An Illustrated Manual for Inflicting Violence: A Guide to Fightering

[EvilAnagram]

Ah balls that sucks. Maybe I can sneak it by my DM though...

Can't hurt to ask.

[Malifice]

I still dont get why that Samurai guy doesnt just refluff the greatsword to a katana. Its a sword that he has learnt to use two handed and deals 2d6 damage.

Take GWM to represent his ability to land devestating strikes with the Katana.

Done.

[xanderh]

I still dont get why that Samurai guy doesnt just refluff the greatsword to a katana. Its a sword that he has learnt to use two handed and deals 2d6 damage.

Take GWM to represent his ability to land devestating strikes with the Katana.

Done.

The katana would be a longsword. I could see a greatsword being refluffed to a nodachi, but not a katana. It's just too small. Greatswords were about the size of the wielder, while the katana is even shorter than a longsword.

[Oramac]

1) For the Hawkeye build, Martial Adept feels like a wasted feat: The Battlemaster can already pick his favored maneuvers from level 3, and eventually they will have so many that the feat will feel wasted.

I'm currently playing a modified Hawkeye build (Fighter 11 / Rogue 2) and I can say with certainty that the extra Superiority Die is incredibly useful. I might go so far as to say mandatory.

Also, the 2 levels of Rogue is amazing as well. Cunning Action and Sneak Attack add a ton to the build. And as I write this, I realize I totally forgot to add Sneak Attack to anything at all last time I played. Dammit.

[EvilAnagram]

I'm currently playing a modified Hawkeye build (Fighter 11 / Rogue 2) and I can say with certainty that the extra Superiority Die is incredibly useful. I might go so far as to say mandatory.

Also, the 2 levels of Rogue is amazing as well. Cunning Action and Sneak Attack add a ton to the build. And as I write this, I realize I totally forgot to add Sneak Attack to anything at all last time I played. Dammit.

Honestly, another level of Rogue is probably worthwhile if you take the Assassin archetype. It won't always come into play, but occasionally surprising someone with the extra 2d6 Sneak Attack dice and the Superiority die is totally worthwhile.

On a surprise, there's an average of 38 damage with the longbow.

[Oramac]

Honestly, another level of Rogue is probably worthwhile if you take the Assassin archetype. It won't always come into play, but occasionally surprising someone with the extra 2d6 Sneak Attack dice and the Superiority die is totally worthwhile.

On a surprise, there's an average of 38 damage with the longbow.

The 2d6 sneak attack would be nice. Assassinate, not so much. Mainly because my luck rolling initiative is horrid. Seriously, I don't think I've ever rolled higher than a 5 on initiative, on any character. haha.

I'll probably pick up the level anyway. That's a good point. Thanks!

[Malifice]

The katana would be a longsword. I could see a greatsword being refluffed to a nodachi, but not a katana. It's just too small. Greatswords were about the size of the wielder, while the katana is even shorter than a longsword.

Refluff it. Done. Katanas are two handed swords IRL anyway (try Kendo, youll see). Its one of the reasons why Samurai didnt use shields. You need two hands to weild one properly.

Its a sword, that is wielded in two hands. It deals 2d6 damage 'because katana' but 'you need extreme skill to wield one in a single hand effectively''.

Only a jerk DM would say no.

Monks are refluffing shortswords as katanas, nine ring broadswords, or jians, refluffing clubs as tonfas, nunchucks and tetsuo's, and spears as lajatangs, kyetsu soge, kusri gamas and all sorts of whacky stuff by RAW.

It changes nothing. Handwave it and move on.

[xanderh]

Refluff it. Done. Katanas are two handed swords IRL anyway (try Kendo, youll see). Its one of the reasons why Samurai didnt use shields. You need two hands to weild one properly.

Its a sword, that is wielded in two hands. It deals 2d6 damage 'because katana' but 'you need extreme skill to wield one in a single hand effectively''.

