What is the identity of the fighter?

[Rfkannen]

All right, I could not think of a good way to phrase this for the title, but this was just something that popped into my head. so a fighter is more than just a paladin without spellcasting, a monk withought ki, or a barbarian without rage, but what exactly is it that the fighter is? Rather than just the class without supernatural abilities, what is it that the fighter actually has? What is the core identity of the fighter class, what are they good at? Instead of defining a fighter by what it doesn't have, magic, what is the definition of what it does have?


Is the fighter the pinnacle of the humanoid body? well for that I would look at the barbarian, they are the only class who can literally break the bonds of human strength.

Is the fighter the most skilled humanoid in terms of battle? Isn't that the rogues niche? being super skilled, hitting just the right spot with your rapier, the pinnacle of skills, I mean no fighter is as good at athletics as a rogue can be.

Are they the hardest to kill? I mean a lot of their class features are about getting harder to kill, but at least in my experience the paladin is the king of that genre.

Is the fighter the fastest? I guess that is what they are, since they are the only class that gets more than two attacks per round, making them the one who can with blinding speed destroy everything around them. Somehow this doesn't seem like the right answer though. ALso they attack the fastest, but both the barbarian and the monk walk faster than them.

What do you think? What is a fighter?

Also just want to say that I actually do like fighters, when I want to play someone non magical or stealthy I reach for one, and they are actually a very well designed class in my opinion, I was jsut trying to think about what there core identity is besides the class without special abilities.



Also want to preemptively say im looking at the base fighter chassis, not the archetypes which add more identity.

[mephnick]

Their identity is that they can pretty much be anything. Dex handcrossbow + whip vampire hunter? Pick Fighter. Heavy Armor lance tank? Pick Fighter. Switch Hitter master of heavy weapons and bows? Pick Fighter. Shield master and axe viking? Pick Fighter. You can literally build almost any melee fantasy concept with them.

The extra feats should also make them masters of multiple fighting styles or versatile characters with room for flavor/skill feats but people are stupid and just load up on ASI's and then complain Fighters are boring.

[Cazero]

He's -bleep-ing good with weapons. Better than everyone else. And since classes are mostly about combat ability, it's more than enough.
How is that hard to get?

[Specter]

To put it in one sentence:

The fighter is the pinnacle of martial training.

[LudicSavant]

He's -bleep-ing good with weapons. Better than everyone else. And since classes are mostly about combat ability, it's more than enough.
How is that hard to get?

It's probably "hard for people to get" since the Fighter does not actually possess this identity. The Fighter hasn't been the best with weapons in any edition.

[Cazero]

It's probably "hard for people to get" since the Fighter does not actually possess this identity. The Fighter hasn't been the best with weapons in any edition.
He has been in all*. The class design simply fail to make it relevant when compared to stuff like magic.
*well, probably not 3.5. But that one was so bloated that class identity simply became meaningless.

[mephnick]

He's -bleep-ing good with weapons. Better than everyone else. And since classes are mostly about combat ability, it's more than enough.
How is that hard to get?

I will say that thebiggest problem with Fighters in 5e is that weapons don't really matter because resistences have been so simplified. Giving nearly everything b/p/s resistence instead of seperating them basically makes the "multiple weapon master" concept useless on one hand.

On the other hand it's easy to build a Fighter that takes all the weapon feats and says "Oh we found a magic maul/longsword/bow/crossbow/halberd/rapier? Yeah, I can make good use of that." But like I say, everyone is so obsessed with specialization and modern DMs are so horny about designing the adventures around their players, it makes the concept fairly pointless.

[LudicSavant]

He has been in all. The class design simply fail to make it relevant when compared to stuff like magic.

This is simply not true by any stretch of the imagination. He's not even the best completely nonmagical weapon user in all. In fact, we didn't even have the Fighter in "all." Back in the bad old days we had the Fighting Man instead :smalltongue:

[Naanomi]

It's probably "hard for people to get" since the Fighter does not actually possess this identity. The Fighter hasn't been the best with weapons in any edition.
2e and weapon Specialization/Mastery exclusive to fighters...

