youd be suprised with how little love they get, as for cop out, i dont quite see what you mean,
any fighter can be a tank, and frequently the eldritch knights are overlooked by min maxers case "hur dur little magic, need inteligence, 5e dumpstat, it bad" , sure they have magic to help but it isnt everything
if someone needs a tank theres a variety of classes that can fit that role, and even then 5e wasnt designed with a specific party make up in mind, you can run single class parties and do just fine, same with all martial or caster characters
and most people are pretty frazzled on thinking what to choose for spells on account of it being so rare and how long till you get a chance to switch them around.
seems like you prefer the idea of playing other things, and i totally get ya, i am the same with paladins personally all i like from them conceptually i can get from fighter and then some, but they do have limiations, just cause they have magic doesnt mean they are the best fighter subclass, thats very table dependant.
By “cop out” I just mean in terms of having to be smarter with how you play. It’s the reason why some classes always tend to be favored because of ease of play. Everyone who makes a warlock takes Eldritch blast because you can always reliably spam that in battle. Playing paladins is incredibly simple because you’re dps/tank/healer all in one. Playing an Eldritch knight means you can either do melee or sling spells/cantrips at range. I think it’s a lot more challenging and interesting to build a character who isn’t always good at everything and figure out how to contribute when the situation doesn’t play to your strengths.
By “cop out” I just mean in terms of having to be smarter with how you play. It’s the reason why some classes always tend to be favored because of ease of play. Everyone who makes a warlock takes Eldritch blast because you can always reliably spam that in battle. Playing paladins is incredibly simple because you’re dps/tank/healer all in one. Playing an Eldritch knight means you can either do melee or sling spells/cantrips at range. I think it’s a lot more challenging and interesting to build a character who isn’t always good at everything and figure out how to contribute when the situation doesn’t play to your strengths.
It can also be a recipe for an utterly miserable session.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
I think that's where having a good DM who will roll with the punches and let players subvert their challenges comes in. A friend of mine had clearly set up a situation where time was a factor as we had to rescue a random NPC that was part of a raiding party and fled into a cave. We followed behind and would have been forced to chase the NPC down a steep stairwelll, facing ranged attacks the whole way, I was playing a cleric with access to Wall of Stone and created a slide that bypassed a lot of the dangers.
There are a fair number of fighter features that get stronger as you level. Second Wind scales with your level, not to mention additional attacks and features that scale to their most effective levels when you're hitting higher levels. In general they've made multi-classing a bit less appealing in 5e, since so many class features rely on bonus actions, so having two classes with a ton of bonus action requiring resource is less effective in combat. Yes, playing a fighter is not always the most appealing but if your group needs a tank and you don't fancy any of the barbarian options fighter is the way to go.
There are a fair number of fighter features that get stronger as you level. Second Wind scales with your level, not to mention additional attacks and features that scale to their most effective levels when you're hitting higher levels. In general they've made multi-classing a bit less appealing in 5e, since so many class features rely on bonus actions, so having two classes with a ton of bonus action requiring resource is less effective in combat. Yes, playing a fighter is not always the most appealing but if your group needs a tank and you don't fancy any of the barbarian options fighter is the way to go.
I think when you say Tank and you don't fancy the Barbarian the Paladin is the better way to go in my opinion but really depends on what you want and I would not want to stop that.
There are a fair number of fighter features that get stronger as you level. Second Wind scales with your level, not to mention additional attacks and features that scale to their most effective levels when you're hitting higher levels. In general they've made multi-classing a bit less appealing in 5e, since so many class features rely on bonus actions, so having two classes with a ton of bonus action requiring resource is less effective in combat. Yes, playing a fighter is not always the most appealing but if your group needs a tank and you don't fancy any of the barbarian options fighter is the way to go.
I think when you say Tank and you don't fancy the Barbarian the Paladin is the better way to go in my opinion but really depends on what you want and I would not want to stop that.
Paladin is way to go if you have no teammates to help buff you.
if you do. Fighter. A samurai or battlemaster can do A LOT of crowd control, while tanking, while killing things just as quickly as Paladins, and in the event you want to injur 4-5 enemies at a time for whatever reason vs just injuring one at a time. The fighter can pull that off quicker.
but battle mechanics aside. Op question is are fighters boring. To which I still maintain “yes, but...” and my but, is that fighters are essentially the “tutorial” class of 5e.
I think Fighters are better being multi-classed. I don't think they are a stand alone class.
I think this addresses the "boring" aspect that the thread is talking about. My guess is that you don't feel that they have enough options available and have to go elsewhere to get those options. I can see that if you feel that the capstone for your campaign/the class (depending on whether that's 20 or sooner) are lackluster, particularly if your campaign doesn't deal with feats. Because of the extra ASIs for the class, the versatility of feats almost becomes a part of the class features even if it's not hard baked into it.
There are a fair number of fighter features that get stronger as you level. Second Wind scales with your level, not to mention additional attacks and features that scale to their most effective levels when you're hitting higher levels. In general they've made multi-classing a bit less appealing in 5e, since so many class features rely on bonus actions, so having two classes with a ton of bonus action requiring resource is less effective in combat. Yes, playing a fighter is not always the most appealing but if your group needs a tank and you don't fancy any of the barbarian options fighter is the way to go.
I think when you say Tank and you don't fancy the Barbarian the Paladin is the better way to go in my opinion but really depends on what you want and I would not want to stop that.
