Fighters in 5e DnD and One D&D | Web DM | TTRPG

Today we're talking about the state of the fighter character class in 5e in 2022, and what you can expect for fighters in One D&D!
GET MORE WEB DM! Help us make the show! Check out our Patreon- weekly podcast, show audio, discounts, discord, and MORE - patreon.com/webdm
Thanks for watching! Don't forget to subscribe, comment & share. New episodes every Wednesday.
#dnd #ttrpg #dnd5e
Check us out on Facebook - bit.ly/2oGKLOg
Twitter - / webdmshow
Instagram - web_dm
Want more? Check out:
Our Player Race playlist: • Bird People! Aarakocra...
Our DM Inspiration List: • Cosmic Conflicts: Worl...
MONSTERS! • Vampires, Ravenloft an...
Our PC Class Playlist: • Warlocks: Classes in 5...
Written & Hosted by Jim Davis
Web DM was created by Jonathan Pruitt, Jim Davis, and Travis Boles
Complete 5e Classes Playlist: bit.ly/2oGuhG1
New to 5th Edition D&D? Check out this playlist - bit.ly/2pbZN1K
Castle by Dwarven Forge bit.ly/2MwH0Ld
Music by John Branch -branchoutguita...
Web DM Theme by
Kyle Newmaster - kylenewmaster.com
Motion Graphics & Logo Design by
Ryan Wieber - ryan-w.com
5e Dungeons & Dragons is here to stay, and Web DM is here to help!!! Jim Davis & Jonathan Pruitt have been playing Dungeons & Dragons for a combined 30+ years, and on Web DM they demystify, dethrone, and defrock this Dungeon we call Dragons! Subscribe to our channel for weekly videos on 5e Classes, Monsters, DM Tips, and more! Join Pruitt & Jim as we kick down the door and talk some serious Dungeons & Dragons!

[@colbybastian17]

An interesting way to make the Fighter feel truly a master of combat would be in my opinion to allow them to change their fighting style on short rest. They can adapt to whatever situation the party has found themselves in.

[@ericpeterson8732]

As a fighter, I like to think my character is there for when the magic or tricks go wrong. When the rogue tries to bluff his way past some guards or pick a pocket or the wizard casts a spell, my fighter is there to get the party out if things go south.

[@MicaiahBaron]

A classic for espionage or infiltration movies/heist films that aren't totally gunfight focused; you have the mixed party with many tricks, and one of those is the gun with physical combat training who doesn't do much until you need to take out a guard or fight your way out of a group.

[@macewindude7803]

@@MicaiahBaron I don't exactly want to play a fighter just to be the group henchman. If the fighter is relegated to that role as a passive observer to RP encounters which is basically 50% of dnd, then the fighter isn't engaging with 50% of the game. That may work for films, but in a group setting where everyone most likely wants active and equal participation, that'll get boring real fast. Even if the situation does go south, what's ironic is both the rogue and the wizard have plenty of ways to get themselves out of trouble, through spells and class features, whereas a fighter would be far more limited.

[@hideshiseyes2804]

I’ve had this come up in the Pathfinder 2 game I’m currently playing in. The GM keeps running skill challenges for non-combat scenarios where there’s no obvious way for my character to contribute. I keep saying I don’t mind not actively doing anything because the way I see it I’m contributing by just being there in case it kicks off. I don’t like skill challenges.

[@schemage2210]

@@macewindude7803 Well it is the same as, Clerics aren't just healbots and can contribute way more to the group than just healing magic. Healing magic is there when needed but the Cleric has other abilities that can be used. The fighter isn't just a henchman, as you can take whatever skills you like (as you gain access to through your background etc) not to mention personality traits and roleplay that without limits. A fighter I am currently playing is a half-orc rune knight who dual weilds battle axes because its cool, almost as bog standard as you get. But the amount of times I have gotten into trouble through RP because of his boisterous and overly friendly demeanour is amazing. All that said though, when combat starts and my party finds itself in melee with the enemies, that's where my fighter really shines whereas the archer and spellcasters struggle.

[@macewindude7803]

​@@schemage2210 I appreciate the response, but I wanted to point out in your comparison between Clerics and Fighters that there is a substantial difference in what roles a Cleric or Fighter can affect in social and combat encounters in two ways: 1) Clerics are full casters, who can absolutely dominate the battlefield and shape encounters in ways a Fighter could never accomplish. Upcast Spirit Guardians, Hold Person, as well as domain specific spells come to mind. The full suite of features, spells and abilities that Clerics can attain at relatively early levels allows players to embrace any roleplaying fantasy they wish, and still have the ability to be mechanically effective. 2) Clerics invest in WIS as one of their primary attributes, which feeds into two skills, perception and insight, with perception arguably the most important skill in the game. I would argue that Fighters don't have the same mechanical freedom to be both effective in combat and social encounters without creating a MAD character or taking a few non-combat oriented feats, which both inevitably come at the detriment of your character's combat effectiveness and contribution in a dungeon clearing game. You can be the best role player in the world, but when it comes time to roll a d20 for that social skill check as a Fighter, your modifier of -1 through +2, depending on investment, is going to most likely fail. In regards to the second portion of your response, I agree that role-play has no limits. Players are free to role-play their characters to be anything they want. What I meant is that fighters with the ability score investment in STR, DEX, and CON, are most likely not going to be able to contribute to social encounters due to low modifiers to important skills like investigation, persuasion, intimidation, or insight. Fighters are still free to take initiative and roll for those skill checks in a social encounter, but on average will be rolling far lower and more unsuccessfully than other members of the party besides Barbarians. I actually like that you brought up your Rune Knight character, as Rune Knight is probably my favorite Fighter subclass because it solves several issues Fighters have when not engaging in combat. Gaining advantage on certain skills based on what Runes you have selected is awesome, and allows Fighters more confidence in engaging with social encounters than they otherwise wouldn't, and the degree of customization in swapping out runes to shape your character for different situations in combat and socially are things I think a lot more Fighter subclasses should have. I don't think the answer to having a better experience as a Fighter is to work on having a greater imagination, I think the the answer to having a better fighter is to have more features/abilities that allow for more of an equivalence in social encounters between Fighters and other classes in a group than what we currently have. I'm glad you're having fun and feel like a valued member of the party, props to you and your DM.

