I mean... he's not lying. I personally try to flavor my fighters significantly when playing them, but there's only so much you can do besides "roll dice, level up, numbers go brrr". I'm generally the party Bard or Rogue anyway, depending on the situation. Almost never get to play anything else. (At least I get to play though, always felt so bad for the DM).
Says you. Fighters are way, way deeper than they get credit for, especially if you're into taking inspiration from the many wacko warriors of our real world history. Even more so once you get crafty about it and start mixing in planning ahead and dirty tactics into your repertoire. If human history is proof of anything, it's that the limitations of flesh and steel extend only as far as your ingenuity will allow. Nothing quite like a fighter with a grab bag of seemingly useless junk that gets turned into a collection of the most creative and vicious weaponry you'll ever see.
Try Echo Knight Fighter. More options for flavor, and barring that, 10 attacks per turn for your first 2 turns when you max it out. With teleporting built into the class. If you're going to be stuck as martial DPS, go all in on breaking the action economy over 3 knees at once.
Boss. I like ya, so I'ma tell ya a lil secret. Come in closer. You can tank with any class. You don't have to railroad yourself into the brick if the group needs one. 😉
I mean, literally. He can play other tanky classes (f.e. he named Paladin himself, unless he doesn't like the flavour?) or even something squishy can tank (abjuration wizard).
I see. Very much know the feeling. I do role fill in when playing as a player for Pathfinder 1e. There was a stretch of time where that was just different flavors of Rogue, because the role of Trapfinder and disabler was unwanted. Recently that has been some variation of being an archer because you need one in case of flying enemies.
@@cyrian2591 It is with fun archetypes, Advanced Weapon and Armor Training, the plethora of feats, and Prestige classes as options aplenty. My group snaps up the frontline character position rather quickly.
At least it's out of the way. I've only played three campaigns as a Monk, a Ranger, and a DM. Next time I am going for a Fighter, and for the race I am going with a dog man race from older editions (Thanks Dungeon Dad) and in honor of you, his breed will be a pug.
There is a good option if you wanna play *Wizard, Sorcerer* or *Warlock*: you may agree with DM on having (or maybe buy it later) this artifact: *Mizzium Apparatus* In short, it lets you cast spells you didn't prepare or don't even know but you have spells slots for (and you spend these spell slots). You need only make an *Arkane* check vs *10 + SpellLvl × 2* On fail you will cast a spell from pool. Which can be utilized too: I had encounteres as Sorcerer (+1 level in Druid and Wizard to cast their spells too) when: I saw enemy or even my teammate casting a spell, I used my reaction to "Try to cast a counter-spell via Mizzium Apparatus". But intentionally failed, rolled d6 on the table of possible outcomes from Lv3 spells and casted Fireball. And it's not like Wild Magic Sorcerer, when it just explodes on you - you can aim it as usual. --- So ya, it can be interesting gimmick to play if your DM doesn't mind.
Your character should not be dictated by the choices of others, it's fine if you want to have a charcter to fill in a gap of abilities in the party - but it shouldn't be your only choice. Next campaign, refuse to fill in the gap, play something you want to play. People will adapt. Also maybe have a word with your potential DM's before they start something up - put a preemptive call for the class you want to play.
Honestly, the Variant Human Fighter is such a good baseline for any sort of character. I've made three Variant Human Battle Master Fighters (and _many_ other non-humans) and they're all different. Even though they play pretty similarly mechanically, they leave all sorts of room for roleplay and character development.
I dont tend to play humans but fighter and rogue are practically the only class I ever choose to play. Give me a pike and some mail and I will make casters look like they wasted so much time reading their nerd books-
My most played class is probably Bard or Cleric. Every party needs support, and Life Domain Clerics are one of the best supports out there, and Bards of any sort aren't far off either.
@@marmyeater Artificer is in 3e, was introduced with Eberron. And yes you could build a tanky wizard in 3e and even a squishy wizard should have more than 10 ac
While I agree that the class is intensely basic, there is an idd chaem to it in that the basic template can make it usable in many backgrounds. For example: whike the character would ideally become a Paladin if the DM is merciful, one Fighter character I had an idea for was a vengeful escaped Slave who freed himself from a YuanTi Desert Kingdom, who killed his master in a fight in the arena. He escaped just barely because of a voice - calm and stern, speaking into his ear, Guiding him where to go. Now, not only os he a freed man, but he seeks to prevent others from being enslaved, but also to free those he left behind one day, if the scars on his left arm didn't ooze a cold dread through him. Of course, that's not stopping you from other inventive ideas: a Farmer's boy who took up adventuring when his parents fell on hard times. A Town guardsmen whose sibling got captured by some evil Doomsday cult. A jaded and tired war vet in his late 60's seeking his "Last Fight" to end it all. A noble's son that took up arms against some evil presence despite his parents begging him not to. The beauty in this class is in its simplicity, and one can derive a Complex person from a simple idea with a simple gimmick. Like, why wouldn't a slave save his adoptive family from the oppressive masters and society? What drives a war vet to desire death by a worthy man's blade? What possesses a noble to barge out of his pampered life and into certain danger? Etc. Plus, there's an odd charm to it. Like, take into account the world: this general setting is filled with scholarly wizards, sorcerors empowered by a mystical bloodline or branding; a world where warriors and mendicant monks gain true power untold from worship. Least of all, the horrors they face on an hourly basis. In that, there's something admirable about some guy with decent training deciding he's gonna take on Satan with an eclectic group of weirdos that he barely knows and an Iron Sword.
The reality even the spells and abilities that “draw agro” usually only give the opponent disadvantage on attacks against others, and damage mitigation isn’t even really in “tanks” abilities, but in the spell lists of casters, so to answer the question, not really. In fact even a paladin has no way to actually force an enemy to focus on them and can only force disadvantage for not focusing on them on one opponent at a time. You could realistically argue a bard is better for tanking, by standing next to an enemy with just a bow or that relies on ranged spells, you force them to hit everyone but you with disadvantage, because they are threatened you also suffer basically no downside because none your spell actually require a roll to hit. While doing this you can turn off a group of enemies with Hypnotic pattern, sleep, or both. Also you can force enemies to reposition with Dissonant whispers. There is a legitimate argument to made that this all is better damage mitigation than anything any of the “tank” classes have.
![A Crap Guide to D&D [5th Edition] - Fighter by Jocat - Reaction](/img/logo.svg){kind=logo}
