.

You aren't playing a Fighter, you are playing a champion, battle master, or Eldritch knight. When you play a barbarian you are always playing a barbarian.

This distinction is subtle of course but it's there.

My biggest question is that If we already have a class that does massive damage (and I think the Frenzy Barbarian has the top spot, not the Fighter) then why do we have another class who's main tool is to do massive damage?

The other damage dealers all have a roll within their class in addition to dealing damage.

The core class of Rogues, Rangers, Monks, and Paladins all dish out damage in their own way but they each have an identity that allows them to have other features along with dishing damage.

The core class of the Fighter doesn't really revolve around anything. You can say he or she is a person that fights but... So is a rogue, ranger, monk, barbarian, and paladin. Hell, clerics, bards, wizards, sorcerers, and warlocks all fight too. Blade pact fiend warlocks are great at fighting, they keep up in damage quite well.

So with no real identity for the core class and. No features within the core class that make them distinct... You have your fighter issues.

Everything the core fighter does is something a commoner can do. Maybe not as *fast* but will be able to do.

1. Actually the Fighter relies on the class while most of the archetypes are actually sparse considering it has 5 levels vs. the normal 4. The problem with comparing a Fighter to a Barbarian is that class is quite the best dip a melee class could ever hope for, almost too good. In reality a Fighter has a far more linear growth curve while a Barbarian rises faster and plateaus quickly. In fact most of the numbers a Barbarian can bring is brought 4 levels of Bear Totem. So if it is a problem then they both have a problem.
2. But you see that is the whole dilemma. A Fighter looking through all the fantasy stories out there and even history is a large range of what it is with a similar start. A Barbarian is that mostly because of one feature. A Fighter though looking through out the lore doesn't have that iconic hitch even if it does have distinctions. 5e was looking for ways to do this in easy ways to understand and document. Hence additional ASI's, attacks, action surge, and others.
3. Actually it doesn't, consistently you can expect 3 attacks because Frenzy taxes you a lot for the day. Conversely the 2 ASI's can easily net you bonus action and reaction attacks, making 5 before the other gets 3. See 2, but you can look for it by seeing what else you can do with Attack actions or actions in general. Yes its hitch is hard to find, but the point is kind to find it because it gives you tools to do so while others don't. It is flawed don't get me wrong, hence why I made my own.
4. The 4e fighter was a class that strong armed you into a couple of weapon styles. This is the opposite of what all of 5e, this class, and general lore wants you to look for. Am I saying you should only do what they did, no, but you will likely end up copying other classes to which could be answered by making a sub-class of your own instead.
5. Throwing in the commoner undermines a couple of the classes you bring up and arguably any class that can't cast spells. The point is that they are capable and able to find their niches in the group, not that they can always blast magic.

[manny2510]

I think it is unfair to look at the fighter as a melee class. I'm not going to look at feats because they are optional rules and focus towards builds too numerous for me to acknowledge in one reply. The fighter and barbarian have a melee/range split, where the fighter with his archery fighting style and spell options leans towards range, the barbarians rage feature leans towards melee. I think that any fighter can benefit from switching between ranged and melee more than any barbarian because of their number of attacks though.

[PoeticDwarf]

Barbarian is more tanky, but gets nothing really damaging after extra attack.

Fighters deal way more damage but are worse at tanking

Conclusion: Barbarians are better tanks, Fighters strikers, Paladins bit of both and Fighter doesn't have real problems

[Gastronomie]

It should also be noted that the Fighter can make the most out of high-rarity magical weapons such as +3's and Vorpals, due to its triple and quadruple attacks.

Depends on DM and the campaign, really.

[TripleD]

Don't forget that attacks can be split among multiple enemies so long as you have movement points. Bounded accuracy means that, with crowds of enemies attacking you, there are plenty of times where you'd rather spread damage among many opponents instead of going nova on just one.