Paladin is way to go if you have no teammates to help buff you.
if you do. Fighter. A samurai or battlemaster can do A LOT of crowd control, while tanking, while killing things just as quickly as Paladins, and in the event you want to injur 4-5 enemies at a time for whatever reason vs just injuring one at a time. The fighter can pull that off quicker.
but battle mechanics aside. Op question is are fighters boring. To which I still maintain “yes, but...” and my but, is that fighters are essentially the “tutorial” class of 5e.
Fighter: friend to the party of spellcasters who all have Toll the Dead.
Battle Master can push people around, knock them down, make them drop their weapons, and other useful abilities.
Eldritch Knights can cast very useful, casting spells, find familiar to help allies, mage armor on those who don't have armor, chromatic orb if you need to hit someone far away, so on.
Champions are boring, just good at well, fighting.
Samarai aren't good.
Arcane Archers are good at difficult situations.
Cavaliers are good at helping others.
Purple Dragon Knights aren't good, but are good at helping allies.
Most of the subclasses are surprisingly good at helping others. I assume Echo Knight will also have abilities to help others, and the Rune Knight is also good at helping others.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
youd be suprised with how little love they get, as for cop out, i dont quite see what you mean,
any fighter can be a tank, and frequently the eldritch knights are overlooked by min maxers case "hur dur little magic, need inteligence, 5e dumpstat, it bad" , sure they have magic to help but it isnt everything
if someone needs a tank theres a variety of classes that can fit that role, and even then 5e wasnt designed with a specific party make up in mind, you can run single class parties and do just fine, same with all martial or caster characters
and most people are pretty frazzled on thinking what to choose for spells on account of it being so rare and how long till you get a chance to switch them around.
seems like you prefer the idea of playing other things, and i totally get ya, i am the same with paladins personally all i like from them conceptually i can get from fighter and then some, but they do have limiations, just cause they have magic doesnt mean they are the best fighter subclass, thats very table dependant.
By “cop out” I just mean in terms of having to be smarter with how you play. It’s the reason why some classes always tend to be favored because of ease of play. Everyone who makes a warlock takes Eldritch blast because you can always reliably spam that in battle. Playing paladins is incredibly simple because you’re dps/tank/healer all in one. Playing an Eldritch knight means you can either do melee or sling spells/cantrips at range. I think it’s a lot more challenging and interesting to build a character who isn’t always good at everything and figure out how to contribute when the situation doesn’t play to your strengths.
It can also be a recipe for an utterly miserable session.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
I think that's where having a good DM who will roll with the punches and let players subvert their challenges comes in. A friend of mine had clearly set up a situation where time was a factor as we had to rescue a random NPC that was part of a raiding party and fled into a cave. We followed behind and would have been forced to chase the NPC down a steep stairwelll, facing ranged attacks the whole way, I was playing a cleric with access to Wall of Stone and created a slide that bypassed a lot of the dangers.
Aw man that sounds awesome
I think Fighters are better being multi-classed. I don't think they are a stand alone class.
"A Jack Of All Trades is a master of none"
'That's why I hate Bards'
There are a fair number of fighter features that get stronger as you level. Second Wind scales with your level, not to mention additional attacks and features that scale to their most effective levels when you're hitting higher levels. In general they've made multi-classing a bit less appealing in 5e, since so many class features rely on bonus actions, so having two classes with a ton of bonus action requiring resource is less effective in combat. Yes, playing a fighter is not always the most appealing but if your group needs a tank and you don't fancy any of the barbarian options fighter is the way to go.
I think when you say Tank and you don't fancy the Barbarian the Paladin is the better way to go in my opinion but really depends on what you want and I would not want to stop that.
"A Jack Of All Trades is a master of none"
'That's why I hate Bards'
Paladin is way to go if you have no teammates to help buff you.
if you do. Fighter. A samurai or battlemaster can do A LOT of crowd control, while tanking, while killing things just as quickly as Paladins, and in the event you want to injur 4-5 enemies at a time for whatever reason vs just injuring one at a time. The fighter can pull that off quicker.
but battle mechanics aside. Op question is are fighters boring. To which I still maintain “yes, but...” and my but, is that fighters are essentially the “tutorial” class of 5e.
Blank
I think this addresses the "boring" aspect that the thread is talking about. My guess is that you don't feel that they have enough options available and have to go elsewhere to get those options. I can see that if you feel that the capstone for your campaign/the class (depending on whether that's 20 or sooner) are lackluster, particularly if your campaign doesn't deal with feats. Because of the extra ASIs for the class, the versatility of feats almost becomes a part of the class features even if it's not hard baked into it.
Fighter: friend to the party of spellcasters who all have Toll the Dead.
Yepp, fighters are easy cream in the ice cream.....
My Ready-to-rock&roll chars:
Dertinus Tristany // Amilcar Barca // Vicenç Sacrarius // Oriol Deulofeu // Grovtuk
Fighters are great at helping others.
Battle Master can push people around, knock them down, make them drop their weapons, and other useful abilities.
Eldritch Knights can cast very useful, casting spells, find familiar to help allies, mage armor on those who don't have armor, chromatic orb if you need to hit someone far away, so on.
Champions are boring, just good at well, fighting.
Samarai aren't good.
Arcane Archers are good at difficult situations.
Cavaliers are good at helping others.
Purple Dragon Knights aren't good, but are good at helping allies.
Most of the subclasses are surprisingly good at helping others. I assume Echo Knight will also have abilities to help others, and the Rune Knight is also good at helping others.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms