How do you think the different fighter archetype's power curves compare?

[thoroughlyS]

I have been playing 5e since release, and I have heard many opinions about the different fighter archetypes. Most commonly, I hear the comparison between the Battle Master and Eldritch Knight. I have heard that the Battle Master is front-loaded but then balances out after that, which is what makes it so popular as a dip. Comparatively, the Eldritch Knight starts slow, but gets a good amount of spell slots by tier 3. What are your experiences or opinions? And which subclass do you think has the best power curve?

[MaxWilson]

EK is strong from the start too if you play tough fights like a wizard and kite.

Battlemaster is more party-friendly early on because kiting takes more teamwork than just killing.

They both have good synergies at higher levels, e.g. Commander's Strike is great for a beefy summon/Polymorph like a T Rex or Annis Hag.

[JackalTornMoons]

It depends on what “power” means to you.

Battlemaster does the most damage through all levels, mostly due to how Precision Attack/Quick Toss Nets help with GWM/SS.

[Dienekes]

Battlemaster is my favorite fighter subclass. It is also, in my opinion, not particularly well designed.

You get 3 maneuvers at 3rd level. You have no reason not to pick the 3 best and it’s pretty easy to see which are better than others. Then the longer you take the class your pool of good options in terms of maneuvers to pick gets increasingly smaller as you’re no longer even picking your fourth or fifth choice, but your eighth or ninth of the same pool. And while some maneuvers may get better later in level most don’t.

Then later abilities just aren’t particularly good. Relentless is not particularly well designed. And at 18 your only benefit is your dice increase one size. So an average of about 1 damage more on 6 attacks per short rest at an easy minimum. Not much to write home about.

So yes, in general it is the class that has a big power spike at 3. It never is really bad because that spike keeps it afloat. But neither do they really get anything to make you want to stay in the class.

[MaxWilson]

It depends on what “power” means to you.

Battlemaster does the most damage through all levels, mostly due to how Precision Attack/Quick Toss Nets help with GWM/SS.

Except against monsters with weapon resistance, then Arcane Archer and EK are better, unless the Battlemaster has another solution, e.g. found a magical handcrossbow somewhere or made one.

[Guy Lombard-O]

Just a question, related to how Battlemaster apparently doesn't level up all that well, and how some of the other subclasses come into their own a bit later -

Since I've never played a fighter before, and since Tasha's has both some convenient retraining rules and some interesting new subclasses that I might want to try out at tier 2+ levels -

Is it too "gamist" and weird to consider playing a Battlemaster from 1-8, and then retrain to another subclass (like EK or Rune Knight) while taking the Martial Adept feat at 8th, to keep the transition away from Battlemaster from being too jarring? Also, for those who've played fighters, how do you think that would feel (both flavor-wise & mechanically)?

[MaxWilson]

Just a question, related to how Battlemaster apparently doesn't level up all that well, and how some of the other subclasses come into their own a bit later -

Since I've never played a fighter before, and since Tasha's has both some convenient retraining rules and some interesting new subclasses that I might want to try out at tier 2+ levels -

Is it too "gamist" and weird to consider playing a Battlemaster from 1-8, and then retrain to another subclass (like EK or Rune Knight) while taking the Martial Adept feat at 8th, to keep the transition away from Battlemaster from being too jarring? Also, for those who've played fighters, how do you think that would feel (both flavor-wise & mechanically)?

I suspect you can answer that for yourself better than I can. I can say that there are good reasons I'm not using Tasha's (except for Ki-Fueled Strikes for the Monk, and MAYBE Focused Aim), and concerns over power creep and gamism (vs. verisimilitude) are one of them. It doesn't fit my style--but maybe it will bother you and your DM less than it does me.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

Battlemaster is my favorite fighter subclass. It is also, in my opinion, not particularly well designed.

You get 3 maneuvers at 3rd level. You have no reason not to pick the 3 best and it’s pretty easy to see which are better than others. Then the longer you take the class your pool of good options in terms of maneuvers to pick gets increasingly smaller as you’re no longer even picking your fourth or fifth choice, but your eighth or ninth of the same pool. And while some maneuvers may get better later in level most don’t.

Then later abilities just aren’t particularly good. Relentless is not particularly well designed. And at 18 your only benefit is your dice increase one size. So an average of about 1 damage more on 6 attacks per short rest at an easy minimum. Not much to write home about.

So yes, in general it is the class that has a big power spike at 3. It never is really bad because that spike keeps it afloat. But neither do they really get anything to make you want to stay in the class.

