Lets discuss the pros and cons of the fighter class.

[Sir cryosin]

Much like the thread I got going for the sorcerer I want to start another one here and get them off that thread where someone is asking about a build. (It's the champion build thread.) So what are your thoughts people why do you love the fighter, or why do you dislike it, what do you want to change or add, ect.......

[Foxhound438]

of all the reasons to like the fighter class, I'd say the best is the fact that it's an easy entry point for new players, in that it's simple and effective out the gate, while having good options for scaling into the late game, IE feats, possible spells, save retries, and of course the nuclear power of action surge with multiple hits.

[Slipperychicken]

I like:

That they really are the best at fighting, or at least very close to it. They can sustain a great damage output as long as they have hit points, and action surge gets them a solid burst too. Second wind actually makes them reasonably tanky and able to last a little longer through the day.

A wide range of character concepts are possible with a fighter. Mercenaries, knights, magic-knights, assassins, soldiers of all kinds, guards, everymen, burglars, all kinds of things are possible with fighters. The only thing the class really holds them to is the idea that they are good at fighting.

It is not terribly difficult to play a fighter. Some new players I know had some difficulty with more complicated PCs, and are satisfied being able to contribute without having to learn that many rules.




I don't like:

Battlemasters have per-rest limits to their maneuvers. I would rather give them at-will stuff instead. I don't know, something like the ability to add one of the basic combat maneuvers (i.e. shove, disarm, grapple, climb atop, etc) to an attack once per turn instead of replacing the attack. The idea that a fighter can "run out" of technique breaks my immersion too much. The justification that they get tired is alright, but we already have exhaustion levels for that.

Paladins step on fighters' toes in a way, such that martial character ideas with serious morals (especially knights) are thrown into the paladin class when they could easily be fighters instead. It's hard for people to imagine a fighter with real principles. Same idea for barbarians co-opting the idea of a fighter that becomes angry once in a while.

[Kane0]

They are very solid and I like them, for the first half of their chart.

Post level 11 I find little reason to want to be a fighter, I always look at what's coming up and just end up feeling meh about it. Some things i'd like to change:
- Indomitable becomes short rest based
- 4th attack isn't the capstone, give it at 17
- Capstone instead becomes something this isn't emulated by another class, like a second reaction per turn or something

A ribbon or two wouldn't hurt as well

[Foxhound438]

A ribbon or two wouldn't hurt as well

just don't make them the only things you get at a given level. That would be AWFUL [glares at ranger]

[JumboWheat01]

One of their best pros I say is the number of ASIs they get. Since feats aren't something you get every now and then, it's nice to have more slots opened up for them to customize your character some more. Of course, if you're not playing with feats, it's a little less fun, but at least your physical stats will be amazing.

One of their greatest cons (in my opinion,) is how they're often used as a "dipping sauce" class, getting Fighter 2 for Action Surge and forgetting about your career as a fighter. Of course, I'm a class purist, so...

[MrStabby]

One of their best pros I say is the number of ASIs they get. Since feats aren't something you get every now and then, it's nice to have more slots opened up for them to customize your character some more. Of course, if you're not playing with feats, it's a little less fun, but at least your physical stats will be amazing.

One of their greatest cons (in my opinion,) is how they're often used as a "dipping sauce" class, getting Fighter 2 for Action Surge and forgetting about your career as a fighter. Of course, I'm a class purist, so...

Heh, I think we have opposite views. I like what sets one character apart from another of a similar class (mechanically as well as RP). I think multiclassing is awesome for adding differentiation to a character.

I specifically like fighter as something that can be added to any class. You want a cleric with a bit of extra martial discipline? Sorted. A rogue that is all about speed? Well I know what can get an extra attack each turn for the guy and a super-speedy action surge as well. I like that you can dip to get heavy armour and weapon proficiency. The ability to sacrifice levels in another class to add some other flavour seems like a feature not a bug to me.

There are some things I think are missing though. I don't like how the idea of battle training is so narrow. I don't like how casters can interact with martial attacks but not the other way round. I would like some kind of spellbreaker abilities, more ways to interact with casting (making the mageslayer feat, or part of it a fighting style would appeal to me).

Frankly, if more feats get released or if the DM homebrews some feats then fighters get a lot more interesting.

[2D8HP]