Only a jerk DM would say no.

Monks are refluffing shortswords as katanas, nine ring broadswords, or jians, refluffing clubs as tonfas, nunchucks and tetsuo's, and spears as lajatangs, kyetsu soge, kusri gamas and all sorts of whacky stuff by RAW.

It changes nothing. Handwave it and move on.

That's nice, being called a jerk because I like it when refluffing makes sense.
IRL, you need two hands to wield a longsword properly as well. A longsword is not a weapon you could effectively wield in one hand.

When refluffing, I require that the new fluff makes sense with the mechanics. Refluffing a greatsword as a katana absolutely does not make sense to me. The smallest sword I can see as a greatsword would be a scottish claymore (the two-handed sword, not the basket-hilted broadsword).
The katana has similar cutting power to the European longsword. It is certainly easier to cut with because of the rigidity of the blade, but if you're skilled, the cutting power is about the same. The same cut with either blade is going to do about the same damage to whatever is hit.

In terms of being wielded in one hand, the katana is roughly as easy to wield one-handed as a European longsword. In fact, it weighs almost exactly the same as a European arming sword, an exclusively one-handed weapon. But because of a point of balance further up the blade compared to European swords, it's roughly equivalent to the longsword in terms of ease of one-handed use.

The katana is not a greatsword. A greatsword is a weapon designed exclusively for use in war situations, and is too cumbersome to be carried/worn outside of combat. The katana was a side-arm. Something you carried in civilian contexts, and occasionally as a secondary weapon to your primary war weapon, like a greatsword or a pole-weapon. The greatsword in D&D is a weapon that is so heavy that you absolutely can not wield it effectively in one hand, no matter how much training you've had. In terms of mechanics, it is 100 % impossible to wield a greatsword in one hand. A katana can, with training, be wielded effectively in one hand. This is not true of any European greatswords, but just so happens to be true of the European longsword.
If you want a Japanese weapon that fits the role of greatsword, I've already given you one: the nodachi. The nodachi was an exclusively two-handed sword purpose-built for war. Fluff-wise, it fits the greatsword perfectly. And it was used by samurai, so it also fits the fluff of a samurai.
If you want to use a katana, use the stats for the longsword. From what I've been able to find out, historical japanese fighting manuals do depict grappling moves, so use the versatile feature of the longsword/katana to use the sword while grappling. For the katana, the longsword stats just make the most sense.

Also, I just want to mention, Kendo is not accurate to historical japanese swordsmanship. Just like pretty much all other martial arts, it has evolved over time. Just like how modern sportsfencing is nothing like historical european martial arts.

[Malifice]

That's nice, being called a jerk because I like it when refluffing makes sense.
IRL, you need two hands to wield a longsword properly as well. A longsword is not a weapon you could effectively wield in one hand.

When refluffing, I require that the new fluff makes sense with the mechanics. Refluffing a greatsword as a katana absolutely does not make sense to me. The smallest sword I can see as a greatsword would be a scottish claymore (the two-handed sword, not the basket-hilted broadsword).
The katana has similar cutting power to the European longsword. It is certainly easier to cut with because of the rigidity of the blade, but if you're skilled, the cutting power is about the same. The same cut with either blade is going to do about the same damage to whatever is hit.

In terms of being wielded in one hand, the katana is roughly as easy to wield one-handed as a European longsword. In fact, it weighs almost exactly the same as a European arming sword, an exclusively one-handed weapon. But because of a point of balance further up the blade compared to European swords, it's roughly equivalent to the longsword in terms of ease of one-handed use.

