He’s gotten some of the historical facts wrong but overall it’s an ok presentation. Proficiencies (AD&D ‘skills’) were introduced in 1985 by the Oriental Adventures supplement, two years before the first Gazetteer. And ‘Basic D&D’ was just D&D, the basic rules pertaining to the first three (later five) levels. The Expert, Companion, Master and Immortals rules effectively made a game as complex or even more so than AD&D, and today is usually referred to as BECMI with most players preferring the Rules Cyclopedia as the definitive edition of that game.
Fighter is one of my favourite classes, especially those with a more mundane tone. There's something about being just a mundane warrior with nothing but there skill and a keen blade in there hands going up against arcane liches and towering dragons.
This. 100% this. When you have a world filled with fantastical creatures and people born with wild magical powers, the fact that a guy can just pick up a sword and get SO GOOD with it to the point where he can more than keep up with all the crazy shit around him is the coolest.
Same the fighter and the barbarian are my favorite classes because they are just warriors, people relying on the strength of their arms, their ferocity and a good weapon to cut down their foes.
The fighter’s hardest challenge in every edition has been asking if, after the druid turns into a bat, the wizard teleports in a puff of smoke and the warlock uses arcane power to levitate, they can use an athletics skill check to scale the 30ft wall to join them. And every DM would scoff, “Pfft, no, that’s so unrealistic.”
Yeah I remember these arguments. Most fighter players would counter back with "If we're going for realism, then waggling your fingers leaves you at the base of the cliff because levitation isn't `realistic' either." 🤓
This is not a problem in first edition D&D, since the wizard has an incredibly low number of hit points and spells and is very weak defense-wise, so there's no problem in having him get out of trouble with a spell from time to time.
Never heard of the “dart fighter” before (played 2E) and while the community often dumps on minmaxers, they do serve a useful purpose: identifying silly and broken mechanics.
The dart specialist wasn’t a problem, just mostly a boogie man used by critics of 2nd edition to point out flaws that could be exploited by munchkins (today called ‘optimizers’). I never saw anyone attempt the dart-fighter, mostly because everyone wanted to make actual characters that were fun to play and had role playing potential. I do suppose munchkins can be useful in pointing out unintended exploits of rules systems but if ‘normal’ players never think to break the game then it’s like it’s not broken to begin with.
In defense of Fourth edition: The Power system was flawed but the design was genius. Hit Die in 5E came from healing surges in 4E. Healing without magic wasn't a thing before 4E made it normal. Also 4E abstraction allowed for non-magical parties. The Warlord, a charisma/intelligence based support fighter healed with inspiring words and commanded allies to strike. 5E has the Commader's Strike and Rally Maneuvers in the Battle Master Fighter that are worse copies of what a warlord could do.
Agreed - the 4E section also only covered the Fighter (Weaponmaster) class, leaving out the lacklustre de-4E-ed Fighter (Knight) and Fighter (Slayer) from the Essentials series, and arguably the Warlord as the not-only-swinging-a-sword fighter that was hinted at but rarely achieved in 3E. It also missed that the genesis of 4E's taunt (marking) mechanic existed in the 3.5E Knight, which had an actual MMO Taunt ability (removing any control from the DM and making a monster attack, versus 4E's "give the DM a difficult choice" implementation).
Oh I'd say the Power System was a great idea for 4th Edition and in general... but it had the problem of "This doesn't look like D&D" to most people. And to be fair... it had a level shifted problem to people's perspectives. Like a first level fighter's exploits were on the level of what (comparatively) it'd take at least 6th level for a Fighter to achieve in 3rd Edition. Thus also giving a kneejerk reaction beyond just the formatting and what not of "These are magic powers!" for something like... Tides of Iron. "I hit someone with a shield, taunt them, and step into their space". Hardly big magic powers. But it was something a fighter in 3rd Edition couldn't do until... I believe it was 10th level in a single round to that level. There was a lot of elegant and frankly inspired design in that for fourth edition. Like less "All or Nothing", where the player always got SOMETHING out of their efforts (Be it Reliable powers that just came back if you missed to things like the Sleep spell where enemies were slowed even if they saved against the initial spell). Lots of beautiful things like the Fighter actually had a reason to specialized in a weapon other than "It's the best magic weapon I found lately" with different exploits working better with the right gear. Something that made Bob the Spearmaster play differently than Bob the Axe Master. Which was really unique for D&D. Or just characters being broadly competent at things in 4th Edition unlike 3rd where a first level wizard probably had a 70% chance to fail to climb a ladder. But... it never stood a chance. People saw that the 4th Edition book didn't look like the 3rd Edition book on the quick flip through then saw "Magic powers" for classes they didn't want to have magic powers like Fighters or Rogues, and it was pretty much done for most people. Sadly... a lot of good was tossed aside to get the fans back for 5th edition as a classic nostalgia bait edition. But yeah, a lot of 5th edition's body was build on 4th edition skeletal structure. Like Long and Short Rests, Hit Dice healing, abilities you can only use X times per Long/Short Rest for various classes outside of "I cast magic". Heck even the idea of making the game more about the abilities of your characters and less about the 20 pieces of magic flair you stapled onto your character is right out of it.
@@hitomisalazar4073 Do you think that it's spellcaster players or martial players who complained that fighters actually had powers? If it's martial players, then I don't quite understand because I'm a martial player and I love being able to do other things than spam basic attacks. Plus I love actually being able to keep up with spellcasters at high level. If it's spellcasters, then it seems a bit petty that spellcasters say "NO, you martial players don't get to have fun toys, only we get to have fun toys. We want to outshine martials at high level, damnit, and we're not going to play an edition where high-level martials can keep up with us."
@@lightworker2956 I personally found that, in general, it was spellcasters (or those who routinely played spellcasters primarily in 3rd edition) who complained about the Powers system more than anyone else. Because in general the Powers system did two things. It stopped them from being able to one shot an encounter (For example Sleep went from a spell every wizard had because it had a decent chance of just slaughtering an encounter outright, or at least crippling it heavily, to a spell that was useful but far from a "I used a single action and won forever" ability in 4th as you had something like overall about a 25% chance on average to knock out any given target, as opposed to like a 70% for the 3rd Edition version, but instead you had a 100% chance of some useful effect being applied regardless in 4th, just not a one shot the encounter effect), and also gave other people cool things to do that were flashy abilities. Thus why it was usually framed up as "giving fighters magic". I'm sure other people had other issues, and to be fair there was a general pushback against 4th because... it didn't "look" like D&D. Just the way the book was written, often with very direct, blunt and simplistic language to how abilities were formatted down to like 1 sentence of fluff and clearly stated and organized mechanics was very much not something D&D did before then. So there was a generalist sort of push. Which is honestly something you see a lot in sort of D&D discussion spaces and what was at 4th edition, the new idea of the internet D&D community being a major thing. About how the game was "dumb" because "everyone had magic now". Where they'd look at something like the Ranger's Twin Strike (I hit with both melee weapons for double damage, with a bonus to do it instead of like a -6 penalty at first level) and call it "a magic power" that broke the baseline concept of what a Ranger was allowed to be. Like this view that D&D is a competitive Esports video game where X and Y and Z have to be very specifically balanced so there is a Rock Paper Scissors balance to them and parity. Which makes people kind of freak out a little when they see something that looks like "X+1". Like when the Echo Fighter in 5th Edition came out I saw people freaking out about how Fighters shouldn't be able to do things like Unleash Incarnations and Action Surge to get 6 attacks in a single round at level 5. That it was TOO MUCH and broken. And 4th Edition got that result because people saw the baseline competence of classes. Where right from level 1 characters were actually good and capable at what they were supposed to do. A Paladin didn't have to grind out 4 levels before they could put a holy smackdown on people. The Fighter didn't need like 8 levels before they could do a minor trick like "I knock someone prone" without penalties. It was a violation expectation of "What a Fighter is allowed to be" in this theoretical "balance" idea like they were playing some game that was giving out a 10,000 cash prize every year at EVO. Instead of how I try to look at it. It's a cooperative narrative game. Giving someone a chance to do something cool means... you have a moment where something cool happens. YOu havet hat moment where Legolas kills one of those massive war elephants like in the Peter Jackson movies. Or when Kyle Reese shows up to save Sarah Connor by just unloading like 8 unanswered shotgun blasts into the terminator knocking it back and stunning it. Or when you see the main character of Fist of the North Star go all: "You are already dead" and have someone explode into blood from attacks they didn't even see.
I know there's a good chance it was just a joke, but I wanted to point out that the darts employed in D&D are weighted war darts similar to the Roman plumbata. These are essentially short javelins, not tiny modern pub darts. Quite deadly.
Fun Fact: In 5e, concentration checks are rolled with every hit, so every dart of magic missile or swing of a fighter's weapon is its own roll (and why waste a 1st level slot when you can hasten the fighter so they can hit the caster even more with damage that will far surpass the missile for both raw damage and the save DC). Fighters are simplicity done well in my opinion.
Wizard will scoff at that stupid idea and said "I can do better damage than that pesky braindead fighter!" and proceess to cast level 9 Fireball at Fire Elemental and THEN whining about the DM single him out WHILE being the FIRST to run into a melee
I HAVE WAITED SO LONG FOR ANOTHER VIDEO LIKE THIS!!!! I have seen the video about the thief, the video about the monk, and the video about the history of D&D... each... THREE TIMES! You're so good at research! As an academic, I am impressed!