[Goran]

Placeholder post - Edit Inc

[DeAnno]

Fighters can also arguably be built to be the best Archers. Ranger and Rogue are up there but for an Archer especially the spammy nature of Extra Attack and Action Surge are great because you never run out of things to shoot. Fighters also are good at paying the Archer feat taxes of Crossbow Expert and Sharpshooter to get themselves rolling, and unlike Rogues and Rangers don't have much else to do with their bonus action other than to Crossbow Expert. Rogues are denied Cunning Action on their Crossbow Experting turns, and Rangers tend to need a fair amount of bonus actions to juggle their marks around.

I actually like the linear nature of Fighter compared to the frontloadedness of some other classes, from a design perspective. It's fun to assemble multiclassed horror monstrosities, but its also nice to be rewarded for digging deep into a martial class and doing it without waylays into other classes. Extra Attack 2 at level 11 combined with C-Expert and Action Surge gives you consistent 7 arrow short rest novas, which are pretty cool.

I do agree though that the melee side of Fighter is missing that special spark that one wants to make melee really shine. It doesn't have the amazing synergy of Rage+Reckless Attack, nor the ridiculous nova of a Paladin merrily lighting his spell slots on fire. If you go Battlemaster it can have nice accuracy and some decent control, but it just isn't the same WOW factor as the other two big melee bruiser classes (though admittedly past level 5 Barbarian class features kind of slowly die a miserable death).

[R.Shackleford]

I actually like the linear nature of Fighter compared to the frontloadedness of some other classes, from a design perspective. It's fun to assemble multiclassed horror monstrosities, but its also nice to be rewarded for digging deep into a martial class and doing it without waylays into other classes. Extra Attack 2 at level 11 combined with C-Expert and Action Surge gives you consistent 7 arrow short rest novas, which are pretty cool.


Fighters are both front loaded AND linear.

Very few things they gain past level 3 are worth the level wait or new.

[Amnoriath]

Fighters are both front loaded AND linear.

Very few things they gain past level 3 are worth the level wait or new.

But they are not nearly as front-loaded as others are and because of the ASI's, extra attacks, and repeat single uses it has a growth that rewards more by the base statistics. Despite the let down of a capstone technically that adds the most consistent numbers of any other capstone out there. So, while most of its key features are given early its ultimate progression is linear and makes those certain features better by sticking with it rather than multiclassing.

[ThePurple]

4. The 4e fighter was a class that strong armed you into a couple of weapon styles. This is the opposite of what all of 5e, this class, and general lore wants you to look for. Am I saying you should only do what they did, no, but you will likely end up copying other classes to which could be answered by making a sub-class of your own instead.

This has been a problem extending all the way back to the first edition of D&D. Thieves, Magic-users, and clerics are all reasonably well established archetypes, but the "fighter" class is just a catch all for any low utility non-magic using combatant. It has *always* encompassed way too many archetypes to actually justify specific class features of any kind, which is part of the problem.

"Fighter" as a single class that encompasses *everything* that isn't covered by the other, comparatively, very specific classes is a sacred cow that really needs to be done away with because it doesn't make any sense for a single class to be intended to represent lightly armored archers, heavily armored knights, and everything else in between (especially when there are other classes that are explicitly designed to exemplify some of those concepts such as "lightly armored archers", e.g. rangers, and "heavily armored knights", e.g. paladins).

[Amnoriath]

This has been a problem extending all the way back to the first edition of D&D. Thieves, Magic-users, and clerics are all reasonably well established archetypes, but the "fighter" class is just a catch all for any low utility non-magic using combatant. It has *always* encompassed way too many archetypes to actually justify specific class features of any kind, which is part of the problem.

"Fighter" as a single class that encompasses *everything* that isn't covered by the other, comparatively, very specific classes is a sacred cow that really needs to be done away with because it doesn't make any sense for a single class to be intended to represent lightly armored archers, heavily armored knights, and everything else in between (especially when there are other classes that are explicitly designed to exemplify some of those concepts such as "lightly armored archers", e.g. rangers, and "heavily armored knights", e.g. paladins).