The katana is not a greatsword. A greatsword is a weapon designed exclusively for use in war situations, and is too cumbersome to be carried/worn outside of combat. The katana was a side-arm. Something you carried in civilian contexts, and occasionally as a secondary weapon to your primary war weapon, like a greatsword or a pole-weapon. The greatsword in D&D is a weapon that is so heavy that you absolutely can not wield it effectively in one hand, no matter how much training you've had. In terms of mechanics, it is 100 % impossible to wield a greatsword in one hand. A katana can, with training, be wielded effectively in one hand. This is not true of any European greatswords, but just so happens to be true of the European longsword.
If you want a Japanese weapon that fits the role of greatsword, I've already given you one: the nodachi. The nodachi was an exclusively two-handed sword purpose-built for war. Fluff-wise, it fits the greatsword perfectly. And it was used by samurai, so it also fits the fluff of a samurai.
If you want to use a katana, use the stats for the longsword. From what I've been able to find out, historical japanese fighting manuals do depict grappling moves, so use the versatile feature of the longsword/katana to use the sword while grappling. For the katana, the longsword stats just make the most sense.

Also, I just want to mention, Kendo is not accurate to historical japanese swordsmanship. Just like pretty much all other martial arts, it has evolved over time. Just like how modern sportsfencing is nothing like historical european martial arts.

So for zero mechancial reason, you would deny a player a cool concept? In a game that expressly lets a Monk refluff a spear as a length of chain with a spike on the end, or as a sickle bladed lajatang, or a shortsword as a jian?

Yeah, pass. Its your game though man.

I would. So would most DMs who see nothing wrong with encouraging and facilitating player concepts. I allowed a 'kensai' in my games. He refluffed the spear to a Katana. I allowed him to change the damage type from (1d6/1d8 versatile) piercing to (1d6/1d8 versatile) slashing. No biggie - same damage as a staff, just a different damage type. Nothing broken, and the character is playing what he wanted.

Same deal with the Sorlock in another campaign. The DM changed the fluff of 'dragon blood' to 'fiend blood'. Same abilities, different fluff.

Id struggle to play in a game where 'the DMs sense of simulationism' is so inflexible to deny a character a cool concept purely on the grounds of fluff.

If it offends you that much, his katana is quite heavy for a katana, being 'made out of a strange steel from a fallen meteor and folded a thousand times under the sacred waterfall by the Yuri of the greatest swordsmith in Kara Tur'. Thats what makes it heavier, increasing its cutting power, but requiring two hands.

Players happy, you have a story hook as DM, nothing is broken and your sense of simulationism isnt offended. Its a win/ win/ win/ win.

[xanderh]

So for zero mechancial reason, you would deny a player a cool concept? In a game that expressly lets a Monk refluff a spear as a length of chain with a spike on the end, or as a sickle bladed lajatang, or a shortsword as a jian?

Yeah, pass. Its your game though man.

I would. So would most DMs who see nothing wrong with encouraging and facilitating player concepts. I allowed a 'kensai' in my games. He refluffed the spear to a Katana. I allowed him to change the damage type from (1d6/1d8 versatile) piercing to (1d6/1d8 versatile) slashing. No biggie - same damage as a staff, just a different damage type. Nothing broken, and the character is playing what he wanted.

Same deal with the Sorlock in another campaign. The DM changed the fluff of 'dragon blood' to 'fiend blood'. Same abilities, different fluff.

Id struggle to play in a game where 'the DMs sense of simulationism' is so inflexible to deny a character a cool concept purely on the grounds of fluff.

If it offends you that much, his katana is quite heavy for a katana, being 'made out of a strange steel from a fallen meteor and folded a thousand times under the sacred waterfall by the Yuri of the greatest swordsmith in Kara Tur'. Thats what makes it heavier, increasing its cutting power, but requiring two hands.

Players happy, you have a story hook as DM, nothing is broken and your sense of simulationism isnt offended. Its a win/ win/ win/ win.