In the context of older editions (B/X, 1e or 2e), I'm a big fan of extra attacks for the fighter through leveling, weapon specialization, etc. I find it strange when this is argued to be too powerful when it still generally doesn't compare to spellcasting force multipliers and versatility. But the single best variation, IMO, is Lamentations of the Flame Princess' rule whereby fighters and only fighters gain to hit bonuses as they level. Yes, that makes fighters radically better fighters than other classes as they level up. That's the whole point. This kind of big change is required to make the balance-conscious player think "well, I might actually want to play a fighter now." There's a reason it's called "linear fighters/quadratic wizards" and not "linear fighters/1.5x wizards... maybe 2x wizards?" The spellcasters have a huge advantage and a solution that alters expected damage input by 10%, or even 50%, isn't enough to solve the problem at higher levels. Thanks to vocal complainers, there's an overwhelming pressure in all ttrpg's, video games, etc. to seek balance only by buffs rather than nerfs. 5e's superhero PC's are symptomatic of this. But a nerf to the non-fighter classes not only helps balance and keeps fighters relevant, but it alleviates the need to buff monsters and so keeps more of the monster manual relevant.
Totally agree, I firmly believe all the spellcasters need to be nerfed. Like one I have used and seems to be doing well, is in this home game I am dming the Wizard does not get any spells unless they come from spellbooks or scrolls. Meaning at each level they do not get to choose what spells they get. The DM does. And if I don't want them to have a spell they will never get it.
It's so freaking weird to me going into these comment sections and seeing people complain about how 5e has superhero PCs and spellcasters need to be nerfed. 5e _has_ nerfed spellcasters, _drastically,_ compared to 3.5e, and everyone is nerfed compared to 4e. Honestly, rogues and bards are nerfed in many ways compared to 3.5e as well because the skill system is so much more limited in what it allows _and_ leaves your capabilities entirely up to the DM. Stealth in 5e is a _joke_ compared to 4th edition or PF1e - you can't hide while observed, obviously, but you also can't leave cover without breaking stealth (so then what's the point of hiding in the first place?) Rather than letting you move undetected in areas where you otherwise _might_ be detected (such as darting to the other side of an open doorway without being spotted by guards), all Stealth does in 5e is let you be undetected in areas where detecting you shouldn't be assumed to happen anyway (such as when you're invisible, behind a wall relative to whoever you're hiding from, or in total darkness). Wanna know something else? In editions prior to 5e, the Knock spell did not actually create a loud knock when cast; it just opened stuff and there was no text saying anything about it making loud noises. In editions prior to 5e, the Light spell shed normal light in a 30 ft. radius, not 20 ft. In 3.5e and PF, Prestidigitation could be used to clean people or large objects slowly, rather than only tiny objects instantaneously. In 3.5e, Haste granted you an entire extra standard action you could do whatever you wanted with, and it didn't make you skip your next turn when it ended. It also targeted multiple characters simultaneously. In 3e, 3.5e, and PF, the concentration mechanic that's in 5e didn't exist and spellcasters could thus cast Fly and then also have Invisibility active at the same time. A wizard could layer Blur, Blink, Mirror Image, Mage Armor, and Fly all at once while also having Haste cast on the party _and_ trapping an enemy in a Forcecage.
@@FlameUser64 certainly spellcastlng has been nerfed, but apparently not enough. Players who never experienced the absolute dominance of magic in 3e/ 3.5 also wouldn’t understand how the editions before that had restricted magic and spell casting. Haste would age the hasted creature one year in a system that gave penalties with physical age, and would cause a roll on the system shock survival table, giving a small chance of death every time the spell was cast. Polymorph similar could cause it’s subject to die due to system shock. Making permanent magic items lowered a spellcaster’s already low constitution, higher level spells had an equally high ‘speed factor’ built into their casting time meaning that any damage inflicted during the casting time would automatically ruin the spell. 3E undid all these restrictions, increased the highest level of spells of the cleric and druid to 9 to match the wizard, created the sorcerer class to allow at will casting after nearly three decades of Vancian-only memorization, and in general made spell casting incredibly powerful. This along with the nearly nonexistent restrictions to multiclassing meant no character was complete without being a mix of martial and magic-user classes. And now in an edition that has completely shied away from any restrictions on characters, magic has paradoxically been restricted again yet is still seen as so integral to the game that once again no character is complete without being some mix of martial and spell caster classes. Even the attempt to ‘hide’ the multiclassing option hasn’t prevented the real consequence of players abusing the system: the death of the traditional archetypes and the rise of characters that must be able to ‘do it all’.
Tome of Battle is the best D&D book of all time and I'm pissed that they refuse to bring it back and instead obsess over the bullshit "fighter must be braindead simple" concept
This is fantastic. I love the fighter, and this is a spectacular breakdown. The allure of the fighter was never really about doing amazing things, it was about being consistent and resilient, and needing to be there for your more vulnerable allies. As the game goes on, individual classes get less and less vulnerable, and now the fighter has no one to protect. I get why they do it; they want each class to seem individually appealing, and the vulnerability of the old wizard classes seemed daunting. I definitely don't think we need to go back to BECMI days for wizards, but I wish they didn't have every option available to them from level 1 (but giving them d6 hit die was always a great idea, fuck a d4 I just hate d4s). It's a shame because fighters are in my top 3 all time favorite classes, because I love tough and strong martial classes (barbarian, paladin, and fighter are my top 3, maybe not in that exact order but it's close). In fact, I'm playing in a 5e game now where I do get to live out that ideal, because I have the highest AC among the party and I took defensive feats, so I am frequently the one getting in the way of enemies while my spellcaster friends throw out damage spells from the safety of the back line. It's wonderful, and if you can fulfill that power fantasy, fighters are golden.
Please do a reivew of "White Plume Mountain" (which I missed out on buying as a boy) and "Night Below: The Underdark Campaign": Would love to see your entertaining and insightful insights on both. :) Thank You Good Sir.
God I love playing fighters in 5e. their innate tankiness, Action Surge, Second Wind, and Battlemaster maneuvers give you so much wiggle room, even in the early game, to muscle your way into and out of pretty much any situation. They start as the best class in the game and scale pretty damn well. Even though they aren't completely foolproof they have a lot a room to make mistakes and take some beatings before going down and on top of all that, they just need a short rest to get back up to full power. I once had a Warforged Battlemaster, and we were in the Underdark around level 7-8, and I stupidly walked into a small room by myself that contained a Mindflayer and a high level Drow spellcaster. I immediately got stunned by the mindflayer, but because I was a Warforged the DM ruled that none of the brain eating shenanigans worked on me. The two are confused by me as the stun wears off and we roll initiative. I go first and proceed to dump everything I got into them. Action Surge, maneuvers and everything. I walked out of what was supposed to be a difficult boss encounter for the party unscathed.
Dm It All is my favorite channel for D&D content. Shame they don't release videos more frequently, but the long production times certainly show in the refined quality of their work.
A couple of months ago, my bro in law invited me to join into a new campaign he was going on, which would be a 5th edition. Thus, as proper IRL DnD was a new experience for me, I went with a Fighter. That bronze-scale dragonborn is now a level 5 Battlemaster and while I was originally plotting to do the suggested Sentinel polearm builds I was sitting around, I think I'm more than happy to look into my more supportive Battlemaster feats I have available, beyond just the ones for increasing my already ludicrous melee range and hitting a secondary target. In general though I was surprised at how well the first few levels worked with a fighter, just Greatweapons Master's ability to reroll 1/2 on damage and Second Wind meant we didn't have to hit the breaks too often that didn't seem unnatural, even with the rest of the party being stacked with mages (paladin, wizard, ranger with spells)
Funny right now I'm playing a battlemaster fighter, one of two fighters in the campaign, and I have very high intelligence, second highest in the party (16) Having a high int hasn't helped me mechanically but I don't like playing stupid characters. Thankfully my DM is great and in this campaign research is a big deal, so it's between my fighter and the wizard to do this, since I have proficiency in arcana history nature and investigation, and also athletics (expertise in arcana, due to a feat) It's also been joked that since I'm one of two fighters that I'm the eagle scout fighter and the other fighter was the guy on the wrestling team, this is reinforced by the fact that I'm LG and I think the other fighter is true neutral. Our party consists of two fighters (LG and TN) a wizard (LE), and ranger (CG), even though we are all over the place in alignments we are actually a pretty tight knit group, probably because we all consider alignment secondary to circumstances, my LG fighter might not do or approve of some of the things the LE wizard does, but our characters are also best friends and help each other out even if they're shaking their heads at the shenanigans and situations the other one gets us into. The roleplay in this group is amazing, it probably also helps that we are all friends in real life, so even though on paper our characters should hate each other (and occasionally do like riffing on one another) at the end of the day we always stand by each other.... Kind of a "we can mess with each other but don't you dare mess with my friend" sort of dynamic
Tome of Battle was the most fun I ever had with 3.5. I still haven't forgiven the grognards that were deeply offended that martial characters could do cool stuff. There was a LOT of backlash and controversy in the community, and yet the vast majority of it strangely came from players who played casters...They hid behind the fig leaf of "flavor" but fooled no one, they just didn't like martials encroaching on their territory. I suppose the only legitimate complaint was that in a low magic world, they were very strong. But the same is true of casters, people only thought the ToB classes were strong in comparison to the boring ass-fighter
I also think that's a part of why people hate fourth edition (although there's other reasons too): spellcaster players don't like martial characters being able to keep up with them. The old stereotype is that smart but physically weak teenagers play D&D for the fantasy that they can outperform the dumb school jock by studying magic. Maybe that stereotype is true more often than we thought?
Over the years I learn to love fighter more and more. I don’t feel like the lack of a ton of attacks is too much of a big deal in 1e, considering that everything has like 50 HP or less and while the magic users were crazy strong, they still had the limitation of preparation that isn’t present nowadays. Plus at level 7 you do get 3/2 attacks which is 2 attacks every other turn and that’s not nothing.
Great video. Love this series. You missed a couple of extra abilities for the BECMI fighter. Fighters have more combat options than just multiple attacks. They can set spear and Lance charge for double damage, and at 9th level they get Smash (mentioned elsewhere in the comments), Parry and Disarm (as well as the multiple attacks you mentioned). At 9th level fighters can also decide whether to concentrate on becoming a landowning Fighter, or whether they should be a travelling Fighter. If they took the latter option they could then become a new subclass - Knight, Paladin or Avenger (depending on alignment). Each subclass had to swear fealty to an appropriate landowner or church, but then picked up further benefits as a result. These also combine with Weapon Mastery if you are so inclined!
This was a nice video, though probably not as well researched as it could have been. I think a big omission is the mention of the Fighting Man's "sweep" ability in OD&D. It meant that at higher levels (as in any level above 1) a Figher that was fighting against "Normal Types" (a rather unfortunately nebulous concept that, at various times, has meant anything with Hit Dice of 1 or less to up to 3 or less) could make as many attacks as a 1st level Fighter as their level. So a level 5 fighter up against normal types (which MAY include orcs, goblins, gnolls, other humans etc) would make 5 attacks per round, making them quite the threat and letting the fighter scale quite well in higher levels. After all, it doesn't matter how many teleports your Magic-user has when the party runs into a group of 40+ orcs when travelling overland and need to deal with them.
5e’s greatest crime was barely expanding upon battlemaster maneuvers or making an official variant to make them available for all martials. Tasha’s was a step in the right direction, but now 5e is over.
Battlemaster was less "subdued 4e fighter" and more "a blind-man's attempt at a 4e Warlord". For those unaware, the Warlord was a "leader"-type of class, effectively a force multiplier. Different leaders had their own specializations: Clerics and Warlords could both heal, but the cleric had more and better healing options. The warlord, however, could best be described as "A Fighter uses a sword. A Warlord uses a Fighter." with the ability to not just give non-magical healing (the warlord's healing was less "may pelor heal your wounds" and more "angry drill sergeant yelling at you to get up because he didn't give you permission lie down for a nap in the middle of a warzone" or "[anime protagonist friendship nakama family speech]"), but a much greater ability to maneuver his allies or grant them extra actions with bonuses, and unlike the 5e battlemaster this didn't use up any of their target ally's actions or reactions. This meant on the same turn a fighter dropped an enemy, his warlord ally could grant him an off-turn charge against another enemy, and should that enemy try to run away, the fighter could still use their reaction to smack that enemy with their sword, stopping them in their tracks, because the 5e sentinel feat was the standard class ability for the 4e fighter. The 4e fighter was a zone of hard control wrapped in iron and wielding a broadsword on two legs and the Warlord made dang sure the fighter gave 110% to the party.
Glad to see that it’s getting a little easier for you guys to make contact quickly! Just remember to stay safe and to take your breaks when you need them!
I do like the idea in dnd one that only martial characters can crit. It’s a nice throw back to the only trained fighters can roll demage dice from basic dnd.
Been experimenting with playing 0e D&D using Chainmail as the combat system. Just the three original classes, and the Fighter really shines on their role, especially once they are a hero requiring simultaneous hits and the only ones of the Party who can fight in Fantasy combat meaning they are the only ones that can fight some foes.
I’m enjoying the hell out of my Rune Knight fighter lots of CC options without having to get locked into the sentinel/halberd thing everyone else says is optimal. Excellent burst damage and downtime abilities plus rune knight are meme worthy muscle wizards.
I like Rune Knight because it has endless flavor. I played a mystic fighter and retitled all the runes to be the horology/alchemy planets and symbols. One could also, however, easily play a low fantasy version where runes are master-work technology added to your weapons to ensnare and enflame opponents
I've been playing a fighter in a 2e campaign for the last 4 years and we're currently level 12, and it is very satisfying. While yes by pure class mechanics Spellcasters outscale the fighter at these levels. With proper magic equipment and especially how broken magic swords are in 2e you can find the fighter being very very comfortable in being the main damage dealers
Very well explained, thank you very much. I play some D&D 5E, some OSR and some D&D derivative games, and I wasn't yet aware of how much the fighter as a class changed through the years. For example, I am currently running a pretty old-school game where the fighter class seems pretty limited, but it feels like extra attacks and higher base damage had always been there, things that most players now take for granted - and they are also features that my fighters now get at first level, as a default. It's interesting to see how "late" they were as additions to D&D in the mid-1980s. A great presentation all the way through.
I think that 5e could use for more subclasses that eschew overt magical power. Too much of a good thing, and all that. But there ARE still options for playing "Low Magic" builds, albeit mostly limited to the PHB. Sometimes, you just want to emulate Conan style adventures. (Although those looking to tune 5e more towards an Old School power level might be best served picking up something like Five Torches Deep.)
Five Torches Deep and D&D Hardcore Mode are solid and offer a different game. I'd prefer more Conan and low magic sword & sorcery to everyone has magic powers, but whatever works.
I miss some of the iterations of the Fighter that turned up during the D&D Next Playtest that happened in 2012-2013 between the last releases of 4E and 5E coming out. Rather than a focus on Extra Attacks and Action Surge It was essentially like the 5E Battle Master with a pool of "Expertise Dice" or "Martial Damage Dice" (depending on exactly which version of the playtest it was) and Manoeuvres to use with them. Unlike the Battlemaster's Superiority Dice your dice pool came back in full every Round rather than after a rest. All Fighters had "Deadly Strike" which was just the ability to spend the dice and roll them as extra damage and Parry, which was use your reaction to reduce an attack by the amount you rolled on the dice you spent. Beyond these two there were lots of other Manoeuvres to pick to suit your Fighter's combat style Rogues used a similar dice pool and Manoeuvres but more focused around enhancing skills. What we ended up with in 5E is probably more sensible than hitting someone with a tea-cup then spending all your damage dice to cause them to explode but I really like the way you could use your quickly refreshing pool of dice.
In my experience, fighter shines when multiclassed with something unconventional. Even Gandalf used a sword. My main is fighter/psionic, but I also have a fighter/rogue and a sorcerer that can comfortably melee. If you level evenly you can be useful in any scenario.
"This asymmetrical balance [between fighters and magic-users] wasn't a big sticking point for early D&D..." I wasn't alive then, and I agree that casters got stronger... BUT I wouldn't underestimate the force of Classic Nerdy D&D Arguments of the 70s!
None of my players (starting in the 1980s and on) complained about fighters until D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder 1e, and these complaints were rare and relatively mild because almost all of my players gravitated toward paladins or rangers if they wanted a fighter character at all. Pathfinder came out with a supplement to make fighters feel more useful, and that solved the issue for my players that occasionally played fighters. D&D 5e solved the issue by passing around magical powers that imitated spells or worked like the disassociated mechanics of 4e.
Another thing to note in old AD&D you played multiple characters, characters could die easily, character creation was mostly luck based and unless you are playing some planer world shattering campaign most characters would retire around level 10 or 12 and turn into supporting characters. So wizards were rare to get but you could also probably have at least one wizard in your stable of characters you could switch to.
@@bigblue344 Good points. This was all true when we played, and my players that drifted over from modern games to AD&D (or Castles&Crusades) are experiencing the same play style now.
As an AD&D Magic-User, your AC sucked, your spells could (and did) get disrupted if you drew a mote of attention to yourself, and you had no backup plan. No Cantrips for you. No Dodge action. You were basically the guy who could read whatever ancient runes you might stumble across and who just tried to survive long enough to be the party’s wild card.
Methinks anime may have helped reform the fighter in terms of magical abilities by demonstrating how "fighter magic" could be done. Notably like Sword Art Online and Overlord spring readily to mind.
i think the popularity of anime and jrpg's influenced d&d 3rd edition onwards. Even making the rogue/thief more useful and more of a sneaky fighter. Rather than a class that just hangs back until the fight is over lol
I think they should have endgame abilities like the Fighter's Army or the Wizard's World Ender/Shaper Spell back in DnD. But as Epilogue Ribbons that may affect the following Campaign. 4e sorta had this in describing what each Epic Tier did after LV30.
Great video. I've watched most of your other videos, including your class videos, and your channel always has great content. In general, D&D 5e has boosted the martial classes through magic powers that emulate spells (same disassociated mechanics and magical powers as 4e), and this makes the fighter almost nothing like what it was before. Different does not (necessarily) equal wrong, just different. Martial classes became more like wizards with armor and weapons, and higher level monsters were designed with multiple energy resistances and legendary resistances to counteract most wizard damage spells or control effects. I've run games since the 1980s. None of my players ever complained about the fighter vs. wizard disparity until D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder 1e. That complaining was nonexistent or minimal because my players almost never played fighters (preferring barbarians, paladins, and/or rangers) and almost immediately understood Gandalf to be greater than Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas, or Merlin to be greater than Arthur. In ancient warfare swords and axes couldn't keep up with bows much less fireballs, lightning bolts, and clouds of toxins that instantly kill you. Random Thoughts: At the end of the video you mentioned the secret sauce of 5e: Players are super heroic with lots of options. There's already a shortage of DMs for 5e, and I think this will only grow. I think a great video topic would be about the Death of Strength and Intelligence (from previous editions) and the Rise of Dexterity and Charisma in D&D 5e.
My preferred PC type is a high DEX dual finesse weapon (typically shortsword) FIghter/Champion. The ability to make up to 5 attacks in the first combat turn using Action Surge with 19-20 criticals at 5th Level, or up to 7 attacks at 11th Level, should not be underestimated. Because this type of build relies on DEX rather than STR, STR becomes more or less a dump stat, which means my Fighter can have relatively high INT and WIS, middling CON and CHA, and still be a whirlwind of death, like a ballerina/acrobat/scholar with blades. DEX Finesse fighters gain strong bonuses to hit, damage, and AC from one stat, and the Dual Wielder Feat adds an additional point of AC after you max out at 20 DEX.
My first pc was a battle master fighter. While it's not the most powerful class, it was a blast to play. My goliath fighter Brick Handyaxe was the man!
Love all of your videos! As someone who started with 5e, it's fascinating seeing how the things I take for granted actually developed. Thanks for all of your hard work.
I love watching these.... makes me wish I'd have gotten into the game when it was popular. I was always just on the periphery... Read the books....played the video games... just never had rhe chance to really get obsessed with it during the classic times. I envy those who were.
It is really never too late to start... You basically need a few people and the rulebooks and drivethrough RPG sells both PDF and print on demand any edition of rulebooks you might need (except the White box, for some reason they don't print that one but I did buy a reprint on the 1st ed AD&D from them recently). If you don't have a few likeminded friends to play with, you could find some people on any RPG forum and play online using something like Roll20 (it is free, I used it a lot during the pandemic). And D&D is still fairly popular, not as much as it was in the 80s and 90s but there are still millions of players worldwide. It is a rather nice hobby, you basically need 4+ people, some dice, the rules and maybe a pizza and some beer as bonus. It generally isn't a very expensive hobby, the hard part is generally the time since at least my preferred session is about 8 hours and it can be hard to book everyone due to work, family and other reasons.
D&D is more popular than ever, and especially if you like Fighters, everything you need to start playing is in the free Basic Rules PDF, except other people and dice.
Dnd has been more famous than ever due to Lord of the Rings, Stranger Things, and games like Borderlands where everything has a dnd base. Never too late.
I played a Big Dumb Half-Orc Fighter in 3.5. I loved how it let me add fun and levity to even dramatic situations. And yes, I had next to nothing to contribute out of combat but in melee I was a beast. Towards the end, all those feats I had, meant I outclassed our rogue and monk combined.
The iterative attacks in 3e and 3.5e weren't useless. By the time you got them, you have enough buffs, feats, and magical items to hit pretty consistently.
"Supplement I: Greyhawk" also introduced percentile strength, a new subsystem that benefited Fighters exclusively, so we can't give it too much blame, except that it set a precedent for more and more specific additional classes.
But at the same time the fighter seems to be a very popular class. D&D Beyond releases statistics for class distribution, the most played class is fighter. I'm in the process of playing Baldur's Gate 2 again, going by Steam achievements, guess which stronghold is unlocked the most? Yep, the fighter's. I think there's just something very relatable regarding fighters. Everybody can imagine them.
its more a thing of complexity. 5e is the most popular edition of dnd and the /easiest/ class to play is the fighter because you have 2 abilities and you can ignore the rest. Barbarians are also just as simple but have more features that require a further level of interaction. Fighter is the class you give the new guy at the table and he can say 'i hit things' and feel included.
@@bloodybagal well on top of all that, fighters are just cool and actually can win fights. Fighters also have a lot of flavor. The can be the whole "big dumb fighter" trope. Or they can be Bell Cranel from DanMachi. Or Thorfin from Vinland saga. They can be a samurai of any flavor. The Ronin type like Samurai Shamploo or the armored type. They can be the swashbucklers you see in old fantasy movies like lancelot or jack and the beanstock (since old d&d thieves werent good enough to fight like a swashbuckler lol even tho it's one of their kits). Fighters just have a lot of flavor. They arent just big dumb guy. So its no wonder they are so popular
since 1e (A)D&D the "Lowly" Fighter has bean the default Party Leader, the Fighter with the best soft stats was the public face of the party since the Wizard was al tied up doing "Wizard Stuff" the Cleric, Paladin & Druid with Religosity and the politics of Religion could get in the way when they where free and the Thief had to keep Covert and deal with the parties "Extra Legal" stuff. with the DSG & WSG the Fighter was in the best place to take "Campaign Skills" since the rest of the classes where scrambling to take skills to Buff their Class Abilities, or just be able to do stuff the GM used to hand-wave. come 3E you could build the "Nerd Fighter" or MBA (Masters of Battle Administration) could use skill specials to buff their fighting or sub for Rangers & Rogues.
I must say that you glossed over the combat options available to 1st and 2nd edition fighters. How they balanced that out against spellcasters, and the expanded options in the Players Option books. Fighters used to be essential to a party’s success in earlier editions. They are now the objectively worse option to take in 5e.
I think I might house-rule 3e and pathfinder and say “fighters do not provoke attacks of opportunity unless faced by a character with a BAB 4 or more higher than themselves.” The only exception to this rule is if the Fighter casts a spell using a spellcasting class.
Also good to point out that fighters and all the martial classes in 5e sometimes get the best armor classes. Dex and spellcaster classes usually need high stats and magic items, a feat maybe, but a fighter just neeeds plate mail and a normal shield and can have 20 AC at level 1
I wasn't around to hate 4th edition when it came out, but after watching all three of your class videos, I've noticed a pattern that the 4th edition class summary is almost exactly the same. Every class essentially had spells and functioned similarly mechanics-wise. I'm sure that I'm generalizing and each class had their own specific niche, but the fact that every single one can really be summarized in almost the exact same way shows, in my opinion, why people didn't like or were bored with 4th edition.
u are indeed generalizing. 4th edition wasnt bad. It got a lot of hate cause old heads dont like the idea of d&d adopting video game mechanics. If it released as a new table top rpg without any relation to dungeons and dragons, it wouldve been considered a good game
Martials in 5E are in a pretty bad place but the fighter's versatility makes it one of the two best martial classes due to it's ability to flexibly multi-class with so many other classes. Additionally its the only class that eventually gets more than two attacks so even its straight class is solid. I do wish that both Barbs and Fighters got a few more hit points. It would be really nice if at level 5 or so they just got the tough feat as a class feature to give these two classes a little more survivability. Regardless, the fighter is part of many of my favorite builds including Fighter/Barb, Fighter/ Swashbuckler Rogue, and Fighter/Battlesmith Artificer I think that the battlemaster fighter in particular really captures the essence of an expert martial expert. Personally, I'd love to see the fighter and maybe even the barb just get some manuever-like abilities in the base class. I feel like these two classes should be the two that really know how to handle martial weapons and be able to achieve things with their instuments of war that make the other classes seem intermediate in comparison.
My take on the 3.5E fighter was as an "elite pilot" for a set of high-level magical items. Kinda the same way fighter pilots are still a different and necessary specialty from flight crews and aeronautics engineers. That said, it wasn't perfect. The whole party would have to be in on kitting out the fighter with tailored gear.
I'm about to start playing D&D with a group of coworkers and I don't imagine playing a "big dumb fighter". I want to make a gentleman fighter that collects books to learn new military tactics. I am tempted to make a swords college bard but I want to use a shield in combat.
Can you do a video on The Forest Oracle? Widely considered one of the worst D&D modules of all time. Idk I would like to see a full analysis of it due to all the bad things I have heard about it.
Fighter upon entering 3e: What do you mean it's all feats now? It's the stuff that used to be my class abilities and now I have to take it to even be doing decent? Fuck, the Warrior NPC class is better than me
This is seriously some of the better d&d-related content out there
I adore these history videos. For a game as big as D&D it's surprisingly difficult to find good retrospectives on much of the older content.
I agree the algorithm just blessed me today with this channel. Subbed.
Agreed
Yeah they run through modules in the most engaging way I've ever seen
He’s gotten some of the historical facts wrong but overall it’s an ok presentation. Proficiencies (AD&D ‘skills’) were introduced in 1985 by the Oriental Adventures supplement, two years before the first Gazetteer. And ‘Basic D&D’ was just D&D, the basic rules pertaining to the first three (later five) levels. The Expert, Companion, Master and Immortals rules effectively made a game as complex or even more so than AD&D, and today is usually referred to as BECMI with most players preferring the Rules Cyclopedia as the definitive edition of that game.
Fighter is one of my favourite classes, especially those with a more mundane tone. There's something about being just a mundane warrior with nothing but there skill and a keen blade in there hands going up against arcane liches and towering dragons.
their*
This. 100% this. When you have a world filled with fantastical creatures and people born with wild magical powers, the fact that a guy can just pick up a sword and get SO GOOD with it to the point where he can more than keep up with all the crazy shit around him is the coolest.
Yep magic's for losers.
Same the fighter and the barbarian are my favorite classes because they are just warriors, people relying on the strength of their arms, their ferocity and a good weapon to cut down their foes.
"there skill" - "there hands"
I'm not sure you're qualified to be anything else.
The fighter’s hardest challenge in every edition has been asking if, after the druid turns into a bat, the wizard teleports in a puff of smoke and the warlock uses arcane power to levitate, they can use an athletics skill check to scale the 30ft wall to join them.
And every DM would scoff, “Pfft, no, that’s so unrealistic.”
Yeah I remember these arguments. Most fighter players would counter back with "If we're going for realism, then waggling your fingers leaves you at the base of the cliff because levitation isn't `realistic' either." 🤓
This is not a problem in first edition D&D, since the wizard has an incredibly low number of hit points and spells and is very weak defense-wise, so there's no problem in having him get out of trouble with a spell from time to time.
Also, in first D&D there's no warlock and no druid (I'm talking about 1974 D&D).
Why aren't the wizard, druid, and warlock throwing a rope down for the fighter?
@@gho5trun3r68 I think they all already use action so now they can’t use item
Never heard of the “dart fighter” before (played 2E) and while the community often dumps on minmaxers, they do serve a useful purpose: identifying silly and broken mechanics.
The dart specialist wasn’t a problem, just mostly a boogie man used by critics of 2nd edition to point out flaws that could be exploited by munchkins (today called ‘optimizers’). I never saw anyone attempt the dart-fighter, mostly because everyone wanted to make actual characters that were fun to play and had role playing potential. I do suppose munchkins can be useful in pointing out unintended exploits of rules systems but if ‘normal’ players never think to break the game then it’s like it’s not broken to begin with.