Anyways, Fighter is the master of combat; not in a 'push the boundaries of the body' way like a barbarian; but in a 'pinnacle of of training and skill' way... they can make as many attacks as a monk channeling supernatural life energy without any extra effort at all (and twice that many with an action surge); and that isn't about 'speed' per se... it is about exploiting twice as many openings than any other combatant can and the like; and feats to quickly develop signature combat styles (I wouldn't play one in a featless game that I expected to go into higher levels) a lifetime before other combatants, and without neglecting other aspects of his/her training.

[ZorroGames]

He can Batman, the Hulk, Green Arrow, or the Punisher.

Other classes might do one of those better but the Fighter can do them all well.

[Unoriginal]

Is the fighter the most skilled humanoid in terms of battle? Isn't that the rogues niche?

Nope.



Also want to preemptively say im looking at the base fighter chassis, not the archetypes which add more identity.

Then let's look at the Base Fighter (ignoring the flavor texts, because that would be too easy for OP to read them)

The Fighter get:

d10 as HD

Training in all weapons and armors

Fighting Style
Second Wind
Action Surge
Extra Attack
Indomitable

So the Fighter is a very well-trained and pretty tough combatant with mastery over all weapons and protections, but particularly good in their chosen speciality, and who can use their training and inner ressources to shrug off damage and other perils as well as executing actions and attacks with an impressive swiftness.

[FabulousFizban]

a fighter is a couple pages of system mechanics that can help you realize a character concept.

[Rogerdodger557]

The question isn't what the fighter can do. It's what the fighter can't do.

[Scathain]

Though it may seem like a cheap answer, I do feel the 5e fighter is defined by its subclasses.

But in general? I just see Fighter as the "everyday (martial) hero". Barbarians have their primal fury, monks have their zen, rogues have their cunning, paladins have their oaths, but fighters have training. They are self-determined heroes meant to be a catch-all, not a direct representation of any one image from any one piece of literature. The Odysseuses, the Enkidus, the Davids, the Beowulf's, these mythical heroes had little in common across their cultural lines other than being potent warriors with a "very specific set of skills".

[Unoriginal]

The question isn't what the fighter can do. It's what the fighter can't do.

You can't define an identity just by what they can't do. It's like trying to describe a mouse by saying "it can't survive in the void of space".

[Scathain]

You can't define an identity just by what they can't do. It's like trying to describe a mouse by saying "it can't survive in the void of space".

I think it can be assumed he meant "in the scope of a fantasy tabletop game". As in, out of all the other classes in this game, what can it NOT do effectively.

[Rogerdodger557]

You can't define an identity just by what they can't do. It's like trying to describe a mouse by saying "it can't survive in the void of space".

What I mean is there is very little a fighter can't do. It's their defining feature. They are one of the best/easiest classes to multiclass with, and once you include the archetypes the number of things a fighter can't do becomes even smaller. The only thing a fighter can't replicate on their own is class abilities(rage, sneak attack, wild shape, etc.).

[djreynolds]

IMO 5E allows players to play whatever they want. And how they want.

A paladin's oath should be difficult to adhere to. And many distrust or even fear paladin. You many never see or meet one.

A barbarian should have a tough time in social situations. The gate guards are always leery of some crazed warrior who can go off in the blink of an eye. Many fear barbarians. And they are exotic.

The fighter is just a dude or lady, a common place fixture of society. Most armies have fighters serving in them, or they are guards.

The class are not equal. They are not designed to be. If I want to play a big M1 Tank, I'll play a barbarian. Super cool F22 jet, I could be a paladin.

When I play a fighter I have a concept. And I'm playing that fighter knowing it may be challenging to play effectively.

[Waterdeep Merch]

To me, the fighter is the everyman. He's the guy that's not the strongest, or the prettiest, or the most clever, or the most powerful. He's the guy that got where he is today through hard work and determination. That's why he attacks more often, pushes himself with bursts of adrenaline, shakes off debilitating injuries, and sometimes simply can't be stopped.

This is why the class can apply to such a wide variety of concepts. Because deep down in all of us, there's a fighter. And we're all a little annoyed at the wizard.

[Hooligan]

This is being over thought nearly as much as the ridiculous thread on "attacks".

The identity of the fighter is one of....fighting.

[Lombra]

a fighter is a couple pages of system mechanics that can help you realize a character concept.

I'm a big fan of this and of class abstraction in general. That sentence is applicable to any class tho, so it's not that relevant here I'm afraid.

[Specter]

The class are not equal. They are not designed to be. If I want to play a big M1 Tank, I'll play a barbarian. Super cool F22 jet, I could be a paladin.

I'm not a war equipment connoiseur, but in this case the Fighter would be some kind of rail gun with infinite ammo that can fire a few powerful shots every hour (or in Champion's case, shots slightly more powerful always).

[smcmike]

This is being over thought nearly as much as the ridiculous thread on "attacks".

The identity of the fighter is one of....fighting.

As a participant in that thread, I insist you take this back. This thread isn't close to that level of ridiculousness yet.


a fighter is a couple pages of system mechanics that can help you realize a character concept.

Yeah, this. Save the "identity" for your characters. Classes don't need it, particularly the really broad ones, like fighter and rogue.

[Hooligan]

As a participant in that thread, I insist you take this back. This thread isn't close to that level of ridiculousness yet.

I refuse. It's only a matter of time before burger comes on here buttering loads of foolishness between slices of "if" and "then".

[Unoriginal]

I refuse. It's only a matter of time before burger comes on here buttering loads of foolishness between slices of "if" and "then".

Oh, sure, there is a good chance that some guy will whine that Fighters are weak and casters are strong because the Fighter is less good at being the group's chauffeur/butler, and that some guy will go "but the RAW is silent on this topic" even though it's pretty clearly implied to work a certain way.

[Millstone85]

There is the old theory of gamism, narrativism and simulationism. These days, we are told the three pillars of the game are exploration, social interaction and combat. I think another such trinity is that of swords, spells and skills.

I expect the fighter to be the best at wielding a weapon and wearing armor, the wizard to be the best at casting spells and the rogue to be the best at making Ability (Skill) checks. If that's not the case in 5e, then I don't know.

[Foxhound438]

Fighters strike me as the resource-independent tank. Paladins and barbarians have to manage long rest dependent spell slots or rages, and if they run out they basically become strictly worse fighters. Yes, they each get a few neat "free" abilities or passive things, but the fighter can run at 100% basically all the time, and while they do get outpaced by raging barbs or smite-at-will pallys, they do more work at the trailing edge of the adventuring day due to short rest recharging stuff like AS or super dice. They also get to be the only arcane tank, thanks to eldritch knight.

Archer fighters are more of a machine gun, but generally until arcane archer gets a full release I wouldn't bother. Warlock gets about as good ranged dps with the utility of full casting.

[Footman]

Who is the Fighter? If we only go by the class description, it is simply a skilled Warrior, and the best at utilizing Weapons and Armor in many different ways.
A Paladin will always be religous, a Barbarian will always have the Primal Spirit of Rage in him, etc. all these Classes are somewhat Pigeonholed into a specific direction.
The Fighter isn't.

Who is the Fighter is the wrong Question. The right question is who do you want your Fighter to be?

A Noble Knight on Quest to earn Glory for his Family,...
A Daring Swashbuckler dancing around on the Battlefield with nothing but Wit and his Rapier (and hopefully leather armor),...
A Mercenary, looking for ways to gain more Gold,...
The local Townsguard, bored of his Watch, hiring out as a Newbie Adventurer.
The whirling Dervish of an Oriental Land, Duel wielding two deadly Scimitars
The Bounty Hunter, fearlessly pursuing his Targets through the World,...
The Fallen Warlord of a faraway Land, forced into exile,...
The Samurai Ronin, traveling the Land in search of good Sake and Work.
The traveling Swordsmaster who aims to be the best Swordsman there will ever be.
The local Brute of a crime snydicate, looking for a way to leave his past behind,...
The Musclehead of a Wizard, kicked early from the Wizards Collage, now blends Martial Might and Magic into a Destructive Art...


All of these and much much more are Fighters.