What I don't get is why you don't just fluff it as a nodachi, though. It fits way better in terms of mechanics, and still fits the fluff of a samurai with a Japanese sword.
If I even allowed a japanese styled character (unlikely to fit the theme of the majority of my campaigns), I would let them choose between a nodachi and greatsword stats, or a katana and longsword stats. Because that's just what makes sense.
And using heavier steel would be a stupid thing to do. Adding more steel and making it longer increases the weight and cutting power, while also increasing the reach. Unless the steel has some other properties (ignoring resistance to non-magical weapons, for example), the swordsmith would be an idiot for making a blade out of heavier metal when he can increase the length of the blade and have the same weight.

And as for the examples you provided: The sorlock makes perfect sense to me. No issues there. Fiendish blood could give those benefits. The chain with a spike on the end and the lajatang make sense for the spear mechanics, and the jian ranges from shortsword to arming sword, from what I can tell. Those all make perfect sense.
But taking a katana (which is essentially a Japanese longsword) and giving it the stats of a greatsword, which is much larger and more unwieldy and transfers a lot more force when hitting the target, just doesn't make sense to me. The katana is a Japanese longsword. Give it the longsword stats. The Japanese version of the greatsword is the nodachi. If a player in my campaigns want to play a samurai and use GWM, they get a nodachi, or they choose to use a japanese pole-weapon instead. It's that simple.

And by the way, I do allow my players to refluff as much as they want to, as long as it makes sense. One of my players wanted to use kamas on his monk. So he asked if he could rename the shortsword to kama, and I of course allowed it, because it makes sense. But the katana being a greatsword just doesn't.

[SharkForce]

Honestly, another level of Rogue is probably worthwhile if you take the Assassin archetype. It won't always come into play, but occasionally surprising someone with the extra 2d6 Sneak Attack dice and the Superiority die is totally worthwhile.

On a surprise, there's an average of 38 damage with the longbow.

honestly, I'd just keep going rogue. fighter 11/rogue 9 has plenty to offer. imo, far more than more fighter levels, at any rate (or does the hawkeye build go into ranger or something?)

[EvilAnagram]

honestly, I'd just keep going rogue. fighter 11/rogue 9 has plenty to offer. imo, far more than more fighter levels, at any rate (or does the hawkeye build go into ranger or something?)

Hawkeye build is straight Battle Master, but improving Combat Superiority is worth the Fighter levels, as are the feats.

[Specter]

About the samurai thing:

1) Go Variant Human. Pick 'Dual Wielder' for your first feat.
2) Pick TWF or Defense for the Fighting Style.
3) Use the katana (longsword) in one hand, and the wakizashi (shortsword) in the other.
4) Be this guy:

5) Grab the Battlemaster archetype for tactical maneuvers and, more importantly, calligraphy.
6) Profit.

[Citan]

Refluff it. Done. Katanas are two handed swords IRL anyway (try Kendo, youll see). Its one of the reasons why Samurai didnt use shields. You need two hands to weild one properly.

Its a sword, that is wielded in two hands. It deals 2d6 damage 'because katana' but 'you need extreme skill to wield one in a single hand effectively''.

Only a jerk DM would say no.

Monks are refluffing shortswords as katanas, nine ring broadswords, or jians, refluffing clubs as tonfas, nunchucks and tetsuo's, and spears as lajatangs, kyetsu soge, kusri gamas and all sorts of whacky stuff by RAW.

It changes nothing. Handwave it and move on.

Hey. :)
Sorry to jump into the discussion, but I agree with Xanderh on this one.
Katana DOES NOT have to be wielded two-handed.
It so happens that all the main movements (the basic movements) are learnt like this, but there are plenty of schools that also teach one-handed moves.

Katana's length, weight and manoeuverability is between a sword and longsword. Making it a heavy and cumbersome weapon is, like, breaking respect for samuraïs. :)
So in D&d, a katana can only be a longsword refluffed. And I don't see how that could be a problem for the player.