There was no internet during 2E.
In defense of Fourth edition: The Power system was flawed but the design was genius.
Hit Die in 5E came from healing surges in 4E. Healing without magic wasn't a thing before 4E made it normal.
Also 4E abstraction allowed for non-magical parties. The Warlord, a charisma/intelligence based support fighter healed with inspiring words and commanded allies to strike. 5E has the Commader's Strike and Rally Maneuvers in the Battle Master Fighter that are worse copies of what a warlord could do.
Agreed - the 4E section also only covered the Fighter (Weaponmaster) class, leaving out the lacklustre de-4E-ed Fighter (Knight) and Fighter (Slayer) from the Essentials series, and arguably the Warlord as the not-only-swinging-a-sword fighter that was hinted at but rarely achieved in 3E.
It also missed that the genesis of 4E's taunt (marking) mechanic existed in the 3.5E Knight, which had an actual MMO Taunt ability (removing any control from the DM and making a monster attack, versus 4E's "give the DM a difficult choice" implementation).
Oh I'd say the Power System was a great idea for 4th Edition and in general... but it had the problem of "This doesn't look like D&D" to most people. And to be fair... it had a level shifted problem to people's perspectives. Like a first level fighter's exploits were on the level of what (comparatively) it'd take at least 6th level for a Fighter to achieve in 3rd Edition. Thus also giving a kneejerk reaction beyond just the formatting and what not of "These are magic powers!" for something like... Tides of Iron. "I hit someone with a shield, taunt them, and step into their space". Hardly big magic powers. But it was something a fighter in 3rd Edition couldn't do until... I believe it was 10th level in a single round to that level.
There was a lot of elegant and frankly inspired design in that for fourth edition. Like less "All or Nothing", where the player always got SOMETHING out of their efforts (Be it Reliable powers that just came back if you missed to things like the Sleep spell where enemies were slowed even if they saved against the initial spell). Lots of beautiful things like the Fighter actually had a reason to specialized in a weapon other than "It's the best magic weapon I found lately" with different exploits working better with the right gear. Something that made Bob the Spearmaster play differently than Bob the Axe Master. Which was really unique for D&D. Or just characters being broadly competent at things in 4th Edition unlike 3rd where a first level wizard probably had a 70% chance to fail to climb a ladder.
But... it never stood a chance. People saw that the 4th Edition book didn't look like the 3rd Edition book on the quick flip through then saw "Magic powers" for classes they didn't want to have magic powers like Fighters or Rogues, and it was pretty much done for most people.
Sadly... a lot of good was tossed aside to get the fans back for 5th edition as a classic nostalgia bait edition. But yeah, a lot of 5th edition's body was build on 4th edition skeletal structure. Like Long and Short Rests, Hit Dice healing, abilities you can only use X times per Long/Short Rest for various classes outside of "I cast magic". Heck even the idea of making the game more about the abilities of your characters and less about the 20 pieces of magic flair you stapled onto your character is right out of it.
@@hitomisalazar4073 Do you think that it's spellcaster players or martial players who complained that fighters actually had powers?
If it's martial players, then I don't quite understand because I'm a martial player and I love being able to do other things than spam basic attacks. Plus I love actually being able to keep up with spellcasters at high level.
If it's spellcasters, then it seems a bit petty that spellcasters say "NO, you martial players don't get to have fun toys, only we get to have fun toys. We want to outshine martials at high level, damnit, and we're not going to play an edition where high-level martials can keep up with us."
@@lightworker2956 I personally found that, in general, it was spellcasters (or those who routinely played spellcasters primarily in 3rd edition) who complained about the Powers system more than anyone else. Because in general the Powers system did two things. It stopped them from being able to one shot an encounter (For example Sleep went from a spell every wizard had because it had a decent chance of just slaughtering an encounter outright, or at least crippling it heavily, to a spell that was useful but far from a "I used a single action and won forever" ability in 4th as you had something like overall about a 25% chance on average to knock out any given target, as opposed to like a 70% for the 3rd Edition version, but instead you had a 100% chance of some useful effect being applied regardless in 4th, just not a one shot the encounter effect), and also gave other people cool things to do that were flashy abilities. Thus why it was usually framed up as "giving fighters magic".
I'm sure other people had other issues, and to be fair there was a general pushback against 4th because... it didn't "look" like D&D. Just the way the book was written, often with very direct, blunt and simplistic language to how abilities were formatted down to like 1 sentence of fluff and clearly stated and organized mechanics was very much not something D&D did before then.
So there was a generalist sort of push. Which is honestly something you see a lot in sort of D&D discussion spaces and what was at 4th edition, the new idea of the internet D&D community being a major thing. About how the game was "dumb" because "everyone had magic now". Where they'd look at something like the Ranger's Twin Strike (I hit with both melee weapons for double damage, with a bonus to do it instead of like a -6 penalty at first level) and call it "a magic power" that broke the baseline concept of what a Ranger was allowed to be.
Like this view that D&D is a competitive Esports video game where X and Y and Z have to be very specifically balanced so there is a Rock Paper Scissors balance to them and parity. Which makes people kind of freak out a little when they see something that looks like "X+1". Like when the Echo Fighter in 5th Edition came out I saw people freaking out about how Fighters shouldn't be able to do things like Unleash Incarnations and Action Surge to get 6 attacks in a single round at level 5. That it was TOO MUCH and broken.
And 4th Edition got that result because people saw the baseline competence of classes. Where right from level 1 characters were actually good and capable at what they were supposed to do. A Paladin didn't have to grind out 4 levels before they could put a holy smackdown on people. The Fighter didn't need like 8 levels before they could do a minor trick like "I knock someone prone" without penalties. It was a violation expectation of "What a Fighter is allowed to be" in this theoretical "balance" idea like they were playing some game that was giving out a 10,000 cash prize every year at EVO.
Instead of how I try to look at it. It's a cooperative narrative game. Giving someone a chance to do something cool means... you have a moment where something cool happens. YOu havet hat moment where Legolas kills one of those massive war elephants like in the Peter Jackson movies. Or when Kyle Reese shows up to save Sarah Connor by just unloading like 8 unanswered shotgun blasts into the terminator knocking it back and stunning it. Or when you see the main character of Fist of the North Star go all: "You are already dead" and have someone explode into blood from attacks they didn't even see.
Been playing 4e, fighter feels much better. So does everything else. 5e fighter is still big and dumb, eldritch knight is pointless.
I know there's a good chance it was just a joke, but I wanted to point out that the darts employed in D&D are weighted war darts similar to the Roman plumbata. These are essentially short javelins, not tiny modern pub darts. Quite deadly.
They are lawn darts and no one will ever convince me otherwise.
uhh, that's just Javelin, not Dart
@@justnoob8141 look up plumbata and then look up javelin. very different.
@@hmad898 it’s literally just a massive dart, not a javelin
@@justnoob8141 darts are not javelins. They're shorter sticks with fletching on them. Like really big arrows that are designed to be thrown
Fun Fact: In 5e, concentration checks are rolled with every hit, so every dart of magic missile or swing of a fighter's weapon is its own roll (and why waste a 1st level slot when you can hasten the fighter so they can hit the caster even more with damage that will far surpass the missile for both raw damage and the save DC). Fighters are simplicity done well in my opinion.
Wizard will scoff at that stupid idea and said "I can do better damage than that pesky braindead fighter!" and proceess to cast level 9 Fireball at Fire Elemental and THEN whining about the DM single him out WHILE being the FIRST to run into a melee
I HAVE WAITED SO LONG FOR ANOTHER VIDEO LIKE THIS!!!!
I have seen the video about the thief, the video about the monk, and the video about the history of D&D... each... THREE TIMES!
You're so good at research! As an academic, I am impressed!
In the context of older editions (B/X, 1e or 2e), I'm a big fan of extra attacks for the fighter through leveling, weapon specialization, etc. I find it strange when this is argued to be too powerful when it still generally doesn't compare to spellcasting force multipliers and versatility. But the single best variation, IMO, is Lamentations of the Flame Princess' rule whereby fighters and only fighters gain to hit bonuses as they level. Yes, that makes fighters radically better fighters than other classes as they level up. That's the whole point. This kind of big change is required to make the balance-conscious player think "well, I might actually want to play a fighter now." There's a reason it's called "linear fighters/quadratic wizards" and not "linear fighters/1.5x wizards... maybe 2x wizards?" The spellcasters have a huge advantage and a solution that alters expected damage input by 10%, or even 50%, isn't enough to solve the problem at higher levels.
Thanks to vocal complainers, there's an overwhelming pressure in all ttrpg's, video games, etc. to seek balance only by buffs rather than nerfs. 5e's superhero PC's are symptomatic of this. But a nerf to the non-fighter classes not only helps balance and keeps fighters relevant, but it alleviates the need to buff monsters and so keeps more of the monster manual relevant.
Oh my God. I’ve dreamed about a system with the guts to implement that idea. I’ve been on a DCC kick, but now I gotta look into that one as well.
I think LOTFP also took away fireball And lightning bolt if I’m not mistaken.
Totally agree, I firmly believe all the spellcasters need to be nerfed. Like one I have used and seems to be doing well, is in this home game I am dming the Wizard does not get any spells unless they come from spellbooks or scrolls. Meaning at each level they do not get to choose what spells they get. The DM does. And if I don't want them to have a spell they will never get it.