[@tylerkarnes2947]

I kinda miss the edited format.

[@elifaletgutierrez9141]

Am i crazy for finding the defense "be creative" for a class seems kinda useless given that it's a criticism of play style in response to a class design criticism? I don't know, it feels like a non answer at worst and misguided at best. Not making a judgement about whether i think fighter is good or bad, just making the point that, "people with mechanical criticisms should be more creative" is side stepping the argument in my opinion. It's like if someone said, "this car is designed poorly relative to the other cars on the market" and the response is, "maybe you should be a better driver so you don't notice"

[@Lucidius134]

I took it more as not all classes are good at the core physical abilities and you can leverage this with your physical saves and you can physically influence the world. I agree with you and in that context its advice that applies to rogue and or barbs a bit but fighter can get more stats AMD or feats to be more versatile

[@Dack.howaboutyou]

This is a fair point about the "be more creative/innovative" or "be more flexible with the rules" type answers to how to fix things; I agree with you Eli, BUT i would like to add that according to what i understand about modern neuroscience, psychology and personality research, those types of ideas/conversations just reinforce the importance of stuff like session zero, surveys, and just general good communication among the group members BEFORE a bunch of time is invested in a new game. _Below here, I'm going to write more details that i tried to be brief with, and I understand some will probably not read it, but... my first paragraph covers the basics I think, and _ _ TLDR;* J.B.P.'s talk Exploring the Psychology of Creativity with the CEO/director of the National Gallery of Canada, on stage on that location in March, 2017 (link follows this line) kzbin.info/www/bejne/gamqgZhnn6lgp7s *So... there are probably a lot fewer creative people in the world than otherwise (and I mean it could be as much as a 90/10 percent split, or more), so, since I don't want to have to write a thesis paper here and now on something closely related to a great many, uh, "potentially touchy subjects", I'll just say; this relates to how we play D&D in the very important, clear way, of figuring out what you and your fellow group players are there for; what is most fun for them. Why do they keep coming back each session? Almost every person i've ever seen who ever talked about how best to play TTRPGs, at some time or other, talks about doing your best (as a GM/DM or anyone with a habit of being the sort of 'game starter' or 'game organizer-type') to make sure everyone has reasonably accurate expectations of what they will get out of their time spent playing in a particular session/campaign. However you do it; a session zero or 2, surveyes, individual interviews, group interviews, using a specific system and/or setting... it almost doesn't matter how... but minimizing misunderstandings, disappointment/letdown from finding out your expectations were wrong [for wHATEVER reason], BEFORE it becomes a problem, or BEFORE you sink a lot of time/effort into something. _ _ _As far as having false expectations, I've found that regret(s) are one of the worst things in life. The older i get the more it seems to true (I'm over 40 now, pc-gaming for over 25 yrs+. Before that it was LEGOs, playing make-believe Star Wars or, something outside (30/70... mostly outside), like trying to catch a glimpse of every elusive animal in the woods, playing at medieval combat (likely-Tolkien-inspired), playing sneaky-commando/hide&seek, fort/castle building, prepping for "just in case of "blank" by making/digging a bunker/hideout (usually it was just a shallow hole before we would put that project on hold); playing house, climbing trees just to see things differently, or get closer to some animal or other, playing "modern" war (pine cone grenades and stick-guns of course), or building a spaceship out of random bits of junk we would collect in a pile somewhere hidden (but never actually get around to figuring out how to make it into a spaceship... since we were like 7 yr old boys or something). _ _ _ _Why is this relevant? It may be surprising to many of you, but, as far as i can tell, a lot of people didn't do stuff like that. A lot of people actually seem to prefer to just be told 'how things are', 'what to do', 'how to do it', and 'follow/"color within the lines"... and there is nothing wrong with that. it doesn't make them dumb, or less valuable as a person, they are just different from that "weird kid with his crazy ideas" [or something similar] most of us creative-types have probably, at least a few times in our lives, have been labeled. Actually the less creative types tend to be far better at being reliable and running things once they are built/invented! While the creative inventor is also critical for starting it all, they also tend to be uninterested in limitations, and thus a bit unreliable (often mistaken for laziness, which is something else entirely). _ _ _ _ _This could easily go into the wild/dangerous realm of socio-political/philosophical differences between Left/Right, Lib/Conserv, but it doesn't have to go further than this; both types of peoples are needed. Both types are valid, useful and valuable. We need both types of people to do what humans do better than just about any other life forms we know of which is cooperate; "making the whole greater than the sum of its parts". _ i got most of the above from sources like (just to name a few) HTBAGGM(Guy S.), Taking20(Cody),WebDM(duh),Monte Cook Games, Jorphan(the ph is silent), Will(the D&D sex icon), Dan Dillon, Nerdarchy, and Jordan B. Peterson... just to name a few influences besides various other media, fictional or otherwise. "Credit where credit is due- I learned this stuff from them, or i observed it over my lifetime; i didn't make it up. I also read a lot of sci-fi/fantasy and history too, but that's a story for another time/place I think. Ty for reading.

[@NeflewitzInc]

I see it more like, "We designed this class to be open to creative play and kept its base kit simple to keep it from getting in the way."

[@mechaulfr9600]

This is super cool and timely because after a decade and a half (almost) of playing TTRPG's, I am about a week away from playing my first Fighter. My thoughts... after spending like a month and a half working on this character- A fighter is like no other class in the game, in that it is not self defining. Wizard, Cleric, and Rogue can get close but more then any of them A Fighter is a class that can be, anything. Fighters range from Paleolithic hunters, to Mythical heroes, to Navy Seals. Any warrior can be a fighter. You can be trained however you like, you can come from any level of society, you can come from any culture you like. Some Subclasses do limit this.... but you can absolutely play a Runeknight who writes in Kanji and reminisces about Honor and duty. Speaking of many sub classes could have been classes unto themselves for Fighter. The other martial classes are alternatives to Fighter. A Wizard is not an alternative to a bard or Sorcerer (Though Sorcerer started as an alternative to Wizard its conceptual space quickly became its own.). Almost all Martial concepts.... work as Fighters. You could play King Arthur as a Fighter... OR a Paladin. But Fighter also catches the characters that dont fit into these alternatives. Bronn of the Blackwater.... absolutely nothing in common with Barbarians, Paladins, Rangers, or Monks. Mechanichally I think you just have to build your fighter to be what you want it to. Want them to be social, grab backgrounds and feats that help that. Want them to be wise, same thing. Want them to be a wilderness person, go team Outlander, want them to be smart and magicy, go team. And if thats not quite working for you as an MC fighter synergizes with pretty much everything. A Fighter, is freedom.