The sheer amount of different Character concepts you can pull of with the Fighter class is amazing! 5e is actually of all the D&D Versions i have played the most balanced. Even if you don't Minmax, your Fighter will be a Force to be reckond with. You could argue, now this and this is more optimal, and here and there this Class pulls ahead or that Class, depending on the Lvl. A few Gaps exist, but this time the Gaps are very small, and do not impact at the Game. There are a few Spells that are Broken, and most of them are very High Lvl. But thats it.

A Fighter can be whatever crazy Idea of a Character you want him to be!

[Naanomi]

Archer fighters are more of a machine gun, but generally until arcane archer gets a full release I wouldn't bother. Warlock gets about as good ranged dps with the utility of full casting.
Eh, I disagree here. The increased accuracy of archery style (and Precision attack), the attacks boost from Crossbow Mastery (and Haste), the nova of Action Surge, and the damage boost from Sharpshooter... full casting definetly gives more utility, but the damage only wins out against any random fighter picking up a longbow

[Vogonjeltz]

All right, I could not think of a good way to phrase this for the title, but this was just something that popped into my head. so a fighter is more than just a paladin without spellcasting, a monk withought ki, or a barbarian without rage, but what exactly is it that the fighter is? Rather than just the class without supernatural abilities, what is it that the fighter actually has? What is the core identity of the fighter class, what are they good at? Instead of defining a fighter by what it doesn't have, magic, what is the definition of what it does have?

Is the fighter the pinnacle of the humanoid body? well for that I would look at the barbarian, they are the only class who can literally break the bonds of human strength.

Is the fighter the most skilled humanoid in terms of battle? Isn't that the rogues niche? being super skilled, hitting just the right spot with your rapier, the pinnacle of skills, I mean no fighter is as good at athletics as a rogue can be.

Are they the hardest to kill? I mean a lot of their class features are about getting harder to kill, but at least in my experience the paladin is the king of that genre.

Is the fighter the fastest? I guess that is what they are, since they are the only class that gets more than two attacks per round, making them the one who can with blinding speed destroy everything around them. Somehow this doesn't seem like the right answer though. ALso they attack the fastest, but both the barbarian and the monk walk faster than them.

What do you think? What is a fighter?

Also just want to say that I actually do like fighters, when I want to play someone non magical or stealthy I reach for one, and they are actually a very well designed class in my opinion, I was jsut trying to think about what there core identity is besides the class without special abilities.

Also want to preemptively say im looking at the base fighter chassis, not the archetypes which add more identity.

Seems pretty self-descriptive really. A fighter, broadly speaking, is anyone who survives by dint of combat prowess and training.

As for their special abilities, Unoriginal did a fine job of pointing to them:

1) Access to choose any Fighting Style (Paladins and Paladins don't get all the options)
2) Second Wind (Increased Durability over the course of the day, useful against any kind of damage)
3) Action Surge (Faster than anyone else)
4) 2 Extra Attack beyond anyone else.
5) Indomitable (Very Hard to lock down)

Try not to conflate quickness with movement speed.
Quickness is the the ability to act repeatedly in a short period of time. The Fighter can be said to be quicker than anyone else. Whereas the Ranger has better mobility (being able to get through difficult terrain more easily) than anyone else and the Monk has better movement speed than anyone else.

[Sigreid]

Jim Lesterman. When you pull off the mask he is cranky old Jim Lesterman trying to scare off the carnival patrons so he can buy the land on the cheap when it goes out of business.

[Unoriginal]

Who is the Fighter is the wrong Question. The right question is who do you want your Fighter to be?



https://youtu.be/-cSFPIwMEq4

[LudicSavant]

Fighters strike me as the resource-independent tank. They are not resource-independent. Every single Fighter archetype has resources. Eldritch knights have spells. Battlemasters have superiority dice. Even Champions have their action surges and indomitables and second wind charges, not to mention the ever-present resource of hit points. They also tend to be dependent on their item resources (such as, say, weapons and armor).

[Kite474]

The fighter is basically at this point in its history a class that fills just a mechanical form than a fluff one. In terms of that mechanics its meant to be a class with pick up and play abilities that dont require much thought or much difficulty when chosen.

This is because fluff wise outside of "everyday solider" the fighter does not really have any skillset to display the fluff of "Master of Martial combat" I mean when I hear "Master" I think of someone who can do things with weapons no one else can or use them beyond compare and the Fighter does not really do above and beyond with weapons.