It's so freaking weird to me going into these comment sections and seeing people complain about how 5e has superhero PCs and spellcasters need to be nerfed. 5e _has_ nerfed spellcasters, _drastically,_ compared to 3.5e, and everyone is nerfed compared to 4e. Honestly, rogues and bards are nerfed in many ways compared to 3.5e as well because the skill system is so much more limited in what it allows _and_ leaves your capabilities entirely up to the DM. Stealth in 5e is a _joke_ compared to 4th edition or PF1e - you can't hide while observed, obviously, but you also can't leave cover without breaking stealth (so then what's the point of hiding in the first place?) Rather than letting you move undetected in areas where you otherwise _might_ be detected (such as darting to the other side of an open doorway without being spotted by guards), all Stealth does in 5e is let you be undetected in areas where detecting you shouldn't be assumed to happen anyway (such as when you're invisible, behind a wall relative to whoever you're hiding from, or in total darkness).
Wanna know something else? In editions prior to 5e, the Knock spell did not actually create a loud knock when cast; it just opened stuff and there was no text saying anything about it making loud noises. In editions prior to 5e, the Light spell shed normal light in a 30 ft. radius, not 20 ft. In 3.5e and PF, Prestidigitation could be used to clean people or large objects slowly, rather than only tiny objects instantaneously. In 3.5e, Haste granted you an entire extra standard action you could do whatever you wanted with, and it didn't make you skip your next turn when it ended. It also targeted multiple characters simultaneously. In 3e, 3.5e, and PF, the concentration mechanic that's in 5e didn't exist and spellcasters could thus cast Fly and then also have Invisibility active at the same time. A wizard could layer Blur, Blink, Mirror Image, Mage Armor, and Fly all at once while also having Haste cast on the party _and_ trapping an enemy in a Forcecage.
@@FlameUser64 certainly spellcastlng has been nerfed, but apparently not enough. Players who never experienced the absolute dominance of magic in 3e/ 3.5 also wouldn’t understand how the editions before that had restricted magic and spell casting. Haste would age the hasted creature one year in a system that gave penalties with physical age, and would cause a roll on the system shock survival table, giving a small chance of death every time the spell was cast. Polymorph similar could cause it’s subject to die due to system shock. Making permanent magic items lowered a spellcaster’s already low constitution, higher level spells had an equally high ‘speed factor’ built into their casting time meaning that any damage inflicted during the casting time would automatically ruin the spell. 3E undid all these restrictions, increased the highest level of spells of the cleric and druid to 9 to match the wizard, created the sorcerer class to allow at will casting after nearly three decades of Vancian-only memorization, and in general made spell casting incredibly powerful. This along with the nearly nonexistent restrictions to multiclassing meant no character was complete without being a mix of martial and magic-user classes.
And now in an edition that has completely shied away from any restrictions on characters, magic has paradoxically been restricted again yet is still seen as so integral to the game that once again no character is complete without being some mix of martial and spell caster classes. Even the attempt to ‘hide’ the multiclassing option hasn’t prevented the real consequence of players abusing the system: the death of the traditional archetypes and the rise of characters that must be able to ‘do it all’.
Tome of Battle is the best D&D book of all time and I'm pissed that they refuse to bring it back and instead obsess over the bullshit "fighter must be braindead simple" concept
it doesn't matter what they want to do it's your game and you can do whatever you like
Usually mage players and some folks who called it "Weaboo shit" that complain about it. Me, I'm fine with Tome of Battle
All those pieces of art from 1st edition REALLY take me back!
This is fantastic. I love the fighter, and this is a spectacular breakdown. The allure of the fighter was never really about doing amazing things, it was about being consistent and resilient, and needing to be there for your more vulnerable allies. As the game goes on, individual classes get less and less vulnerable, and now the fighter has no one to protect. I get why they do it; they want each class to seem individually appealing, and the vulnerability of the old wizard classes seemed daunting. I definitely don't think we need to go back to BECMI days for wizards, but I wish they didn't have every option available to them from level 1 (but giving them d6 hit die was always a great idea, fuck a d4 I just hate d4s). It's a shame because fighters are in my top 3 all time favorite classes, because I love tough and strong martial classes (barbarian, paladin, and fighter are my top 3, maybe not in that exact order but it's close). In fact, I'm playing in a 5e game now where I do get to live out that ideal, because I have the highest AC among the party and I took defensive feats, so I am frequently the one getting in the way of enemies while my spellcaster friends throw out damage spells from the safety of the back line. It's wonderful, and if you can fulfill that power fantasy, fighters are golden.
Please do a reivew of "White Plume Mountain" (which I missed out on buying as a boy) and "Night Below: The Underdark Campaign": Would love to see your entertaining and insightful insights on both. :) Thank You Good Sir.
God I love playing fighters in 5e. their innate tankiness, Action Surge, Second Wind, and Battlemaster maneuvers give you so much wiggle room, even in the early game, to muscle your way into and out of pretty much any situation. They start as the best class in the game and scale pretty damn well. Even though they aren't completely foolproof they have a lot a room to make mistakes and take some beatings before going down and on top of all that, they just need a short rest to get back up to full power.
I once had a Warforged Battlemaster, and we were in the Underdark around level 7-8, and I stupidly walked into a small room by myself that contained a Mindflayer and a high level Drow spellcaster. I immediately got stunned by the mindflayer, but because I was a Warforged the DM ruled that none of the brain eating shenanigans worked on me. The two are confused by me as the stun wears off and we roll initiative. I go first and proceed to dump everything I got into them. Action Surge, maneuvers and everything. I walked out of what was supposed to be a difficult boss encounter for the party unscathed.
Dm It All is my favorite channel for D&D content. Shame they don't release videos more frequently, but the long production times certainly show in the refined quality of their work.
A couple of months ago, my bro in law invited me to join into a new campaign he was going on, which would be a 5th edition. Thus, as proper IRL DnD was a new experience for me, I went with a Fighter. That bronze-scale dragonborn is now a level 5 Battlemaster and while I was originally plotting to do the suggested Sentinel polearm builds I was sitting around, I think I'm more than happy to look into my more supportive Battlemaster feats I have available, beyond just the ones for increasing my already ludicrous melee range and hitting a secondary target. In general though I was surprised at how well the first few levels worked with a fighter, just Greatweapons Master's ability to reroll 1/2 on damage and Second Wind meant we didn't have to hit the breaks too often that didn't seem unnatural, even with the rest of the party being stacked with mages (paladin, wizard, ranger with spells)
Funny right now I'm playing a battlemaster fighter, one of two fighters in the campaign, and I have very high intelligence, second highest in the party (16)
Having a high int hasn't helped me mechanically but I don't like playing stupid characters. Thankfully my DM is great and in this campaign research is a big deal, so it's between my fighter and the wizard to do this, since I have proficiency in arcana history nature and investigation, and also athletics (expertise in arcana, due to a feat)
It's also been joked that since I'm one of two fighters that I'm the eagle scout fighter and the other fighter was the guy on the wrestling team, this is reinforced by the fact that I'm LG and I think the other fighter is true neutral.
Our party consists of two fighters (LG and TN) a wizard (LE), and ranger (CG), even though we are all over the place in alignments we are actually a pretty tight knit group, probably because we all consider alignment secondary to circumstances, my LG fighter might not do or approve of some of the things the LE wizard does, but our characters are also best friends and help each other out even if they're shaking their heads at the shenanigans and situations the other one gets us into.
The roleplay in this group is amazing, it probably also helps that we are all friends in real life, so even though on paper our characters should hate each other (and occasionally do like riffing on one another) at the end of the day we always stand by each other.... Kind of a "we can mess with each other but don't you dare mess with my friend" sort of dynamic
Tome of Battle was the most fun I ever had with 3.5. I still haven't forgiven the grognards that were deeply offended that martial characters could do cool stuff. There was a LOT of backlash and controversy in the community, and yet the vast majority of it strangely came from players who played casters...They hid behind the fig leaf of "flavor" but fooled no one, they just didn't like martials encroaching on their territory.
I suppose the only legitimate complaint was that in a low magic world, they were very strong. But the same is true of casters, people only thought the ToB classes were strong in comparison to the boring ass-fighter
I also think that's a part of why people hate fourth edition (although there's other reasons too): spellcaster players don't like martial characters being able to keep up with them.
The old stereotype is that smart but physically weak teenagers play D&D for the fantasy that they can outperform the dumb school jock by studying magic. Maybe that stereotype is true more often than we thought?
Late comment but is that why Tome of Battles got the unfortunate nickname of Tome of Weaboo Fightan Magic?
@@rpgchronicler yes
@@rpgchroniclerthe main “criticism” about the book is that it felt too “anime” and so it got that unfortunate nickname
Over the years I learn to love fighter more and more.
I don’t feel like the lack of a ton of attacks is too much of a big deal in 1e, considering that everything has like 50 HP or less and while the magic users were crazy strong, they still had the limitation of preparation that isn’t present nowadays. Plus at level 7 you do get 3/2 attacks which is 2 attacks every other turn and that’s not nothing.
4e: they made fighters awesome.
People: this is terrible.
5e: they made a dumbed down 4e.
People: this is awesone.
I’d love to see you do a walkthrough of the world’s largest dungeon.
Great video. Love this series.
You missed a couple of extra abilities for the BECMI fighter. Fighters have more combat options than just multiple attacks. They can set spear and Lance charge for double damage, and at 9th level they get Smash (mentioned elsewhere in the comments), Parry and Disarm (as well as the multiple attacks you mentioned).
At 9th level fighters can also decide whether to concentrate on becoming a landowning Fighter, or whether they should be a travelling Fighter. If they took the latter option they could then become a new subclass - Knight, Paladin or Avenger (depending on alignment). Each subclass had to swear fealty to an appropriate landowner or church, but then picked up further benefits as a result.
These also combine with Weapon Mastery if you are so inclined!