1. No, it is not, a fighter will have some kind of military training and regimen(whether it be formal or informal) while continuing with those avenues to either continue such prowess or diversify it.
2. A ranger isn't just a lightly armored archer. A ranger's flavor is explicitly tied to survival through intuition and experience. That is something 4e forced the ranger to be because they treated it as being martial rather than primal. Ultimately you are begging a solution in which 5e has already given you a simpler way to deal with it without forsaking all the lore out there. I already have my answer.
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?473476-The-Dawn-of-War-5e-Fighter-remix(PEACH)#post20241474

[ThePurple]

1. No, it is not, a fighter will have some kind of military training and regimen(whether it be formal or informal) while continuing with those avenues to either continue such prowess or diversify it.

That is, by far, the most vague definition of a class imaginable, especially since "military training" is more adequately summed up as "martial combat training" as opposed to true military training because not every "fighter" is a soldier (in fact, most adventuring fighters would not be effective soldiers because soldiery is about collective action as opposed to individual action).

You've defined it as formal or informal, specialized or diversified. That's the same thing as saying that something can be "true or false". It's absolutely inclusive. Which is the problem with the fighter class. The fighter class exists, and has always existed, as a catch all for any one that doesn't think they fit into the other classes.

I've always felt that a much more effective solution would be to just tackle the problem head on and, instead of having the deviations from the fighter mold operating in extremely specific subcategorizations (e.g. "ranger" is an archer fighter with additional survival/primal elements), split up the various genres of fighter (e.g. archer, slayer, knight, etc.) and allow those subdivisions to be customized to allow for the "extremely specific" traits that some people use to define them (e.g. survival/primal elements added to a mundane archer to create what amounts to a ranger rather than having an entirely separate ranger class for it).

Don't even get me started on the mechanical absurdity of having a dual wielding specialist and archery specialist class riding on the same chassis (which is similar, but a ranger issue as opposed to a fighter issue).

[Amnoriath]

That is, by far, the most vague definition of a class imaginable, especially since "military training" is more adequately summed up as "martial combat training" as opposed to true military training because not every "fighter" is a soldier (in fact, most adventuring fighters would not be effective soldiers because soldiery is about collective action as opposed to individual action).

You've defined it as formal or informal, specialized or diversified. That's the same thing as saying that something can be "true or false". It's absolutely inclusive. Which is the problem with the fighter class. The fighter class exists, and has always existed, as a catch all for any one that doesn't think they fit into the other classes.

I've always felt that a much more effective solution would be to just tackle the problem head on and, instead of having the deviations from the fighter mold operating in extremely specific subcategorizations (e.g. "ranger" is an archer fighter with additional survival/primal elements), split up the various genres of fighter (e.g. archer, slayer, knight, etc.) and allow those subdivisions to be customized to allow for the "extremely specific" traits that some people use to define them (e.g. survival/primal elements added to a mundane archer to create what amounts to a ranger rather than having an entirely separate ranger class for it).

Don't even get me started on the mechanical absurdity of having a dual wielding specialist and archery specialist class riding on the same chassis (which is similar, but a ranger issue as opposed to a fighter issue).
1. Except in many a fantasy and historical scenarios you need not be a soldier to receive such training. In fact historically in such times a soldier was often trained very little.
2. Equating what I said to the dynamic of true and false is a false dichotomy. You are trying to say that what I am saying can never exist in a build, but the features of the Fighter here and in other editions(aside from a good 4e build) beg to differ(ie specific class features vs feats). Even history begs to differ as many historical figures would flow seemlessly between such styles. While some parts of it are a choice which can preclude another the basis and growth in narrative is the same just as how Rage can be different depending on the sub-class or even just re-skinned to fit a more urban concept but still is grounded in primal adrenaline.
3. What you are talking about are generic classes in which you are definitively asking all classes that make Extra Attacks just to be a fighter.
P.S. A ranger isn't just a light, mobile archer put in the wilderness, most of its features and spells are devoted to adapting in the wild. Its key features are about familiarity with creatures and terrain. It only has 3 base features that deal with combat specifically that occur the same amount of times.