D&D Class Analysis: Fighter

 Yeah, I've abandoned doing this alphabetically, and I'm even not sure I'll get to all of them. Turns out that this is a pretty big thing to bite off.

Fighters in D&D are a class I have a profound deal of ambivalence about. They are simultaneously simple to the point of being kind of generic while also being potentially hugely powerful.

Let's start with a look at the lore.

Ok, that was quick.

Kidding aside, Fighters are what I've seen described as "Warriors" or possibly "Knights" (though I think Paladins often fit that vibe as well).

Character classes in D&D are typically meant to represent exceptional people - being a Cleric is more than just being some priest. And a Fighter is supposed to be a kind of exceptionally great warrior or soldier. In theory, you're supposed to be a master of arms, more skilled with weapons than even other martial classes. I think the main way this manifests is in their additional Extra Attack features.

The general Fighter features are pretty bare-bones. Essentially, without considering subclasses, you just get Second Wind, Fighting Style, Action Surge, and Indomitable. You also get two more Ability Score Improvements than most players. The other class-wide features are just additional uses of Action Surge and Indomitable.

Now, in practice, we can't really discount how huge the extra attacks are. A third attack at level 11 and a fourth at level 20 become enormous if you can get your hands on a great magical weapon. I think a Fighter wielding Akmon, Hand of Purphoros is probably capable of higher damage output than just about any other character (for those unfamiliar with this weapon from Theros, it's a warhammer that does an additional 3d10 fire damage on each hit - so a level 20 fighter would be getting 12d10 more damage per turn with no cost in resources).

Still, while the class on its own is pretty darn powerful (especially given that it gets most of its features back on a short, rather than long, rest,) those things aren't particularly interesting.

Both on a flavor side and on a mechanical side, the Fighter really gets its more interesting elements in its subclasses. The character I've played the most is an Eldritch Knight Fighter, which means I have a bit of spellcasting borrowed from the Wizard.

The thing is, unlike, say, the Artificer, it's not that the subclass fundamentally changes the way in which the class plays. A fighter is still going to be focused primarily on attacking with weapons.

And I think to a certain extent that's fine. There needs to be a class that's the "no frills" martial class, and focuses on the armor and weapons of the medieval setting. I also appreciate that, with a few subclasses excepted, the class is built to be equally effective as a melee and a ranged one (though I only rarely see ranged fighters).

I do think that the extra ability score improvements are really only exciting if your DM plays with Feats. There's a whole discussion to be had as to whether feats should be an optional rule or just part of the expected base rules. Given that most Fighters will only need to have one decent "attack" stat and decent Constitution, the extra ASIs would be kind of wasted if you couldn't use them for feats.

One thing I've noted in other posts is that WotC clearly feels that the Battle Master was a huge success, and it's the only subclass they've really added to (other than the Beastmaster, who I think they really just felt they needed to fix) in later books.

I wonder if there might be some idea to make Battle Master maneuvers a class-wide feature for the Fighter, and then perhaps give new maneuvers with each subclass (for example, the Eldritch Knight might be able to cast spells using maneuvers).

But, last thoughts on the Fighter: the name is dumb. Surely "Warrior" would have been a better name for it, or even "Soldier."