[@macewindude7803]

Freedom for RP is great, all the above examples of re-flavoring aspects of fighter makes fighter one of the most fun classes to immerse yourself in with any table top session. Mechanically I'd personally like more abilities in and out of combat to supplement the bare bones base chassis. The extra ASIs/feats fighters get are nice, but honestly they feel the same as adding a flame decal to my Nissan 240SX with the expectation it'll go faster. It looks badass, and sure it's customizable, but will it have any significant effect mechanically? Especially as a campaign progresses? In my experience, no. You can build your fighter to be more than an extra attack single-target damage machine, but you'll quickly be out-scaled by fellow party-members who have a more comprehensive suite of abilities, features, and perhaps spells who excel at social and combat encounters far more than your fighter. For some players that's fine, and more power to them. As for me? I'd like to see fighters get a revamp so their mechanical effectiveness matches my heroic interpretation of the fighter archetype I've developed.

[@andrewduitsman3918]

I think what you hit on about reactions is what I want to see in a fighter. You talked about a floating +1 to attack or AC, I would rather give the fighter a handful of decent reactions that are situational(Like a superiority dice maneuver but only if X happens) and then a reaction to give yourself or an ally with 10' a +2 to hit or AC. Make it a choice that feels like they are reading the battlefield and responding in a way to put themselves and allies in the best situation to win.

[@ANDELE3025]

Not just reactions, just make the maneuvers a base thing, with maneuver "levels" following half caster style progression that they have access to but without 90%+ of them being just damage buffs. 2-5 d4s, they regain a die on a natural 1 (need to rethink their strategy), when they crit (boost to morale), as a bonus action that expends 1 hit die and regain all dice whenever they second wind (or instead of all of those simply fully recharge every 1d4 rounds). Battlemaster would then keep the the maneuver die progression, enemy stat check and getting the wizard school style "learning a new maneuver takes half the time and gold/you can do it without checks if you are learning one based off a maneuver you saw being used/was used against you" and later "never runs out of them/always can use D4 and can use multiple at once" deal. However, it should be a choice (much light fighting styles) where its either you pick maneuvers or you pick something like the UA brute flat bonus.

[@jmartin4396]

I'd like to see something that would allow the fighter to increase their Proficiency in weapons. Somethin along the lines of Expertise but just for weapons. This could be in the form of a Feat for Fighters.

[@joshgooding3273]

YES I've said exactly this same thing and gotten a lot of backlash

[@Dack.howaboutyou]

I've always thought more character customization in D&D could be as simple as just giving players MORE feats! Maybe adjust them a little so that they can't just take ALL the most super broken combo feats at once or something, but... feats are mechanically pretty great imho. Also, TLDR; Kobold Press 5e book/supp.; "Beyond Damage Dice" As far as other ideas for making weapon-use more interesting: "Beyond Damage Dice" has a smattering of neat abilities anyone wielding many of the common weapons in medieval-like settings can do. Maneuver-like stuff- for example(s) anyone wielding a polearm can attempt a trip attack or a disarm attack. If you have a longsword/rapier you can use a reaction upon being attacked to roll your own attack roll and if yours is higher you "lock blades" and they miss you. Short draw for things like shortswords/scimitars allow you to pommel-strike as part of an attack, drawing the weapon, and if hitting, it does no damage but gives the next attack against the target advantage. Bleeding attacks, pins, knock-backs/downs, armor destruction (optional axe target instead of straight target dmg, lower their AC till it can be fixed etc), Charges, vaulting (long jumps) using your staff, and multi-oppononent-type cleave attacks with stuff like Greatswords ... it's a fantastic idea to make even-non fighters more interesting than just "I attack with my blah, hit/miss, roll damage, next turn (sit and wait forever)

[@MonarchsFactory]

YES. If the rogue rarely has to worry about failing to sneak, fighters should rarely have to worry about missing in combat. This is what they're good at.

[@GodLikeDevil]

Pathfinder 2E already does this because the Fighter there is the only one who can get legendary proficiency (essentially +8) for almost all weapons, which coupled with how crits work in PF2E, cement its identity as THE FIGHTING class that crits a lot and brings the damage.

[@meikahidenori]

If they made weapons and gear matter in the game more fighters could take a ton of advantages of being able to upgrade and customise their own gear

[@lexmtaylor]

Agree the Battle Master size up ability makes for a good class ability.

[@RobbieZ84]

How useful a fighter's utility is is very DM dependent, and that can be very frustrating. Especially early levels. If a DM tends to allow less short rests in their games, you have a lot less superiority dice. Did you just disarm that dude? Some DMs will just make the weapon drop at its feet, you weren't able to push it, so it just literally picked it up on its turn as a free action. Did you pick defensive stance? I feel like mastering a specific weapon sounds great on paper, till you find a magically different type of weapon, then you are sad. But your team's casters pick their favorite spells, your rogue has their expertise, you have less int and dex then them, so you are sort of a meh back up in most cases if your DM wants to "play RAW" and is not willing to let you be very out of the box. In combat, fighters start with very little depth to them. They eventually get tankier and you can choose a more complicated subclass, but even then the battle master can be pretty good... but like I said above, that really depends on how often you get short rests. Upping their damage does not solve this for me. The fighting styles need to be a bit better, they are too shallow. I would be very happy if fighters were able to do some more with their bonus action. Let the fighter trip someone as a bonus action. No superiority dice, no resource management, just once per turn you can do something like this. I think fighters could also have a niche around battle field control, some extra opportunity attacks would be cool maybe (perhaps as many as you have proficiency bonus?).