Because in learning the "tropes" of Fantasy fiction as a kid the Spell-casters were mostly the bad guys!
I was probably more influenced by seeing Sinbad vs. the scheming sorcerer Sokurah, when I saw "The 7th Voyage of Sinbad" (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tGCuLWdZTDs&itct=CBgQpDAYAiITCJ3h5IKW0c0CFUHcfgodyloJHzIHcmVsY Xhttp://1.bp.blogspot.com/-QTIeBuLnD-A/UR_ToMA9-VI/AAAAAAAAAKA/q8g2RT4XY-s/s1600/holmes+box.jpglZEjCz6XC1bmil_AB) at the drive-in (since I later learned that the movie was made in the 1950's it must have been re-released). I can specially remember watching it through the back window of a V.W. bug while my parents watched something boring through the front window, and marveling at the Dragon and the sword wielding skeleton! And sometimes "Jason and the Argonauts" (http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Sg1v5HkpdEA) was on the T.V.!
I read the "Arabian Nights", Greek mythology and a lot of science fiction, but actual fantasy fiction before playing DnD? Maybe a couple of Conan short stories if that. The "Catspaw" episode of Star Trek influenced my vision of the Dungeon, and old Errol Flynn movies influenced my vision of what PC's should be like (wields bows or swords not staffs and wands!).
Another big influence was "Bard" from "The Hobbit" cartoon (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qT8jCTUqgzg) which I saw on channel 5 about the same time that I first encountered a Dungeons and Dragons box (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-QTIeBuLnD-A/UR_ToMA9-VI/AAAAAAAAAKA/q8g2RT4XY-s/s1600/holmes+box.jpg).
Another factor is that I simply don't have the mental agility that I had in the 1970's and 80's!
Other classes are often cited as more "effective" in this Forum, but they wouldn't be in my hands, because I wouldn't be able to keep track of and actually use the options.
The "Champion" Fighter class allows me to play D&D with actual other people. Without that class, the complexity of other classes would have me just continue looking forlornly at the 1970's rules DnD materials I have, wishing I could find someone to again play the game with. I spent over two decades away from the game already and I don't want to repeat that. I have an eleven year-old and a newborn to care for as well as a more then full-time job, plus I simply no longer have the time (or maybe the ability) to master a more complex class.
I'm grateful that Wotc hasn't revised the game in such a way that I may no longer play except with yet more "options"I don't want to need to memorize. Spell-casters just aren't the swords and sorcery archetype I want to role-play, and I just find them to be too complex for my 48 year-old brain to learn.
That's part of the beauty of 5e, it allows someone like me who needs simplicity to share a table with those who crave "options".
No it's not "One game to rule them all" (what is?), but it still remains fun.
Long live the "Fighter"!

[Dark Ass4ssin 1]

I like the fact that the phb fighter is the rebellious son of the phb wizard, like Roy Greenhilt.....

I also like how you can have two fighters with the same stats and both of them be entirely different individuals. Both in how they fight, and the background diversity they can have. I also love playing BM fighters with commander's strike, trip attack, and goading strike..... And a SORCERER in the party.:smallbiggrin:

[DeAnno]

The extra ASIs are definitely nice. Superiority dice, particularly when used as d20 adders, are also really great, since they give the Fighter insurance against failure that a lot of other classes have a hard time emulating.

One other nice thing about the class is a general absence of dead or deadish levels. Outside of subclass levels, only 9 and 13 really feel weak (and they are much less dead than some levels out there.) The subclasses are a little more iffy with things like Relentless though (Relentless @ 15 is especially painful on Cavalier/Monster Hunter/Scout, since you don't also gain additional maneuvers.)

It might be nice to get the fourth attack at 17, but at least it isn't like 17 is disappointing: a second Action Surge is a big deal.

[Farecry]

I love playing the fighter, and totally agree that the 4th attack should come at 17, since that's the cantrip scaling and you don't even have to make it in the class to level 17 for those. The versatility to the fighters weapons is fantastic, even if you specialize with one weapon, you are great at all of them , unless of course you drank the kool-aid and wanted spellcasting; then you are just crazy versatile at everything with 4 attacks still. I mean, you aren't a great spellcaster, but with your extra ASI's you are still decent.

[djreynolds]

The issue has always been perspective

if you play in the AL with standard array you are the first class with a max attack stat, be it dexterity or strength at level 6.

a 14 or 16 constitution, easily obtained at creation, coupled with a d10 hit dice, you have plenty of HP.

if the paladin or barbarian is swinging around a polearm or a greatsword, do something else!!! go S&B and shield master.

if the paladin or barbarian is going S&B and shield master, do something else!!! complement them

if your paladin is swinging around a greatsword, grab the protection style, he will appreciate it.

you have 1 stat you must max out, you do not have to max out con right now...grab feats and be versatile.

grab feats like a wizard grab spells, just don't focus on your attacks, there is the skilled feat, magic initiate, mobile, dungeon delver, lucky, actor... try to cover an area your teammates have not.

make your teammates stop and take a short rest, all the time.

I find players who roll for stats, and have really good stats, will find the fighter less than appealing, because they are now able to grab feats and do not have to bump up stats.

Make sure to select resilient wisdom earlier, not later than level 8, and earlier if you are the only martial class in the party

[Vogonjeltz]

Much like the thread I got going for the sorcerer I want to start another one here and get them off that thread where someone is asking about a build. (It's the champion build thread.) So what are your thoughts people why do you love the fighter, or why do you dislike it, what do you want to change or add, ect.......

I think most all the classes look fun, but the Fighter has a great combination of durability, offensive output, and flexibility through improvised actions and contests in/out of combat.

It's a very well done class that presents the opportunity to model a wide variety of concepts from the Brute Heracles to the clever Bronn or the spellcasting Sparhawk.

That most all its features operate off a short or no rest is pretty spectacular too. It's nice having a high functioning class that never degrades over the course of the adventuring day the way those classes feature large amounts of long rest resources do.