If he really wanted it for the mechanic, he just has to say he will wield a nodachi. This one is perfectly suited as a refluffed greatsword, and still a "japanese, curved sword".
If he really wanted it for the fluff, he just has to go one-handed fighting or dual-wielding as intelligently suggested Specter just above. :)

Refluffing ANY weapon into ANY weapon without any reference would be like opening a Pandora's Box for later games with players. Besides, there are HUNDREDS of weapon that have been invented throughout the ages (we humans love to kill ourselves after all ^^), so there will always be one that can match D&d mechanics, character concept and historic reality at the same time. :)
For this reason, frankly, as a DM, I'd say "deal with it" to the player without any hesitation, unless he really comes with the one idea that matches no weapon and designed a very impressive/original fluff to go with.

[Mervold]

Defense is great for tanks, and you can be a great tank.

It uses your only reaction for something totally unremarkable. This should be Red if you have Sentinel, and Black otherwise.

Remarkable Athlete: A more limited version of Jack of All Trades. It can come in handy. It's worth noting that some spell effects will require these ability checks to escape them.

You add this to Initiative, making this Blue in my opinion.

Precision Attack: You can decide to pop this Super die after you make the attack roll, which is exactly what you want with that.

I would argue that Precision Attack is at least Sky Blue, as it is the most damaging maneuver in the game. A Trip Attack would give you 1d8 at the beginning, and 1d12 at the end, but Precision Attack gives you at least 1d6+3, and possibly 2d6+5+10 (Str 20, Greatsword with GWM). For Sharpshooters and GWM users it is beyond that, same for Sentinels, but unfortunately you do not use gold coloring.

Bard: Become a skill monkey! With songs! And Magic! If you have Charisma, a Valor Bard makes a solid multiclass opportunity.

A Valor Bard would gain nothing from the Martial Weapons and Medium Armor proficiency, nor the Extra Attack. Battle Magic is the first useful feature, and it is really far away. In my opinion if you multiclass to Bard, you should go Lore, it does not give you mostly wasted duplicates.
So Lore Blue, Valor Purple.


Great guide otherwise.

[SharkForce]

It uses your only reaction for something totally unremarkable. This should be Red if you have Sentinel, and Black otherwise.

You add this to Initiative, making this Blue in my opinion.

I would argue that Precision Attack is at least Sky Blue, as it is the most damaging maneuver in the game. A Trip Attack would give you 1d8 at the beginning, and 1d12 at the end, but Precision Attack gives you at least 1d6+3, and possibly 2d6+5+10 (Str 20, Greatsword with GWM). For Sharpshooters and GWM users it is beyond that, same for Sentinels, but unfortunately you do not use gold coloring.

A Valor Bard would gain nothing from the Martial Weapons and Medium Armor proficiency, nor the Extra Attack. Battle Magic is the first useful feature, and it is really far away. In my opinion if you multiclass to Bard, you should go Lore, it does not give you mostly wasted duplicates.
So Lore Blue, Valor Purple.


Great guide otherwise.

in melee, trip does more damage if it works because you get advantage on every attack, which is better than a 1d8 or even 1d12 on a single attack.

[Mervold]

in melee, trip does more damage if it works because you get advantage on every attack, which is better than a 1d8 or even 1d12 on a single attack.

In a vacuum or a one-man-party, yes.
In any decent group your party members provide you advantage, so everything that gives you a bonus that is not advantage, is very valuable. This is why Bless is great, just like Sacred Weapon.

At least in 3 of the 4 games I play in Advantage is near constant, so I consider it baseline. In the fourth game everyone except me is a newbie, but they will learn

[PoeticDwarf]

The 2d6 sneak attack would be nice. Assassinate, not so much. Mainly because my luck rolling initiative is horrid. Seriously, I don't think I've ever rolled higher than a 5 on initiative, on any character. haha.

I'll probably pick up the level anyway. That's a good point. Thanks!

If there's nothing wrong with the die you will probably roll your next initiative roll higher than 5. So assassinate is as good for you.