[@DisgruntledPeasant]

I like your bonus action idea and it's close to a homebrew rule I made when running a solo game. Solo combat can be pretty dry, just trading damage, so I let my player have a second action per turn that can't be used for damage. It made for a lot of creative stuff as every turn had shoving, grappling, tripping and all sorts of nonesense. It made the fights seem way more brawly and dynamic. Giving this to fighters would be fantastic, though the range of actions may need to be drawn in a little.

[@Dr.Thatcher]

Take shield master bonus shove every turn. Plus better dex saves.

[@RobbieZ84]

@@Dr.Thatcher I think stuff like shield push is fun, but at the cost of a feat is steep. There is a reason all the guides suggest pole arm master and sentinel for melee fighters. They are powerful and fun to play with.

[@csb8336]

perhaps it's because of the era of DND I grew up in, but I always imagined that an ideal fighter would have the martial prowess of Sturm Brightblade and the political/ warrior poet nature of Tannis the hald-blood. it seems to me a dedicated fighter should be able to affect the world in armed conflict, but also in the arena of strategy and politics. (as a battle master especially) I give my fully martial characters advantage on initiative if they have taken down time to: read history, meditate, or actively engage in rp....its like a spidey sense that all highly trained combat vets I've ever heard of seemed to have. its not magic...but to pretend its not part of the weave is to be 'third eye blind' (I do apologise for the allusion:( )

[@jameswhite8840]

Happy birthday man! Fighters are my absolute favorite class in dnd. Especially, battle master. The key for me playing a fighter is just being very descriptive on your attacks and defense.

[@badmojo0777]

we need more player slike you. cant seme to find a campaign where eveyrone isnt playng a Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard or Magicla subclass... if eveyrone has magic, then its not magic, its jsut naothe resource and its BORING AF.

[@johnmorris8621]

I think Second Wind should be changed to 3d4 + Level just to raise the floor. I would probably add a leveling to it for the Champion, (+d4, additional use, etc).

[@RobKinneySouthpaw]

Maybe change it so you get that d10+level, but make it d10+con+level. If you haven't short rested, allow you to spend a hit die to power it.

[@schemage2210]

@@RobKinneySouthpaw The better solution would be to change it so that say at 5th level you roll 2d10+level, at 11th level you get 3d10+level. Scaling similar to cantrips would keep this ability relevant. Because lets face it, even just a 3rd level fireball will completely blow away, the HP gained by a 20th level fighter using second wind.

[@Helmic]

​@@schemage2210 Yeah I feel like Second Wind should generally heal half-ish of your HP, from 1-20. It's definitely a source of power that consumes some of hte power budget, but it's also a character that is generally going to get hit and at least making it not consume other party member's resources helps to mitigate how annoying supporting a Fighter can be.

[@submortimer]

For that "non-fighter class that acts like a fighter", look at the Warmage by Mage Hand Press. Kinda treats cantrips like Weapons.

[@meikahidenori]

My Artillerist artificer tends to roll as a physical close range fighter over a long ranged attacker from time to time. Alot of spells that require touch let's you physically get in creature's faces with modified gauntlets ect to deal elemental magic damage. Honestly I'd LOVE to see a fighter subclass take that idea and run with it, a gauntlet close range specialist.

[@GodLikeDevil]

Take a page from Pathfinder 2E and make the fighter the dude that hits the most and crits often with their legendary proficiency in attack rolls.

[@chrismeyer1856]

I miss the pre-covid audio/video quality. The content is still good but it's really just a podcast at this point with middling audio quality.

[@kaemonbonet4931]

I'm happy with the solution to give martials more drastic superpowers I'm happy with the solution to give fighters your "totally not superiority die" I'm happy with your aura stuff or giving fighters extra reactions or all of the above. I have used marking and it's great. I think we have to, at some point, admit that casters probably shouldn't be doing the things they're doing. Maybe we just ban simulacrum, and force cage, and conjure animals because they're not fun to play with. As someone whose abused all those spells, it's probably gonna make encounters at high levels more fun.

[@dungeonmaster6292]

The magic doesn't feel magical anymore

[@Neverfate]

Happy (day before your) birthday, Jim! My take with 5E fighter is they're just the most reliable class and the "ease of use" class. Damage output and defenses are great and they aren't too punished for putting points in Int/Wis/Cha (they get the extra ASI/feat slot). I like that they can have extremely varied subclasses too. I'm looking forward to the rogue discussion next week. The rogue (or thief originally) has always been my favorite class. When I was a kid I always wanted to be one of the thieves stealing the gem eyes on the eidolon statue on the AD&D PHB cover! haha

[@Helmic]