WHAT that the use of haste aged the target sounds SO FUN
This was a nice video, though probably not as well researched as it could have been. I think a big omission is the mention of the Fighting Man's "sweep" ability in OD&D. It meant that at higher levels (as in any level above 1) a Figher that was fighting against "Normal Types" (a rather unfortunately nebulous concept that, at various times, has meant anything with Hit Dice of 1 or less to up to 3 or less) could make as many attacks as a 1st level Fighter as their level. So a level 5 fighter up against normal types (which MAY include orcs, goblins, gnolls, other humans etc) would make 5 attacks per round, making them quite the threat and letting the fighter scale quite well in higher levels. After all, it doesn't matter how many teleports your Magic-user has when the party runs into a group of 40+ orcs when travelling overland and need to deal with them.
5e’s greatest crime was barely expanding upon battlemaster maneuvers or making an official variant to make them available for all martials. Tasha’s was a step in the right direction, but now 5e is over.
you can full-heartedly blame 3.5 Grognard for that
1 year later comment, i know, i know.
But hear me out
Check out "Level Up: Advanced 5th edition"
It does exactly what you said
Battlemaster was less "subdued 4e fighter" and more "a blind-man's attempt at a 4e Warlord".
For those unaware, the Warlord was a "leader"-type of class, effectively a force multiplier. Different leaders had their own specializations: Clerics and Warlords could both heal, but the cleric had more and better healing options. The warlord, however, could best be described as "A Fighter uses a sword. A Warlord uses a Fighter." with the ability to not just give non-magical healing (the warlord's healing was less "may pelor heal your wounds" and more "angry drill sergeant yelling at you to get up because he didn't give you permission lie down for a nap in the middle of a warzone" or "[anime protagonist friendship nakama family speech]"), but a much greater ability to maneuver his allies or grant them extra actions with bonuses, and unlike the 5e battlemaster this didn't use up any of their target ally's actions or reactions.
This meant on the same turn a fighter dropped an enemy, his warlord ally could grant him an off-turn charge against another enemy, and should that enemy try to run away, the fighter could still use their reaction to smack that enemy with their sword, stopping them in their tracks, because the 5e sentinel feat was the standard class ability for the 4e fighter.
The 4e fighter was a zone of hard control wrapped in iron and wielding a broadsword on two legs and the Warlord made dang sure the fighter gave 110% to the party.
Glad to see that it’s getting a little easier for you guys to make contact quickly! Just remember to stay safe and to take your breaks when you need them!
I do like the idea in dnd one that only martial characters can crit. It’s a nice throw back to the only trained fighters can roll demage dice from basic dnd.
Been experimenting with playing 0e D&D using Chainmail as the combat system. Just the three original classes, and the Fighter really shines on their role, especially once they are a hero requiring simultaneous hits and the only ones of the Party who can fight in Fantasy combat meaning they are the only ones that can fight some foes.
I’m enjoying the hell out of my Rune Knight fighter lots of CC options without having to get locked into the sentinel/halberd thing everyone else says is optimal. Excellent burst damage and downtime abilities plus rune knight are meme worthy muscle wizards.
I like Rune Knight because it has endless flavor.
I played a mystic fighter and retitled all the runes to be the horology/alchemy planets and symbols.
One could also, however, easily play a low fantasy version where runes are master-work technology added to your weapons to ensnare and enflame opponents
This video convinced me that fighters were most satisfying to play in the era of 2E, with kits and grand mastery options.
I've been playing a fighter in a 2e campaign for the last 4 years and we're currently level 12, and it is very satisfying. While yes by pure class mechanics Spellcasters outscale the fighter at these levels. With proper magic equipment and especially how broken magic swords are in 2e you can find the fighter being very very comfortable in being the main damage dealers
Hearing "Hello, and welcome to DM It All" always puts a smile on my face :)
Keep up the great work! You guys are absolutely my favorite DnD channel
Very well explained, thank you very much. I play some D&D 5E, some OSR and some D&D derivative games, and I wasn't yet aware of how much the fighter as a class changed through the years. For example, I am currently running a pretty old-school game where the fighter class seems pretty limited, but it feels like extra attacks and higher base damage had always been there, things that most players now take for granted - and they are also features that my fighters now get at first level, as a default. It's interesting to see how "late" they were as additions to D&D in the mid-1980s. A great presentation all the way through.
I think that 5e could use for more subclasses that eschew overt magical power. Too much of a good thing, and all that. But there ARE still options for playing "Low Magic" builds, albeit mostly limited to the PHB. Sometimes, you just want to emulate Conan style adventures.
(Although those looking to tune 5e more towards an Old School power level might be best served picking up something like Five Torches Deep.)
Five Torches Deep and D&D Hardcore Mode are solid and offer a different game. I'd prefer more Conan and low magic sword & sorcery to everyone has magic powers, but whatever works.
I miss some of the iterations of the Fighter that turned up during the D&D Next Playtest that happened in 2012-2013 between the last releases of 4E and 5E coming out.
Rather than a focus on Extra Attacks and Action Surge It was essentially like the 5E Battle Master with a pool of "Expertise Dice" or "Martial Damage Dice" (depending on exactly which version of the playtest it was) and Manoeuvres to use with them.
Unlike the Battlemaster's Superiority Dice your dice pool came back in full every Round rather than after a rest.
All Fighters had "Deadly Strike" which was just the ability to spend the dice and roll them as extra damage and Parry, which was use your reaction to reduce an attack by the amount you rolled on the dice you spent.
Beyond these two there were lots of other Manoeuvres to pick to suit your Fighter's combat style
Rogues used a similar dice pool and Manoeuvres but more focused around enhancing skills.
What we ended up with in 5E is probably more sensible than hitting someone with a tea-cup then spending all your damage dice to cause them to explode but I really like the way you could use your quickly refreshing pool of dice.
Tome of battle characters were some of the most fun I've ever had.
In my experience, fighter shines when multiclassed with something unconventional. Even Gandalf used a sword. My main is fighter/psionic, but I also have a fighter/rogue and a sorcerer that can comfortably melee. If you level evenly you can be useful in any scenario.
"Massive armies" might be something of an overstatement.
"This asymmetrical balance [between fighters and magic-users] wasn't a big sticking point for early D&D..."
I wasn't alive then, and I agree that casters got stronger... BUT I wouldn't underestimate the force of Classic Nerdy D&D Arguments of the 70s!
None of my players (starting in the 1980s and on) complained about fighters until D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder 1e, and these complaints were rare and relatively mild because almost all of my players gravitated toward paladins or rangers if they wanted a fighter character at all. Pathfinder came out with a supplement to make fighters feel more useful, and that solved the issue for my players that occasionally played fighters. D&D 5e solved the issue by passing around magical powers that imitated spells or worked like the disassociated mechanics of 4e.
Another thing to note in old AD&D you played multiple characters, characters could die easily, character creation was mostly luck based and unless you are playing some planer world shattering campaign most characters would retire around level 10 or 12 and turn into supporting characters. So wizards were rare to get but you could also probably have at least one wizard in your stable of characters you could switch to.
@@bigblue344 Good points. This was all true when we played, and my players that drifted over from modern games to AD&D (or Castles&Crusades) are experiencing the same play style now.
As an AD&D Magic-User, your AC sucked, your spells could (and did) get disrupted if you drew a mote of attention to yourself, and you had no backup plan. No Cantrips for you. No Dodge action. You were basically the guy who could read whatever ancient runes you might stumble across and who just tried to survive long enough to be the party’s wild card.
@@bigblue344 I think the multiple character assumption probably had a big effect on this, yes
Methinks anime may have helped reform the fighter in terms of magical abilities by demonstrating how "fighter magic" could be done. Notably like Sword Art Online and Overlord spring readily to mind.
i think the popularity of anime and jrpg's influenced d&d 3rd edition onwards. Even making the rogue/thief more useful and more of a sneaky fighter. Rather than a class that just hangs back until the fight is over lol
I think they should have endgame abilities like the Fighter's Army or the Wizard's World Ender/Shaper Spell back in DnD.
But as Epilogue Ribbons that may affect the following Campaign.
4e sorta had this in describing what each Epic Tier did after LV30.
Great video. I've watched most of your other videos, including your class videos, and your channel always has great content.
In general, D&D 5e has boosted the martial classes through magic powers that emulate spells (same disassociated mechanics and magical powers as 4e), and this makes the fighter almost nothing like what it was before. Different does not (necessarily) equal wrong, just different. Martial classes became more like wizards with armor and weapons, and higher level monsters were designed with multiple energy resistances and legendary resistances to counteract most wizard damage spells or control effects.
I've run games since the 1980s. None of my players ever complained about the fighter vs. wizard disparity until D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder 1e. That complaining was nonexistent or minimal because my players almost never played fighters (preferring barbarians, paladins, and/or rangers) and almost immediately understood Gandalf to be greater than Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas, or Merlin to be greater than Arthur. In ancient warfare swords and axes couldn't keep up with bows much less fireballs, lightning bolts, and clouds of toxins that instantly kill you.
Random Thoughts:
At the end of the video you mentioned the secret sauce of 5e: Players are super heroic with lots of options. There's already a shortage of DMs for 5e, and I think this will only grow.
I think a great video topic would be about the Death of Strength and Intelligence (from previous editions) and the Rise of Dexterity and Charisma in D&D 5e.
the rise of dexterity in general. It seems dex being pretty op is really common in most rpg video games as well.
ALWAYS a pleasure when DM it All releases a video!
Glad to see some more of these videos! Fighter is my second favorite class, here's hoping we get a video on Barbarians someday!
Same the barbarian is my favorite class!
Second edition weapon specialization was awesome! Dual wielding dagger fighter. But indeed, I think 5e did fighters right.