[Oramac]

in melee, trip does more damage if it works because you get advantage on every attack, which is better than a 1d8 or even 1d12 on a single attack.

It's really a question of consistency. Advantage is mathematically equal to about +5 to your roll. 1d8 averages to 4.5, and 1d12 averages to 6.5.

So 1d12 averages better than advantage, but is less consistent, as you could get several rolls less than 5, which would be worse than having advantage against a prone enemy.

Ideally, you would use Precision Attack on the shove roll (since it is still considered an attack), to knock the enemy prone, then use advantage on the subsequent attacks when the enemy is already prone.

[SharkForce]

In a vacuum or a one-man-party, yes.
In any decent group your party members provide you advantage, so everything that gives you a bonus that is not advantage, is very valuable. This is why Bless is great, just like Sacred Weapon.

At least in 3 of the 4 games I play in Advantage is near constant, so I consider it baseline. In the fourth game everyone except me is a newbie, but they will learn

well, if you consider it the part of everyone else to give you advantage on checks but don't consider it your own part to give them advantage, there's something wrong. tripping an enemy gets more valuable with more party members generally speaking (since that means more people who can enjoy an enemy that can't reach them due to reduced movement, and more people to enjoy advantage to hit).

It's really a question of consistency. Advantage is mathematically equal to about +5 to your roll. 1d8 averages to 4.5, and 1d12 averages to 6.5.

So 1d12 averages better than advantage, but is less consistent, as you could get several rolls less than 5, which would be worse than having advantage against a prone enemy.

Ideally, you would use Precision Attack on the shove roll (since it is still considered an attack), to knock the enemy prone, then use advantage on the subsequent attacks when the enemy is already prone.

shoving may or may not be an attack (that isn't clear - it is definitely an action you can take in place of a melee attack, in any event), but it isn't a weapon attack roll. it is an ability check, which is something completely different.

[Oramac]

shoving may or may not be an attack (that isn't clear - it is definitely an action you can take in place of a melee attack, in any event), but it isn't a weapon attack roll. it is an ability check, which is something completely different.

It's an attack. Per RAW, straight out of the PHB (my emphasis added):

Shoving a Creature
Using the Attack action, you can make a special melee attack to shove a creature, either to knock it prone or push it away from you. If you’re able to make multiple attacks with the Attack action, this attack replaces one of them.

[Mervold]

well, if you consider it the part of everyone else to give you advantage on checks but don't consider it your own part to give them advantage, there's something wrong.
tripping an enemy gets more valuable with more party members generally speaking (since that means more people who can enjoy an enemy that can't reach them due to reduced movement, and more people to enjoy advantage to hit).

You are either the Striker, or the Defender, meaning it is not your job. So yes, if the Bard/Sorcerer/Cleric/Wizard is not giving you advantage something is indeed wrong, and it is them.
Unless you use S&B, and have Shield Master. Than it is your job to prone, but in this case you need Trip Attack even less.
Also do not forget that proning hurts the Archer/Warlock, so it is better if others provide other kind of Advantage.

I am not saying Trip Attack is bad, but unless your party is completely messed up, Precision Strike is better.

[Giant2005]

This is a pretty good guide - it is rare to read a guide which I agree with on so many levels. There are a couple of things that I believe you have undervalued though.

First up is Survivor. That should absolutely be light blue - if it didn't come so late in the game it would easily be the best ability among all of the classes, not just the Fighter. Considering this guide doesn't seem to be detracting from abilities on the basis of them coming in late, it shouldn't be valued less than it deserves independent of level.
A Defensive (SnB Defense Fighting Style) Fighter with that ability can wade into a literal army of low level mobs without ever facing danger due to his regen surpassing the average incoming damage. People talk about the level 20 Moon Druid's immortality but even the Druid would be destroyed in only a round or two under those conditions.
Even without cheesing or facing unusual circumstances the ability is pretty amazing. It means that you will be starting every encounter with at least half hit points. After a marathon of a day where the final encounter is balanced around the players being on their last legs, the fact that the Champion isn't in the expected weakened state turns what is designed to be an otherwise challenging experience into something relatively trivial.