I'm not quite getting the "versatility" thing here. Sure, they don't really have any particular benefits from skills that become auto-investmetns, but they get less proficiencies than other classes and don't exactly have a means of moving those around. You could *build* a perceptive fighter or you could *build* a charismatic fighter or you could *build* an intelligent fighter, but they're getting like a 14 tops in those attributes and proficiency in a skill and that's more or less it, it doesn't flex around and you aren't actually flexible in play, you just have a very narrow range of things that you can be the "supporting cast" in. If you have the foresight to dump your stuff into something hte party lacks, you're still going to be pretty meh in it when it's your time to shine, while as mentioned earlier in the video the Fighter can't just claim "fighting" as its own spotlight time when _everyone_ needs to be good at fighting in modern D&D. That's really where I think my view on the Fighter differs from the video. The comparison to other party members is important, because other _classes_ also being able to do exactly what I do, just as well, is very different than other _people_ sharing the spotlight with me. I don't really choose who's in my party with that much granularity, nobody tells their friend they can't play because they might be more clever than them during roleplaying, what I choose is what class to play. I want the archetype of a Fighter, the moldable John Wick with a sword, I want the fantasy, but mechanically I'm very painfully aware I'm not really going to be contributing all that much, and so choosing to play the fantasy I want is at odds with my desire to be effective as part of the power fantasy, to be _useful_ to my party in ways that are unique to me. I would agree that the idea of having a class that maybe isn't the best at anything out of combat but that can always act in a supporting role is really good and doesn't really require anything like magic... but that role's kinda taken by Rogues. Rogues are skill monkeys, to a lesser extent rangers are skill monkeys, and really the only way I can see Fighters filling that fantasy of being the second or third best person in the party for lots of things is for it to as well be a skill monkey - but because "big dumb fighter" is a very strong stereotype, both Pathfinder and D&D make sure it always gets the least skills of any classes. It's only versatile in the same sense the PHB is versatile - sure you have lots of options, but once you pick a class you're stuck with it unless hte DM is somehow OK with you swapping those around all the time. This problem of not actually being good at being "normal" or "baseline" isn't just limited to skills though. The Fighter gets additional ASI's in 5e... which because there's a relatively reasonable cap of 20 for attributes and dramatically diminishing returns if your'e spending ASI's increasing anything other than an attack or defense attributes, means you're very much limited by what feats are avaialble in the game and how good they are. Like in 3.5, a lot of the flexibility comes from feats enabling particular playstyles, but the Fighter doesn't actually get that many more feats, feats are obstensibly an optional rule (I wouldn't even consider a Fighter without feats, once my attack attribute is at 20 that's most of what I needed there) and if we're talking in charop terms because those feats compete with that early rush to 20 in your attack stat it means your fighter is going to remain pretty boring. Pathfinder 2e Fighters by contrast are a blast. They dont' solve all the problems, they're still the least interesting outside of combat of all the classes, but because skill feats are given quite generously you can *actually* develop your out of combat niche in a way that feels special. In combat, they're All Battlemasters, All The Time and it's fantastic, permitting your fighter to not only do damage but to do some control and other tactically relevant things that make it feel rewarding to play, and its emphasis on _action_ (almost all its feats are actions of some sort, it gets virtually no passives) it can feel almost Devil May Cry-ish where you're expanding your toolkit in a way that feels expressive, and because multiclassing and archetypes are just so easy to add into most builds you can really add a flair of some kind from another source to truly make the act of fighting feel unique. Weapon choice matters more, positioning has a lot more moment-to-moment impact as you try to make sure the enemy can't unload all three of their own actions in your face, and while it's not as frequent as other PF2 classes you are frequently finding yourself in situations where doing something other than sword to the face makes sense, wehther it be simple repositioning or genuinely interacting with the environment (though because the Fighter is the critmaster party combats tend to have other party members sacrifice their low accuracy attacks for support actions to make it so the Fighter can land a crit and do an extra nasty effect as well). It's this rewarding thrill that is still completely mundane. That's not to say 5e Fighters are necessarily weak in combat. If anything, I think they're far too strong, at least at low levels where hte vast majority of games are played. They do obnoxious amounts of damage and they are really sturdy and the Wizard has like 2 spells they're allowed to cast for the entire fucking day. That's like a constant in eveyr game I play, the casters are super fucking annoyed that they can barely do shit while hte Fighter is just shitting on everything, and then later on the Fighter feels like shit because the party is now doing all this cool shit and they're kinda spinning their wheels. Which is another thing PF2 just does way better, class progression's way better paced and low level casters are allowed to actually cast spells during combat (thanks to focus spells basically being "per encounter" spells) and have a reasonable amount of HP. I don't think moralizing frustrations with the Fighter as being a bad friend because you're envious of everyone else at hte table is a particularly helpful framing of the issue. 5e Fighters don't need to be PF2 Fighters, 5e doesn't need to be PF2, but if 5e is going to be the more simple and approachable 3.5-derived fantasy RPG then I think it still needs to be allowed to be _good*\_ at mundane shit in ways that no other class can be good. None of this "well other classes have all this important things to do, and so not having important things to do is its own strength innit" stuff, but just genuinely being better equipped with superior access to feats that matter from level 1-20 or having more skills than most casters instead of less or having great all-around saves so it's not super easy to ignore the Fighter's otherwise good defenses, Like maybe if the Rogue's identity as a skill monkey could stand to be stepped on a bit, maybe give hte Rogue some extra skill goodies in exchange for the Fighter being allowed to have good skills to make up for its lack of magical or class feature utility, then the Fighter can better serve as that shapeable mold we like it to be. Maybe it just needs larger quantities of basic system resources like skills and feats, maybe it needs some bonuses to those things. Maybe making weapons more involved and making using multiple weapon types actually worthwhile would make having a broad weapon proficiency actually worth a damn (you use blunt damage whenever possible because skeletons are common and p much nothing else would ever reward you for using a slashing or piercing instead, maybe use a reach weapon if you want PAM cheese, beyond that who gives a fuck what weapon you're using), or if we want to keep weapons largely interchangeable because it is in fact nice to say you're using an axe if you think axes are cool even if greatswords have mathematically superior damage then adding additional features to weapons within the Fighter class or at least weapon effects could make fighting more interesting. Like, at level 3 or whatever you can add a weapon trait from a limited list to any weapon you wield, or if the weapon already has that trait you can pick another, and now you can Trip with your greatsword or you can make it super big so it has Reach (even if the different traits have to be costed way different because Reach is OP as shit). tl;dr fighter has actual issues, and even if you think fighter is "fine" it's undeniable that a lot of people are unsatisfied with it.

[@jettolo]

This Live inspired to me a concept. In D&D, or RPG in general, where the motto is "you can do everything" first step is to evaluate what is possible and what is not, for example spellcasting is possible for certain class, then martial option should be a modified version of something everyone can do. For example, Instead of "charger" that let it make you a charge, the talent should improve your basic charge, something everyone can do, because it's hard to explain a player he can't do a thing because he doesnt have any class feature or talent.

[@seymourfields3613]

It's now Friday, happy birthday!

[@Dack.howaboutyou]

46:00 I agree base fighter could use the increased crit range 19-20. Maybe champion just gets 18-20 or something, but yeah, as far as all these new really "interesting" [wildly powerful to the point they are barely recognizable as a fighter anymore] sub-classes goes... I also agree that those feel like they are starting to really make things like ranger, rogue, and barb look... worse? too similar? Something is not quite right. My main thoughts go out to the Rune Knight, Eldrich Knight, Echo Warrior, and stuff like that, where my favorite class has always been Ranger... now I'm actually considering the Rune Knight because it's just something i find so cool. That's just one example where my heart is being torn in a bunch of different directions now, with no clear way of how to put it back together unless I find another game rule system i like better, or a DM that is cool with majorly customizing classes. _Example Kobold Press 5e book/supp.; "Beyond Damage Dice" _ _ I guess they did mention something similar to this with Tasha's? Where you are encouraged to allow players to swap features in/out, here & there [in a fair/balanced manner] in order to create a character closer to the exact concept you want to play?