My preferred PC type is a high DEX dual finesse weapon (typically shortsword) FIghter/Champion. The ability to make up to 5 attacks in the first combat turn using Action Surge with 19-20 criticals at 5th Level, or up to 7 attacks at 11th Level, should not be underestimated. Because this type of build relies on DEX rather than STR, STR becomes more or less a dump stat, which means my Fighter can have relatively high INT and WIS, middling CON and CHA, and still be a whirlwind of death, like a ballerina/acrobat/scholar with blades. DEX Finesse fighters gain strong bonuses to hit, damage, and AC from one stat, and the Dual Wielder Feat adds an additional point of AC after you max out at 20 DEX.
My first pc was a battle master fighter. While it's not the most powerful class, it was a blast to play. My goliath fighter Brick Handyaxe was the man!
Love all of your videos! As someone who started with 5e, it's fascinating seeing how the things I take for granted actually developed. Thanks for all of your hard work.
I love watching these.... makes me wish I'd have gotten into the game when it was popular. I was always just on the periphery... Read the books....played the video games... just never had rhe chance to really get obsessed with it during the classic times. I envy those who were.
It is really never too late to start... You basically need a few people and the rulebooks and drivethrough RPG sells both PDF and print on demand any edition of rulebooks you might need (except the White box, for some reason they don't print that one but I did buy a reprint on the 1st ed AD&D from them recently).
If you don't have a few likeminded friends to play with, you could find some people on any RPG forum and play online using something like Roll20 (it is free, I used it a lot during the pandemic).
And D&D is still fairly popular, not as much as it was in the 80s and 90s but there are still millions of players worldwide. It is a rather nice hobby, you basically need 4+ people, some dice, the rules and maybe a pizza and some beer as bonus. It generally isn't a very expensive hobby, the hard part is generally the time since at least my preferred session is about 8 hours and it can be hard to book everyone due to work, family and other reasons.
The game has never been better than today. Adventure yourself into a group, and play!
@@ricardoponcefernandez6339 Never been better? The rules have.
D&D is more popular than ever, and especially if you like Fighters, everything you need to start playing is in the free Basic Rules PDF, except other people and dice.
Dnd has been more famous than ever due to Lord of the Rings, Stranger Things, and games like Borderlands where everything has a dnd base.
Never too late.
I played a Big Dumb Half-Orc Fighter in 3.5. I loved how it let me add fun and levity to even dramatic situations. And yes, I had next to nothing to contribute out of combat but in melee I was a beast. Towards the end, all those feats I had, meant I outclassed our rogue and monk combined.
The iterative attacks in 3e and 3.5e weren't useless. By the time you got them, you have enough buffs, feats, and magical items to hit pretty consistently.
So excited to see another video by you guys!
"Supplement I: Greyhawk" also introduced percentile strength, a new subsystem that benefited Fighters exclusively, so we can't give it too much blame, except that it set a precedent for more and more specific additional classes.
I feel old playing AD&D as a teen. :)
But at the same time the fighter seems to be a very popular class. D&D Beyond releases statistics for class distribution, the most played class is fighter. I'm in the process of playing Baldur's Gate 2 again, going by Steam achievements, guess which stronghold is unlocked the most? Yep, the fighter's. I think there's just something very relatable regarding fighters. Everybody can imagine them.
its more a thing of complexity. 5e is the most popular edition of dnd and the /easiest/ class to play is the fighter because you have 2 abilities and you can ignore the rest. Barbarians are also just as simple but have more features that require a further level of interaction.
Fighter is the class you give the new guy at the table and he can say 'i hit things' and feel included.
@@bloodybagal well on top of all that, fighters are just cool and actually can win fights. Fighters also have a lot of flavor. The can be the whole "big dumb fighter" trope. Or they can be Bell Cranel from DanMachi. Or Thorfin from Vinland saga. They can be a samurai of any flavor. The Ronin type like Samurai Shamploo or the armored type. They can be the swashbucklers you see in old fantasy movies like lancelot or jack and the beanstock (since old d&d thieves werent good enough to fight like a swashbuckler lol even tho it's one of their kits). Fighters just have a lot of flavor. They arent just big dumb guy. So its no wonder they are so popular
DM it All just kickstarted my 3 day week end, thank you you complete legends!
I will fall on this hill, 4e wasn't the best, but definitely wasn't as bad as anyone argues!
Great video. Loving the series. Please do more. I would like to see the history of Bards.
You forgot the smash attacks basic fighters got that added their strength score to damage in addition to their strength bonus.
That you only get in Rules Cyclopedia.
since 1e (A)D&D the "Lowly" Fighter has bean the default Party Leader, the Fighter with the best soft stats was the public face of the party since the Wizard was al tied up doing "Wizard Stuff" the Cleric, Paladin & Druid with Religosity and the politics of Religion could get in the way when they where free and the Thief had to keep Covert and deal with the parties "Extra Legal" stuff. with the DSG & WSG the Fighter was in the best place to take "Campaign Skills" since the rest of the classes where scrambling to take skills to Buff their Class Abilities, or just be able to do stuff the GM used to hand-wave.
come 3E you could build the "Nerd Fighter" or MBA (Masters of Battle Administration) could use skill specials to buff their fighting or sub for Rangers & Rogues.
I must say that you glossed over the combat options available to 1st and 2nd edition fighters. How they balanced that out against spellcasters, and the expanded options in the Players Option books. Fighters used to be essential to a party’s success in earlier editions. They are now the objectively worse option to take in 5e.
I think I might house-rule 3e and pathfinder and say “fighters do not provoke attacks of opportunity unless faced by a character with a BAB 4 or more higher than themselves.” The only exception to this rule is if the Fighter casts a spell using a spellcasting class.
Also good to point out that fighters and all the martial classes in 5e sometimes get the best armor classes. Dex and spellcaster classes usually need high stats and magic items, a feat maybe, but a fighter just neeeds plate mail and a normal shield and can have 20 AC at level 1
I love this series because it's very informative while being entertaining.
I wasn't around to hate 4th edition when it came out, but after watching all three of your class videos, I've noticed a pattern that the 4th edition class summary is almost exactly the same. Every class essentially had spells and functioned similarly mechanics-wise. I'm sure that I'm generalizing and each class had their own specific niche, but the fact that every single one can really be summarized in almost the exact same way shows, in my opinion, why people didn't like or were bored with 4th edition.
it's pretty hard for me to see that though, consider the fact that all caster are essentially the same to me
u are indeed generalizing. 4th edition wasnt bad. It got a lot of hate cause old heads dont like the idea of d&d adopting video game mechanics. If it released as a new table top rpg without any relation to dungeons and dragons, it wouldve been considered a good game
Great Video! Dark sun is comming...? hehe
I will say, when I played charisma was never a dump stat. We wanted henchman and retainers
Damn hope this ain't the last upload on this channel.
Martials in 5E are in a pretty bad place but the fighter's versatility makes it one of the two best martial classes due to it's ability to flexibly multi-class with so many other classes. Additionally its the only class that eventually gets more than two attacks so even its straight class is solid. I do wish that both Barbs and Fighters got a few more hit points. It would be really nice if at level 5 or so they just got the tough feat as a class feature to give these two classes a little more survivability.
Regardless, the fighter is part of many of my favorite builds including Fighter/Barb, Fighter/ Swashbuckler Rogue, and Fighter/Battlesmith Artificer
I think that the battlemaster fighter in particular really captures the essence of an expert martial expert. Personally, I'd love to see the fighter and maybe even the barb just get some manuever-like abilities in the base class. I feel like these two classes should be the two that really know how to handle martial weapons and be able to achieve things with their instuments of war that make the other classes seem intermediate in comparison.
My take on the 3.5E fighter was as an "elite pilot" for a set of high-level magical items. Kinda the same way fighter pilots are still a different and necessary specialty from flight crews and aeronautics engineers.
That said, it wasn't perfect. The whole party would have to be in on kitting out the fighter with tailored gear.
In the 5e game in which I play, my 'big dumb' fighter is BY FAR the most effective 'combat' character in the game.
I'm about to start playing D&D with a group of coworkers and I don't imagine playing a "big dumb fighter". I want to make a gentleman fighter that collects books to learn new military tactics. I am tempted to make a swords college bard but I want to use a shield in combat.
check out the battle master fighter subclass. strong subclass and im pretty sure its what you're looking for.
@@hmad898 Yup, it's what I'm leaning toward.
I really want the. If dumb fighter merged with the warlord. Great continent
Your videos are always worth waiting for.
Return of the king...
The Jordphan of dnd mechanics history.
I love your class analysis videos. Well, I love all your content, but this in particular.
4:02 Is he casting fireball? Coz the burn feels oh so real.
No, that’s Vicious Mockery
D&D 3.0 shifted the game to a more video game feel with skill trees.
3:57 FIGHTING-MANS
that is all.
Thank you UA-cam for properly tagging this D&D video as World of Warcraft lol
Man I miss the Warblade. Most fun I’ve had playing a “fighter” in D&D history.
Another great video! I was hoping to see a new one the other day
Always great to see another video!
I love your videos. They always light up my days.
I love fighters my favorite class alongside paladin
I love this! Learning about the history of D&D is so interesting.
I was wondering when you would make more class Analysis!
Finally the one I've been most waiting for!
Can you do a video on The Forest Oracle?
Widely considered one of the worst D&D modules of all time.
Idk I would like to see a full analysis of it due to all the bad things I have heard about it.
4:24 you seriously, put a graphic where both variants are RED. brilliant
love and wait hard for thoose videos :)
Thank you for the video. Great overview!
Make one about the Druid!
Thank you for the video always interesting to hear more insightns into DND
As always, great video! Thank you!
Fighter upon entering 3e: What do you mean it's all feats now? It's the stuff that used to be my class abilities and now I have to take it to even be doing decent? Fuck, the Warrior NPC class is better than me
Everytime I watch your videos I want to work on my campaign lol.
The Time of Battle also offers analogs for Rangers and Barbarians
Ya honestly I viewed the Warblade as a mix between the Barbarian and the Fighter.
Always grateful. Great work.