Really there isnt much uniqe about the Fighter anymore. Even with the 2 extra feats your just adding a bit more of useless versatility that everyone else in the party can do better (this is why I always find the excuse of "grab feats" to be a bit weak, because have you seen the feat list? Almost all of them are pretty crap and some of the ones like "skilled" still fall to the Bard or Rogue who just kind of render skill challenges moot.

[Cazero]

This is because fluff wise outside of "everyday solider" the fighter does not really have any skillset to display the fluff of "Master of Martial combat" I mean when I hear "Master" I think of someone who can do things with weapons no one else can or use them beyond compare and the Fighter does not really do above and beyond with weapons.The Fighter eventualy reach a base of four attack per round just because they're good with weapons. That's twice as many as the rest can achieve from weapon mastery alone. It may be limited, unimaginative and mechanicaly weak, but it's unquestionably beyond compare.

[ad_hoc]

It is one of the (few) flaws of 5e that the Fighter was designed without an identity.

[Lombra]

It is one of the (few) flaws of 5e that the Fighter was designed without an identity.

But is it a flaw? Is it bad to have a martial class that doesn't tell you how to use it?

[Footman]

But is it a flaw? Is it bad to have a martial class that doesn't tell you how to use it?

As I replayed in previeous Answer. It is not a Bug, it's a Feature!
There is no Class, in all D&D with which you can realise such a Broad range of Character Concepts, as with the Fighter.

[ZorroGames]

But is it a flaw? Is it bad to have a martial class that doesn't tell you how to use it?

No.

ST based, DE based, the MAD ST&DE based, the EK, yada-yada-yada designs.

[Haldir]

a fighter is a couple pages of system mechanics that can help you realize a character concept.

Repost for truth.

Fighter is almost exclusively a dip class in my experience. Pop it into just about any build and the first few levels will reward you fairly well.

[Easy_Lee]

The fighter is an ascended soldier. Every weapon, armor, fighting style, and feat is easily available to the fighter, and they can take extra actions. Those things aren't trivial.

Second wind is a bit weak (though so is healing in general), indomitable is weak, fighters ought to be able to switch their fighting styles with a rest, and fighter doesn't get enough features after 11. But up through level 11, fighter is pretty good.

[Specter]

They are not resource-independent. Every single Fighter archetype has resources. Eldritch knights have spells. Battlemasters have superiority dice. Even Champions have their action surges and indomitables and second wind charges, not to mention the ever-present resource of hit points. They also tend to be dependent on their item resources (such as, say, weapons and armor).

I guess what they mean by that is that when you strip the fighter out of its resources, they would be more comfortable than other classes except the Rogue.

[mephnick]

Fighter is almost exclusively a dip class in my experience. Pop it into just about any build and the first few levels will reward you fairly well.

It is good for dips, but I agree with Easy Lee that Fighter to 11 is a good class and I think it serves as the best class for a true multi-class character, which is a good niche.

Fighter 11 will mix with virtually any class in the game and you'll come out with a very strong, versatile character. EK, BM, or Champion, doesn't matter. Can you take EK/BM/C to 20? Sure. But an EK/War Cleric, BM/Rogue, Champ/Barb is better. I'd argue better than any of those other classes alone as well. Hell, I think a Fighter 11/ Full Caster 9 is more useful to more parties than a Full Caster 20 considering the lack of spell slots at late levels and how the game scales. *yeah fight me*

[Cybren]

The identity of the fighter is fighting. How is this complicated?

[MeeposFire]

The identity of the fighter is fighting. How is this complicated?

I guess with some classes being so specific in their identity I guess it is hard for some to deal with a class that is defined to be broad enough to cover most warrior archetypes especially if you consider the various types such as EK, BM, champion, and others grant you.

There are changes I would make to the fighter (for one I want them to have better saves like they used to have in pre 3e days and I think while extra attack III is potent I do not think it should be a capstone) but how broad a concept it can fit is not something I want to change. I think that is a real bonus that the fighter can be so many types of warriors with just one class and it does not really need to be reflavored. I do not mind reflavoring on the whole but it is nice to not have to do it all the time.