[@Jw87563]

Tomorrow's your birthday? Early happy birthday then!

[@thorgodinson3632]

Happy Pre-birthday!

[@MC-gj8fg]

Actually I don't think you will have much to talk about in regards to the 5e Spelljammer books. Or, at least most of that time should be spent paging back and forth through the Astral Adventuers guide murmuring to yourself with a bewildered look on your face certain that you simply must be missing something.

[@josefx1389]

Happy birthday, holmes!

[@captaindudeman3613]

If weapon choice mattered more the fighter wouldn't need much of anything to change to give it a boost. They would be the versatile melee class version like the wizard is the versatile spell class. I love the idea of a fighter who has all his options covered but all those weapon proficiencies don't really matter all that much. Sure you get martial and access to slightly higher damage dice but the weapon properties are woefully underdeveloped. Damage types should matter when fighting creatures and going up against various types of armor. The fighter would excel at knowing which weapon (tool) is needed to win the fight. They have made a study of armaments and learned all sorts ways to apply them right???!! Knowing when to use what, when, and adapt to changing strategy in the middle of a chaotic fight should be the fighters forte

[@XanothAvaeth]

It does feel weird that half the PHB is spells, yet most weapons have very little going on and any depth weapons had in previous editions was mostly removed.

[@victordevillers3899]

hearing you...just make the fighter an artificer, barbarian, bard, cleric, Druid, Monk,Paladin, Ranger, Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard... again.. No need for classes or subclasses..

[@evilminion4989]

The only 2 things I consider valuable about the fighter class in comparison to other classes... 1) action surge, 2) the Cavalier subclasses abilities, particularly it's 18th lvl vigilant defender. A level 18 Bugbear Cavalier with polearm master,etc with a glaive locking down EVERY single enemy that enters/moves at all while inside of a 15ft range (completely throwing action economy out the window) is great in concept and I love it, but when/how often am I going to get to Lvl 18 on a character normally? Even if I was, I wouldn't want to play 17 levels of something I don't find fun, just for one really cool and thematically awesome moment.

[@Chaosmancer7]

@15:15 or so. When you are talking about "why do people want maneuvers to give bonuses to persuasion" I think... It isn't a matter of a DM who constantly says no, it is a matter of your ability to succeed. Generally in combat, everyone is fighting, and everyone is rolling. Whether or not you in particular are failing doesn't matter as much as the performance of the entire group. Maybe you don't stab the Demon, but the guy next to you does, so it doesn't matter that you missed in the context of if the party will win the fight. When it comes to skills, you often do not have the entire party rolling three times to see whether or not the group succeeds at their goal. It is often a single player, rolling a single time that determines success of failure. That means that if you want to succeed, you generally as a group look to the person who has the best chance of succeeding. Bards have expertise and spells, meaning they often succeed, as well as bardic inspiration to have someone else succeed Clerics have spells that often make other people succeed. Sorcerers, Wizards, Warlocks and Druids have spells that can make them succeed. Paladins and Rangers have spells that can make them succeed. Rogues have expertise and reliable talent meaning they often succeed. Barbarians, Fighters and Monks have.... nothing. They just have their proficiency which every other class has. So, if you have a party with a Sorcerer, a Cleric and a Bard, the vast majority of social skills THAT MATTER will be done by the sorcerer with support casting from the cleric and the bard, because that is the most likely plan to work. The Fighter CAN attempt, but if they fail then the group often fails, and they have no levers to make failure less likely. And while the Bard and cleric can support the fighter, they are generally less likely to succeed. If it is something like talking to a barmaid or talking to a shopkeep, the Fighter has no issue, but once it MATTERS then the fighter doesn't have anything to lend to the attempt. I know I myself have often been playing characters who RP and talk to everyone, and the moment the DM asks me to roll persuasion I think "crap, I screwed up" because I don't have persuasion or charisma and with a straight d20 roll, even a low DC like 15 means I've just failed and made things harder for the group by role-playing. And 15 is low, because if I were a mid-level bard I could trivially be rolling +10 with advantage and guidance for an additional +1d4, which will almost never fail this check. But a mid-level fighter could still be working with a +0 and even guidance doesn't offer much in the way of hope when you need a 14 on the die.

[@geistmachine2373]

Rather than looking at the fighter as the problem and making them “fleshed out” like other classes, I think we should make other classes simpler and more reliant on role-playing like the fighter and wizard. When I’ve played “simple” classes like the barbarian and fighter, I rarely looked at the character sheet and just tried to do the simple things creatively. When I’ve played classes with a lot of “tools” like the bard, I felt like I was looking at the character sheet like a menu of abilities to pick from. Even if you try to avoid it, the allure of active class features and spells are hard to ignore. Ultimately, we should be role-playing instead of class-playing like it is a video game.

[@badmojo0777]

i can sum up 90% of the problems with DnD... a game that requires an imaginaiton being played by millions of people, half of which have ZERO imagination and treat it like an MMO tactical combat with pen and paper.

[@briang3598]

Maybe make that boost to attacks from being near a fighter into an aura-like effect, kicking in at level 6 to keep pace with Paladins, with the same range, a +1 initially and then something bigger later on. I think one of the challenges (outside of combat) of "drawing out" what the fighter brings to the table is the overlap with Paladin (in particular), which, in-world, can basically amount to a fighter who serves a deity with some extra zeal, has access to magic, and generally has a specifically good and/or lawful alignment. Might be worth having more to a renown system, where accomplishments in battle have social rewards, and some people will hold their accomplishments as more esteem-worthy for having killed monsters with nothing but their own physical abilities.