I wonder if some of this is due to the fact that 5e rewards specialization, particularly around fighting style. If it were the expectation that martials would have some competent level of ability in both melee and range then more of these maneuvers would continue to be welcomed further along.
Since someone can, for example, take Xbow expert and never again worry about picking up a sword, then a huge chunk of the maneuvers are off the table.
I do agree with what I think you are saying though, that more powerful maneuvers should open up as the game goes along.

[Duff]

Is it too "gamist"

I'd say it scores a 9 on a scale of 1-10 for gameyness. Whether that's too gamy is a call for you, your DM and your table

[MrStabby]

So I have only played the UA rune knight as a fighter, but the Tashas one is pretty similar. I have played alongside a few others though. Assuming feats but no multiclass.

So for the ones I have seen:

Arcane archer. Actually surprisingly powerful at low levels, drops off massively later. When party resources are light the arcane shots are not bad at all. Its also benefits from a) supporting sharpshooter, b) not all fights are equal. Action surge and arrow use to turn around the deadliest encounters is awesome. C) Not all enemies are equal and the ability to use a bow to reach out and hurt anyone on the battlefield makes you a pretty effective mage slayer at.low levels. At high levels the lack of anything new and fun hurts.

Battlemaster. Front loaded. Awesome at low levels but never really seems to find it's way later. The ability to size up an enemy makes it a really potent scout and is actually a really powerful ability if you want to report back weaknesses/plan attacks. Frankly, this was the most important ability in terms of scaling as it scales with the diversity of tools the party can deploy to answer a threat.

Rune knight. Seemed pretty well designed in some ways, but had a few weaknesses as well that might have been unintended. At low levels the adventuring days felt so short that some specific runes went unused at low levels. Embiggen oneself was still generally useful so not a particular wash. Ability to swap runes really useful here. Decently powerful. Level 7 saw the best support ability since Aura of Protection but the Tashas version nerfed it somewhat (although keying off con is a big boost). The great thing about the runes is that as you know more you get more uses so it scales well. Even at level 14 you double your rune usage which was pretty transformative. I would say fighter class as a whole is pretty front loaded but the rune knight did a good job of keeping it feeling interesting and developing at higher levels.

[da newt]

I really like the Echo Knight - it's pretty simple but adds a lot of maneuvering options, a couple attacks, and synergies well w/ Sentinel. I don't think it's more powerful than other subclasses, but it holds it's own pretty well.

As for BM and EK, I think BM prioritizes offense, and EK prioritizes self survival in general. Both are very effective at what they do, but they do different things.



(but my experience is mostly lvl 1-12, and I tend to MC fighter vice play it single class)

[MrCharlie]

Battlemaster is my favorite fighter subclass. It is also, in my opinion, not particularly well designed.

You get 3 maneuvers at 3rd level. You have no reason not to pick the 3 best and it’s pretty easy to see which are better than others. Then the longer you take the class your pool of good options in terms of maneuvers to pick gets increasingly smaller as you’re no longer even picking your fourth or fifth choice, but your eighth or ninth of the same pool. And while some maneuvers may get better later in level most don’t.

Then later abilities just aren’t particularly good. Relentless is not particularly well designed. And at 18 your only benefit is your dice increase one size. So an average of about 1 damage more on 6 attacks per short rest at an easy minimum. Not much to write home about.

So yes, in general it is the class that has a big power spike at 3. It never is really bad because that spike keeps it afloat. But neither do they really get anything to make you want to stay in the class.
That's assuming the separation between best and second best is large.

Quick toss, Brace, Precision attack are probably the best ATM. But the next six or seven best are right up there-stuff like riposte, trip attack, potentially commanders strike, ambush and the other skill maneuvers, menacing attack, etc. all serve different roles from those three.

The thing keeping you in fighter is extra attack, not your subclass. That's true of all the subclasses, except maybe Samurai whose high level features are probably the best.

[stoutstien]

That's assuming the separation between best and second best is large.

Quick toss, Brace, Precision attack are probably the best ATM. But the next six or seven best are right up there-stuff like riposte, trip attack, potentially commanders strike, ambush and the other skill maneuvers, menacing attack, etc. all serve different roles from those three.

The thing keeping you in fighter is extra attack, not your subclass. That's true of all the subclasses, except maybe Samurai whose high level features are probably the best.

*Mumbles something about rally being low key one the best maneuver due to turning unused SD into THP before you SR.*

[Dienekes]

That's assuming the separation between best and second best is large.

Quick toss, Brace, Precision attack are probably the best ATM. But the next six or seven best are right up there-stuff like riposte, trip attack, potentially commanders strike, ambush and the other skill maneuvers, menacing attack, etc. all serve different roles from those three.