[HidesHisEyes]

Though it may seem like a cheap answer, I do feel the 5e fighter is defined by its subclasses.

But in general? I just see Fighter as the "everyday (martial) hero". Barbarians have their primal fury, monks have their zen, rogues have their cunning, paladins have their oaths, but fighters have training. They are self-determined heroes meant to be a catch-all, not a direct representation of any one image from any one piece of literature. The Odysseuses, the Enkidus, the Davids, the Beowulf's, these mythical heroes had little in common across their cultural lines other than being potent warriors with a "very specific set of skills".

I agree. The idea you see pop up sometimes that "the fighter simply shouldn't exist because it doesn't have as clear an identity as other classes" is totally wrong-headed in my view. Often I will have an idea for a character and will be clear on just two things: this guy is good at fighting, and this guy isn't a ranger, barbarian, paladin or monk. If you want a warrior and those other classes seem too conceptually loaded for the character you have in mind, that's where the fighter comes in.

In other words, the fighter doesn't NEED as much identity as many people seem to think.

[HidesHisEyes]

As a participant in that thread, I insist you take this back. This thread isn't close to that level of ridiculousness yet.



Yeah, this. Save the "identity" for your characters. Classes don't need it, particularly the really broad ones, like fighter and rogue.

If this were the way the game were actually designed there would be no classes. Every D&D class has a concept and identity written into it. Fighter has this the least of all but it's there. Read the flavour text. It's all about rigorous training, discipline and technique.

[GlenSmash!]

What is the identity of my Barbarians?


Well the Outlander Barb is a tribal marauder.
The Mercenary Veteran Barb is a cynical world weary traveler disgusted with Kingdoms and Governments
The Soldier Barb is a dedicated Patriot.
The Haunted One barb is a vengeful Monster Killer.
The inheritor Barb is in possession of an item linked to his secret destiny.


Identity is far better defined by background than Class. Background is what you do(or have done), Class is how you do it.

[Easy_Lee]

Identity is far better defined by background than Class. Background is what you do(or have done), Class is how you do it.

That sounds nice, but mechanically your class determines most of what your character can do. Background is mostly fluff and determines only a little of what you can do. You could say different classes have different ways of doing the same thing, except that martial can't mind control groups, summon creatures into existence, etc. at all. Similarly, having a background as a soldier won't give your wizard or rogue the ability to use a shield.

[EvilAnagram]

Jim Lesterman. When you pull off the mask he is cranky old Jim Lesterman trying to scare off the carnival patrons so he can buy the land on the cheap when it goes out of business.
Thank you! It took way too long for someone to make that joke.

I would also have accepted Diego de la Vega.

[GlenSmash!]

That sounds nice, but mechanically your class determines most of what your character can do. Background is mostly fluff and determines only a little of what you can do. You could say different classes have different ways of doing the same thing, except that martial can't mind control groups, summon creatures into existence, etc. at all. Similarly, having a background as a soldier won't give your wizard or rogue the ability to use a shield.

This is all true, but missed my point. Which I probably tried to make very poorly. I'll try to be more clear.

The ability to cast spells, or mind control, or summon, or use a shield, or even for that matter Sneak Attack, Action Surge, or Invocations does not or should not define a character. The player should.

I don't see any class's set of abilities as an Identity. I see them, along with backgrounds, as tools that I as the character's creator can use to define their Identity.

Does that make more sense?

[scalyfreak]

I don't see any class's set of abilities as an Identity. I see them, along with backgrounds, as tools that I as the character's creator can use to define their Identity.

Does that make more sense?

It makes perfect sense.

A fighter can be anyone from Diego de la Vega, to William Tell, to Bruce Lee, to Inigo Montoya, to Jon Snow or Bronn, and everything in between. That what makes the class so much fun.

[Zalabim]

The fighter is the hero with hidden reserves (Second Wind, Action Surge, Indomitable) and untapped potential (Martial Archetype and extra ASI). It has one special thing (fighting style) and a whole lot of determination. Maybe that starts with Roy Greenhilt's sword, Captain America's shield, or The Punisher's guns. It's not always better than other classes, but the fighter tries harder to make up for it.