[@csb8336]

Also, (and sorry for piling on), but for fighters who are trained in the martial arts (so long as the scenario is not total bat S((and they have not done this before)) ), I have them RP the training memory that they are drawing from. If it's a good story and keeps with the world and their characters theme, I'll throw in an extra D6 if it seems like the crowd is entertained:) as a designer there are many things that I see in the world that I have to constantly avoid as an intuitive response, otherwise I'd spend my whole day fixing other peoples poor choices. sometimes you are faced with situations that (perhaps you haven't faced consciously since your studies, but which jolt you back to a hard-won lesson). my thought here is that if it's well told, and reasonable, I'll award inspiration, however, that story and they resulting success/fail becomes canon to the character. if the result is a fail, and they attempt something like it again in the future, it takes a con to save to counteract the shame and self-doubt to return to the advantage of self-assurance...It sounds like a lot to track, but it's really not. If you get to know the characters deeply in the lower levels, then all you have to do is throw rocks at them! haha I think as a DM, anything we can do to support and encourage the players to invest in their characters, the less like "The Holy Grail" the campaign will resemble! carrot + stick ==good times:)

[@csb8336]

and too...sorry sorry @Jim 39:39 I give strictly martial character the ability to react once per round by default after level 4 additional reaction can be acquired per D5 mechanics or from feets. Imagine the best of the Jamie Lannister sword work. the energy of a perry or repost comes from the aggressor, so why shouldn't my reaction (assuming they miss) come on their turn??

[@MaMastoast]

It's funny how we have fundamentally different opinions on the Fighter. I think the base Fighter is mechanically boring and Abdul it needs something to add more Mechanics.. taking the idea of superiority dice and removing the secondary effect is exactly the opposite of what id like to see... I want more active interesting Abilities for all martial classes.. not just roll to hit

[@johnmorris8621]

Birthday Happiness

[@yeahnaaa292]

Happy B-Day Brotha! Thanks for the good work!

[@talscorner3696]

I love to play Fighters are supporting cast, initiating combos for other characters to absolutely wreck shit ^^

[@AlexanderBaird]

37:55 “by azura, By Azura, BY AZURA! The Grand Champion!”

[@evilminion4989]

The fighter ability to hurt enemies that attack someone else is via an another atk and imposing disadvantage is part of Cavalier.

[@Comrade2261]

Happy birthday!

[@externalthoughts2924]

I think it will be very interesting to see what they will do with the Artificers in this "One D&D" version... Any thoughts?

[@XanothAvaeth]

0:02:15 As an adult I quickly subscribed to "Birthweek" it's often far too difficult to make time for yourself on your birthday and its really easy for it to just turn into a non-event. So spread it thinner if you want a little more milage without feeling like you're trying to balance a self indulgent day with adult responsibilities. So, Happy Birthweek, Jim!

[@dungeonmaster6292]

Why do adults need birthdays?

[@schemage2210]

How do you make Fighters markedly better at their core identity (fighting things), in 5e, without creating extra mechanics for them specifically to use in combat? Everyone can push, shove, climb and grapple. Fighters are likely to do all that better because of the inherent incentive to invest in appropriate stats (More str that leads to better grappling is also more importantly used to hit with weapon attacks more often). The battlemaster has all these "extra" in combat abilities that no one else gets that really does push fighters into being just that much better. But since those maneuvers are locked behind one specific subclass it creates an OP must play option to the detriment of most other subclasses which isn't good either.

[@landonsandor591]

the same thing could be said about the Champion and their Superior Critical functions. They're not the ONLY ones who get better critical, but they're the only ones who get 18+ as critical hits. So, give them both the battlemaster's maneuvers and champion's superior critical hit.

[@lexmtaylor]

Fighter could use intimidation better without Charisma.

[@buxzw1945]

Happy birthday! September Bdays for the win

[@lexmtaylor]

Fighter usually feels really boring to me.

[@luc1829]

Happy Birthday!

[@thothamgonrush2691]

Happy birthday Jim!!

[@matthuck378]

The fighter lets you be a polearm master and shine. I mean, the barb is a better great weapon fighter usually, and the ranger is better with bows...The bladesinger is the best "gish"... Yeah, the fighter fights. The Monk should have had maneuvers and a dice pool, but whatever...I'm glad the Battlemaster exists too.

[@colbybastian17]

I feel one of the big issues with people thinking fighters are "useless" outside of combat and need special abilities for it is because so many DMs feel like they need to engineer the other 2 pillars of play LIKE COMBAT. They have an "enemy" with specific DCs you need to hit like an AC, and you need to do them X times like hit points to get the social effect you want. Same with exploration. And in order to make those things interesting for the classes with built in abilities for them, they're completely inaccessible to anyone without those.

[@WolfHreda]

Fighters should have access to the old Monkey Grip feature. One-handing a Greatsword or a Halberd and using a Shield? That would be awesome.

[@RobKinneySouthpaw]

I tried out a couple of weapon mastery feats that worked well. But fighters and barbarians benefited most. The sword master your feet gave a bonus action attack and a reaction attack option (opportunity attack if you are missed in melee) if you are wielding a non-heavy sword. The shield one let you spend hit dice to block an incoming attack, and reposte if you blocked it all. I could see these as a second set of middle tier fighting styles that could be added to the base fighter class, instead of feats. About level seven or nine Pick a weapon or shield Master fighting style. The archery one could give you a bonus action shot, or give an interesting way to give yourself advantage. (Aim small miss small. You have advantage when firing at someone in 1/2 or 3/4 cover once per turn), mace/hammer could give you a Crushing Blow (Enemy is knocked prone and can't take reactions). Great Weapon gets a Cleave feature (one of your attacks targets every enemy in range with the one d20 roll). Spear gets Reach when held by you, and you can do the Versatile damage 1-hamded. Polearm add proficiency to damage

[@hideshiseyes2804]

I also like the idea of a dice pool that you can add to attack rolls, damage rolls, AC. But I actually think what would be even cooler is one die that you can spend like this *every round*. And then there could be options when levelling up to give it situational but powerful uses like grounding a flying opponent or disrupting a spellcaster’s concentration. I like the idea of fighters having an array of situational abilities, as well as some base options that just make them superior in combat, and not relying on limited resources. Basically: if the question is to do with fighting, the Fighter probably has the answer.