The other undervalued aspect is Shield Master. Shield Master's bonus action shove increases a SnB Fighter's average DPR by a far larger percentile than any of the other feats do for whatever type of Fighter is picking them up. Not only that, but it increases the rest of the party's damage by an equal ratio, as well as offers defensive benefits.
A feat that offers defensive benefits as well as offensive benefits that are far in excess of any other feat cannot be considered less than a feat that offers nothing but offensive benefits that pale in comparison to those offered by said feat.

[EvilAnagram]

It uses your only reaction for something totally unremarkable. This should be Red if you have Sentinel, and Black otherwise.

You're confusing Defense with Protection. Defense is a static bonus to your AC.

You add this to Initiative, making this Blue in my opinion.

Fair.

I would argue that Precision Attack is at least Sky Blue, as it is the most damaging maneuver in the game. A Trip Attack would give you 1d8 at the beginning, and 1d12 at the end, but Precision Attack gives you at least 1d6+3, and possibly 2d6+5+10 (Str 20, Greatsword with GWM). For Sharpshooters and GWM users it is beyond that, same for Sentinels, but unfortunately you do not use gold coloring.

Trip Attack adds damage on top of giving you and your melee allies all advantage on hitting it until its turn. It's essentially a +5 to everyone's attack, on top of dealing bonus damage. Precision Attack makes a single attack more likely to hit. It's helpful, but it's not as exploitable as Trip.

A Valor Bard would gain nothing from the Martial Weapons and Medium Armor proficiency, nor the Extra Attack. Battle Magic is the first useful feature, and it is really far away. In my opinion if you multiclass to Bard, you should go Lore, it does not give you mostly wasted duplicates.
So Lore Blue, Valor Purple.

Also fair.

[georgie_leech]

It uses your only reaction for something totally unremarkable. This should be Red if you have Sentinel, and Black otherwise.

Staying away from the other stuff because it's largely opinion, but you're incorrect here. Defensive Fighting Style just adds 1 to your AC when wearing armor passively. You might be thinking of Protection.

EDIT: Ninja'd. Posting from mobile takes a while.

[EvilAnagram]

snip

I think you are totally correct of Shield Master, but I don't think Survivor provides enough healing to be sky-blue.

[Addaran]

You are either the Striker, or the Defender, meaning it is not your job. So yes, if the Bard/Sorcerer/Cleric/Wizard is not giving you advantage something is indeed wrong, and it is them.
Unless you use S&B, and have Shield Master. Than it is your job to prone, but in this case you need Trip Attack even less.
Also do not forget that proning hurts the Archer/Warlock, so it is better if others provide other kind of Advantage.

I am not saying Trip Attack is bad, but unless your party is completely messed up, Precision Strike is better.

Seems you suffer from the MMO holy trinity mentality, (DPS-Tank-healer) where everyone need a specific defined role and you fight stupid enemies. That's not the case for D&D.

A fighter that expect another player to give him advantage to be effective is a weak dependant fighter IMO.

The other characters have better things to do then just help and the other ways to give advantage aren't 100% reliable. The caster might need his concentration for something better or lose it cause of attacks. He might be saving his spells for massive aoe. This also doesn't take into account that the characters might be separated, some might be unconscious/disabled or that there is a lot of enemies and each have to fend for themselves.

If you're in a melee heavy team, you tripping means everyone have advantage. (they can even use GWM too)
If you're in a ranged heavy team, everyone is safe from that enemy.

[Giant2005]

I think you are totally correct of Shield Master, but I don't think Survivor provides enough healing to be sky-blue.