The thing keeping you in fighter is extra attack, not your subclass. That's true of all the subclasses, except maybe Samurai whose high level features are probably the best.

There is some of that. But mostly I assume you’re going to get the ones you want and/or fit your character’s fluff first.

Though I will admit. I have not used Tasha’s maneuvers yet. Haven’t given them much more than a glance. So the fact two of the top three are Tasha’s as well as the skill maneuvers add much needed options is a boon.

I’d still think BM is not a well designed subclass. For much the same reasons I’ve stated before. Though you are right. Most the Fighter power comes from Extra Attack. But that goes into a longer diatribe that I don’t think Fighter is a well designed class in the first place. Even if it is effective.

[Granitecosmos]

Rune Knight can be massively front-loaded, depending on what you want to do with the class. Twice-per-day bonus action Enlarge that can turn even a small creature into a large one, can't be dispelled and doesn't need concentration is something no other class can grant to a grappler at level 3 and it scales with proficiency, making it completely fine to multiclass out of it immediately after. To get Frost Rune on top of this for another +2 in Athletics is just icing on the cake, that's essentially Expertise until level 5. For a more traditional Fighter playstyle, it scales well; and even for grapplers, it has useful features later on but that level 3 power spike is massive.

[Avonar]

Rune Knight can be massively front-loaded, depending on what you want to do with the class. Twice-per-day bonus action Enlarge that can turn even a small creature into a large one, can't be dispelled and doesn't need concentration is something no other class can grant to a grappler at level 3 and it scales with proficiency, making it completely fine to multiclass out of it immediately after. To get Frost Rune on top of this for another +2 in Athletics is just icing on the cake, that's essentially Expertise until level 5. For a more traditional Fighter playstyle, it scales well; and even for grapplers, it has useful features later on but that level 3 power spike is massive.

I agree, though for different reasons. Rune Knights can also restrain their target while dealing 2d6 fire damage a round at level 3. That's enormous, especially for enemies that are dex-based rather than strength-based. My Rune Knight has helped us chew through some encounters that could have been much harder with a different class/archetype. When combined with our sorcerer using Mind Slice to reduce a target's next save, devastating.

Then add in the Stone Rune that gives you superior darkvision and can incapacitate an enemy as a reaction, so you don't lose much in terms of action economy. Yeah Rune Knight is big at level 3. I'll be interested to see how it changes as I level up, though the Stone Rune to just start imposing advantage or disadvantage at level 7 also seems pretty nuts.

[MrCharlie]

*Mumbles something about rally being low key one the best maneuver due to turning unused SD into THP before you SR.*
Yeah, but even then there are only a few temp HP. It's a good fourth or fifth pick, it's just a question of priorities. Which is why I actually like taking martial adept, simply to maximize dice and known maneuvers. I just think that Precision attack is such an efficient and impactful accuracy boost that it has to be first, Brace is such a reliable reaction attack that it has to be second (unless, ofc., you have polearm master), and quick toss is such a reliable bonus action attack and versatile with nets and potentially alchemist items (although I don't think that works RAW, as they aren't weapons) that it has to be third. And as always, using maneuver dice to make more attacks or connect with more attacks is the best use of them damage wise, and a fighter primarily does damage.

Making use of unused dice is nice and all, after you have the maneuvers that efficiently use your dice. Although if you have a good charisma the math may change more-I could see replacing quick toss with rally depending on the build.

There is some of that. But mostly I assume you’re going to get the ones you want and/or fit your character’s fluff first.

Though I will admit. I have not used Tasha’s maneuvers yet. Haven’t given them much more than a glance. So the fact two of the top three are Tasha’s as well as the skill maneuvers add much needed options is a boon.

I’d still think BM is not a well designed subclass. For much the same reasons I’ve stated before. Though you are right. Most the Fighter power comes from Extra Attack. But that goes into a longer diatribe that I don’t think Fighter is a well designed class in the first place. Even if it is effective.
I think I can agree that an ideal design would have level-gated maneuvers like warlock has invocations. Personally, I agree on an abstract level-and the ideal fix to both would be to make battlemaster maneuvers baseline for fighters as a whole. The battlemaster might not be ideally designed, but it adds so much into fighter that it's a good subclass regardless.

It's worth noting that battlemaster also fixes one of the main caster vs. martial problems-that new content adds spells for casters and the new spells are usually good, but the only thing martials get is new archetypes. Tasha's showed us that maneuvers are basically fighter spells, and boy are the Tasha's maneuvers good, closing that gap. Without that inherent imbalance, it's just a matter of math and role.