[@mcelroy501]

A homebrew I like is the Champion Fighter gets bonus feats in place of it's normal PHB features. I repurpose and retool the normal Champion feats as feats available to anyone sometimes with prerequisites

[@dungeonmaster6292]

WotC has gone woke. Fuhq em

[@realgregorydyck]

Happy birthday Jim Davis.

[@blademonkey29]

If i reworked the fighter I'd have them choose at level 1 to either gain a bonus to attack or damage threshold and have boths scale at certain intervals

[@rrupt]

I'd give the fighter advantage to initiative and a better critical range with weapons (depending on prof Bonus for example).

[@geoffdewitt6845]

Happy birthday eve!

[@Lexicophage]

Have a Happy Birthday! Thanks for everything.

[@HyperEwok1]

Would love to see a video on Grim Hollow setting/subclasses/other systems it introduces, it's a great setting.

[@geoffdewitt6845]

My opinions on fighters are varied. I would like more flexibility in non-combat options, but I feel like that needs some kind of social game structure to organize play so everyone's on the same page (not like "mental combat" but rather the Social turn, with concrete guidance for discovering an NPCs motivations, desires, secrets, etc, so you can give characters ways to interact with that structure). However, in combat, I think the fighter's identity is found in the technical mastery of killing, survivability, and discipline. This translates to mostly what the fighter already gets - more ASI's mean more feats, which goes to technical mastery, Second Wind and Indomitable go to survivability, and discipline is the odd man out. I figure the fighter would benefit from the ability to spend Hit Dice to remove conditions (like frightened and charmed), and the ability to let other PCs take an offensive reaction (representing their role in party cohesion and their mastery of small-unit tactics). That might just be me though; honestly the fighter chassis is pretty darned solid. I think as a final point, the martial characters need a way to be introduced to domain-level play as they level up. Even if you're just playing the "Big D@mn Heroes" quest model, I think domain-level play adds something to martials that it doesn't add for casters. The ability to recruit, organize, train, motivate, manage and lead other warriors is what separates the legendary figures of myth from a brute killer. Sure, Achilles is no slouch on the battlefield, but that can't be all he is; you don't get the Myrmidons to follow you by "I fight good-er!"

[@DisgruntledPeasant]

Yeah I like that leadership dynamic. I've always wanted to play as the 'retired general' archetype, someone who was a formidable warrior on youth, but in age is now more of a strategist and coordinator. 5e doesn't really support that. I like the idea of the fighter having a natural eye for logistics and morale, being able to train NPCs and organise the building of fortifications.

[@Ryan-mm5yg]

Happy birthday Jim

[@nicka3697]

Happy birthweek

[@ryanb5127]

Happy birthday 🎉

[@beyaminn]

Happy Birthday!!

[@TheAserghui]

Happy Birthday!

[@TheQuietKid13]

Happy birthday!

[@wearywyvern3359]

Happy Birthday.

[@Tannerbot2k]

Happy birthday!

[@RobKinneySouthpaw]

Making fighters proficient in initiative would be good

[@Polar.bear44]

Happy birth!

[@peedee5324]

Hope someone gives you more frames for your bday ;)

[@MrSilvUr]

Happy birthday, ya beautiful man!

[@jriggan]

🍻🥳🎂

[@SteveExH]

Wish you a beautiful birthday 🎂

[@coriandercastor9453]

I like fighting-men as the extraordinary, rather than supernatural or magical. 3e's maneuvers had problems, but they're great in many computer game adaptations. Now, the tradition is that fighters are the low resource, low utility class, but that made them highly consistent. We don't want to retread the past-hard to top B/X and clones-but why can't fighters have exclusive abilities that aren't per rest/encounter? Having higher accuracy than other martial-like some older edition's optional rules-would be nice too, but having more attacks partially emulates that anyhow. And, I hate to say it, but Pathfinder 1e did fighters nice. At least on paper, have never actually played Pathfinder.

[@stephenfetterusso6008]

I really like some of Jim’s ideas on improving the fighter. Simple, effective, and don’t involve giving every fighter the battle masters core feature. I think giving fighters “shock” damage, like you see in Worlds Without Number, where a miss still deals some damage would really reinforce their superiority in combat.

[@enterthedungeon]

Great content as always!

[@deamon506]

So what you’re saying is… expertise in weapons? 😇

[@davidlfort]

What if Fighters added proficiency bonus to initiative, attack, and possibly damage rolls, to AC?

[@harleycriswell8504]

So the reason I think people feel like the fighter isn't the best at fighting is the lack of encunencounters. Most people have 1 maybe 2 fights before a long rest. They intent was that we would have 4 or 5. So when everyone else is out of spells and abilities. The fighter is still good to go round after round. We don't give them that with the way most of us play

[@Treebohr]

One thing I've toyed with for improving the Champion Fighter specifically is replacing their remarkably useless Remarkable Athlete feature with expertise on attack rolls and proficiency with damage rolls.

[@stevesmith4600]

What I would like to see with the Battle Master is to have maneuvers that all require a roll. Each maneuvers has a disadvantage or plenty to the roll, which can be circumvented through expending a "superiority die". This limits the use of being able to constantly cleave effectively, while also not totally disregarding their ability.

[@LegionAngel00]

Will int important classes be added? Right now wizard is the only one and there is very little that interacts with int, which is somewhat disappointing. If a suggestion is acceptable bringing back the Ardent and perhaps having a mutant class where the characters nature slowly changes due to corruption via energies from outer realms.

[@DisgruntledPeasant]

I would love to see INT focused subclasses added Imagine a sherlock-holmes style INT ranger, that's all about deduction and planning ahead Or am INT fighter that's 'studied the blade' so to speak, who doesn't need to be the fastest or strongest because he's smart enough to know exactly where to apply pressure to beat his opponent.

[@CitanulsPumpkin]

I use two things to reinforce the importance of Int as a secondary stat even if your class doesn't need it. 1. You know bonus languages equal to your Int mod. 2. I use the XP system from Cypher System games and hand out milestones for nat 1s, nat 20, and 20 plus info gathering and exploration rolls.