The amount of healing it offers is irrelevant when considering the advantage of beginning each battle with at least half health regardless of what came before it, so I assume your objection is regarding not its post-battle benefits but those bestowed during battle.
These numbers might help put it in perspective.
Combined with Heavy Armor Master, Plate Armor, Defense Fighting Style, and a Shield, those 10 points of regeneration are enough for a Champion to wade into 235 Zombies and not suffer enough damage to outlast that regen. That is insane.
If you want something more level appropriate, the Champion can face 2 Ice Devils (CR 14) simultaneously and only suffer an average of 2.595 damage per round beyond what his healing recovers.

10 hit points per round might not sound like much, but when you magnify their value by combining them with an array of other defenses, they quickly amount to something game-breakingly powerful.

[EvilAnagram]

The amount of healing it offers is irrelevant when considering the advantage of beginning each battle with at least half health regardless of what came before it, so I assume your objection is regarding not its post-battle benefits but those bestowed during battle.
These numbers might help put it in perspective.
Combined with Heavy Armor Master, Plate Armor, Defense Fighting Style, and a Shield, those 10 points of regeneration are enough for a Champion to wade into 235 Zombies and not suffer enough damage to outlast that regen. That is insane.
If you want something more level appropriate, the Champion can face 2 Ice Devils (CR 14) simultaneously and only suffer an average of 2.595 damage per round beyond what his healing recovers.

10 hit points per round might not sound like much, but when you magnify their value by combining them with an array of other defenses, they quickly amount to something game-breakingly powerful.

You're not wrong on any of that, but I still don't think that Survivor should be sky-blue. I tend to be very sparing with sky-blue ratings, and I think to receive one a feature should meet one of these criteria:

• It does something better than anything comparable to it. For example, Fighters have more Extra Attacks than anyone else. Survivor is very nice, but it's not the very best defensive buff you can get.
• It opens up further powerful options. For example, War Magic allows numerous powerful combinations, and Tripping Attack allows for both offensive and defensive strategies for the whole party. Survivor does not increase the options available to you.
• It provides so many benefits for its cost that it cannot receive any other rating. Tasha’s Hideous Laughter is a good example of this: for a single first level spell slot you provide advantage to melee attackers, cause action denial, and prevent opportunity attacks. Survivor has the one benefit.

Again, Survivor or is awesome. In fact, I'd like to post that unkillable build in the last section with due credit to you if that's alright.

Still, as powerful as it is, I don't know that it's sky-blue.

[Citan]

In a vacuum or a one-man-party, yes.
In any decent group your party members provide you advantage, so everything that gives you a bonus that is not advantage, is very valuable. This is why Bless is great, just like Sacred Weapon.

At least in 3 of the 4 games I play in Advantage is near constant, so I consider it baseline. In the fourth game everyone except me is a newbie, but they will learn

You are either the Striker, or the Defender, meaning it is not your job. So yes, if the Bard/Sorcerer/Cleric/Wizard is not giving you advantage something is indeed wrong, and it is them.
Unless you use S&B, and have Shield Master. Than it is your job to prone, but in this case you need Trip Attack even less.
Also do not forget that proning hurts the Archer/Warlock, so it is better if others provide other kind of Advantage.

I am not saying Trip Attack is bad, but unless your party is completely messed up, Precision Strike is better.

It's very funny how you point a point in a total vacuum and then critics other for supposedly doing the same.

Never seen someone as "arrogant" when playing a Fighter in a party.
First off, you generalize from your party, but not every party has the required resources to focus on providing THE Fighter consistant advantage.
Second, it so happens that **** happens, so the Cleric/Paladin/whatever may very well have much better to do with their concentration than keep a Bless or similar.
Finally, in a melee-heavy party, Trip attack WILL be better than Precision, precisely because it makes you enable advantage for every pal for at least a turn without requiring a more precious (long-rest) resource from a caster (related to previous point).

So... You just cannot plainly say "one is overall better than the other" because it depends far too much on party composition and roles.