• The window for editing your posts has been extended from 48 hours to about two weeks or so. Please report any problems with this in Trouble Tickets.

[Let's Read] 5E Player's Handbook

Theodoric

Registered User
Validated User
I think the main benefit of two-weapon proficiency is that you can spread the damage around some. Handy for when you're facing lots of low level monsters like goblins or kobolds. Or even orcs and hobgoblins, to some extent.
I'd say taking Champion would be a good fit, makes the best use of your extra attack rolls by upping your critical range. A Half-Orc Champion Fighter with the Dual Wielder feat would be fun to play.
 

Raxmei

Rattus imperator
Validated User
A note about the Eldritch Knight's weapon bond that isn't obvious until you get deep into how combat actions work. It lets the EK swap between weapons (eg greatsword and longbow) more conveniently than others. Normally you can only draw or sheath a weapon once in a turn before it takes up your action. The EK can draw their bonded weapon as a bonus action so as long as they aren't two weapon fighting they can switch between a main and a secondary weapon without giving up a round of attacks. They can also get away with having low intelligence with careful spell selection. Spellcasting ability modifier matters for spell attacks and forcing saving throws but not much else. That does rule out the PHB attack cantrips, but then none of them are really great for a character who is already a fighter. Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide gives us some nice fighter-compatible cantrips. Really though, when your character is already a fighter you don't need magic for damage. Full casters need to burn their high level spell slots to keep up with fighter damage. A partial caster won't keep up in that area. Abjuration (esp Shield) helps a lot more, along with the few cross-school spells you're allowed to know.
 

Felix

Member
RPGnet Member
Validated User
I feel like the 5e Fighter must have been a really difficult class for them to design. One of the initial goals of 5e was that it should satisfy people who had played any previous edition of D&D. And I think they largely did a good job with that. When I read it, it feels like a cross between my two favorite editions, BECMI and 3.5, though I see the DNA of the other editions in it.

But the Fighter may be the core class which underwent the biggest conceptual changes.

In 2e and earlier, it was really designed as the Easy-To-Learn class. They were really survivable at low levels when other classes struggled with crap HD, and you had pretty much zero fiddly bits. If you had a new player who didn't want to be overwhelmed with rules, they were a great pick. Just swing your sword at the bad guys, and ask the cleric to heal you if you're low on HP.

Then 3e's design goal was to make Fighters shine at combat and differentiate themselves from other fighters by taking a ton of feats. (I know this goal did not work in practice, but that is irrelevant to this.) It was no longer the go-to for easy classes. (That probably became the Barbarian or Sorcerer.) And in 4e, at least until late in the edition, all the classes were designed with more-or-less the same mechanical complexity.

So 5e needed to make fighters that were:
1) Easy to use.
2) Effective if they just wanted to say "I swing my sword and hit him a lot.".
3) Capable of complex tactical feats.
4) Able to be somewhat mechanically interesting for those who like that in all their character classes.

I think the Champion and Battlemaster do a reasonable job trying to bridge that design gap. The third subclass in the PHB takes care of what I imagine is the most common multitasking request. (If you wanted to play a divine caster/fighter, Paladin was a fine choice already_.
 

Silvercat Moonpaw

Quadruped Transhuman
Validated User
So 5e needed to make fighters that were:
1) Easy to use.
2) Effective if they just wanted to say "I swing my sword and hit him a lot.".
3) Capable of complex tactical feats.
4) Able to be somewhat mechanically interesting for those who like that in all their character classes.
If it were me I would have made these two separate classes.
 

Unka Josh

Social Justice Game Dev
RPGnet Member
Validated User
Fighters absolutely can generate boss-killing amounts of damage; they're far better at that than they are at fighting armies. I'd like it if they could have that kind of output fluffed into more colorful abilities, but apparently that's a can of worms that WOTC doesn't want to open for various reasons, and they take a lot of flak when they do it. (Looking at the response Bo9S got in some circles, to say nothing of how people responded to a lot of 4e Fighter tricks, I can see why they feel that way. I'd prefer that they used another solution, of course, but I'm not the guy designing this game.)
 

Poisson Resistance

Registered User
Validated User
Fighters absolutely can generate boss-killing amounts of damage; they're far better at that than they are at fighting armies. I'd like it if they could have that kind of output fluffed into more colorful abilities, but apparently that's a can of worms that WOTC doesn't want to open for various reasons, and they take a lot of flak when they do it. (Looking at the response Bo9S got in some circles, to say nothing of how people responded to a lot of 4e Fighter tricks, I can see why they feel that way. I'd prefer that they used another solution, of course, but I'm not the guy designing this game.)
Oddly enough, I know someone who spoke fairly well of Bo9S but despised 4e. It's been a while since that came up, though, so I can't really recall specifics of how or the resounding why.
 

vitruvian

Registered User
Validated User
Fighters absolutely can generate boss-killing amounts of damage; they're far better at that than they are at fighting armies.
With the freedom to move between not just different actions (main, bonus, Action Surge, Haste, reaction), but even between different attacks fueled by Extra Attack, high level fighters should be pretty good at dealing with armies, too. Add in things like the Sweeping Attack maneuver, even more so.
 
Top Bottom