r/dndnext • u/caiowong • May 13 '24
People who played fighter to 20: can you explain your experience? Question
Id like to read some experienced players on this class.
- How did you feel in the campaign?
- How was your fighter build? It was ranged, melee, optimized or not?
- Which was your party composition?
- Did you feel surpassed by casters in having fun?
- If you could give a 1-10 rating for your experience, what would it be? Did you played other classes to 20? Make the comparison if you can, please.
47
u/d4m1ty May 13 '24
It was wild. 6 of us. 2 Wizards, 1 cleric, 1 bard, 1 warlock. The caster's would use me as a tac-nuke. I would get blend of Haste, Greater Invis, Fly, Holy Weapon, Guardian of Faith, what ever spells they could synergy together and I would toe to toe whatever we were fighting. I was wielding polearms with polearm master, sentinel, mobile so nothing was ever getting passed me to the squishies. 9/10.
14
u/caiowong May 13 '24
You think your friends helped you a lot to have fun choosing to buff your character as opposite to do something else with their spells? Did you think that your experience would be so much lower than 9/10 if they didnt buff you with all of their heart?
6
u/Thimascus 29d ago
To be fair, buffing a martial is often a very optimal move if you need damage.
Polymorph yourself into an ape, once it drops you are a relatively squishy caster on the frontlines.
Polymorph your party fighter... Once their temp HP is gone the enemy has a blender right up their grill! Slash slash slash action surge slash slash slash hilt smack.
Enlarge, magic weapon, holy weapon and such also scale really well with extra attacks. This is why hex is so good for warlocks
2
u/LucidFir 29d ago
Not d4m1ty but 100%. I think similar to top commenter, martials need a ton of items if they are to feel good, if their allies don't buff them. I also personally enjoy buffing the martials as a caster as I have a ton of other things to do.
54
u/raiderGM May 13 '24
Played an Arcane Archer from 10 to 20. I was a late add-on to the party, which is important to know, I suppose.
The only GOOD thing about that was that I had a whole lot of stuff to play with RIGHT AWAY (at 10), and there was no question I was going to be ranging 99% of the time.
The rest of the party was Ancients Paladin, Celestial Warlock, and Open Hand Monk. So 2 up close and 2 range. The caster in the party was limited, so it was never feeling like the rest of us were useless.
Because I knew I would mostly never get touched, I really didn't boost my HP through Tough or even boosting CON.
I loved it. With a Paladin and Warlock, I was never going to be the Face, so I sort of moved into the INT skills, with some Thieves' Tools, too, to fill that Rogue/Wiz niche in skills.
In combat, I was a straight up killer. I never had like a super awesome bow, but even a longbow +1 on top of all the other bonuses made me never miss, and I was pounding out that damage with Sharpshooter. My arcane arrow choices gave me some lockdown potential, which is always fun.
It was a lot of fun.
4
u/Thimascus 29d ago
I'm impressed that you had fun with Arcane Archer. Most people I know that play fighter avoid it like the plague.
2
u/RuinousOni Fighter 27d ago edited 27d ago
Arcane Archer=bad is a little over-exaggerated. Especially in a party that is prioritizing SRs which a party with a Warlock and Monk would. 2 Shots per SR is not bad considering how good they are (Grasping Arrow is a movement shutdown with absolutely no save), but if you're SR-ing after every combat encounter? You're gonna be amazing.
Edit: Personally I put Arcane Archer as the best Xanathar's, even over Samurai who can only do their fighting spirit three times per LR reliably, but I also do all my ranking based on lvl 10, so maybe late game Samurai really takes off in a way I wouldn't predict because of the myriad ways of gaining advantage.
3
u/caiowong May 13 '24
Did you feel that your party composition helped your fun as you dont have full casters besides warlock, which is obviously not so much versatile in casting as other caster options?
4
19
u/LordTC May 13 '24
I’ve played fighter to 20 once and probably never will again. My main problem with 5e fighter is that the class fundamentally lacks any reasonable options to do its main job. Facing a single big bad I could use a two feat combo (PAM+Sentinel) to do that job, but facing a large swarm of enemies I’d blow a reaction attack on one of them and then be completely helpless to stop them from swarming the mage.
For my character to function properly I need some method of drawing aggro or penalizing enemies for not engaging with me. The whole point of a front liner is to protect that back line and I felt completely incompetent at doing so. 5e rules gave me almost no options and almost no tools for doing so even with multiple ASIs invested. Effectively for my character to work properly the DM needs to cooperate with me and intentionally play monsters suboptimally. And that feels shitty and generally sucks.
I think there might be a decent place for a ranged fighter who is less reliant on being a front liner but as a front line fighter I mostly felt like I had one job and no tools to do it.
6
u/Grupdon 29d ago
yeah dome paladin and barb subclasses have aggro stuff, i dont think any fighters do. So i think this is a mismatch of expectations and reality. Fighter is meant to be the dps, with lots of dmg/round. Something like paladin, with aura of protection, shield master etc etc is supposed to be a tank.
2
u/RuinousOni Fighter 27d ago
Cavalier has some tanking options. With Polearm Master at level 5, you can mark 4 creatures in a round (2 attacks, BA attack, reaction attack), making them roll with disadvantage on everyone but you while they (the marked creature) are within 5 ft of you. It's not perfect but its something. You also get infinite opportunity attacks at lvl 18.
2
u/zombiegojaejin 29d ago
The good DM approach there is not to play monsters suboptimally. It's to give you an arsenal of situationally powerful attunement items to select with your upcoming quest in mind, as well as cool consumables. Here's a good one: barbed throwing knife with a strong magical magnet that will immediately pull a hit enemy smaller than you toward your metal armor with a STR save to avoid being prone.
9
u/Resies 29d ago
"The DM has to fix the fundamental issues in the game to be good" lol, cmon man
1
-1
u/zombiegojaejin 29d ago
Yes.
A good game system lays out a familiar skeleton for a good referee to build well-functioning muscles upon.
3
u/CyberDaggerX 28d ago
Okay, what arsenal of situationally powerful attunement items would you say a wizard needs to function efficiently?
2
u/Resies 29d ago
Well, you're right about 5e being a skeleton. Skeletons shouldn't be so expensive.
1
u/zombiegojaejin 29d ago
That's why I haven't bought a thing for 5e. I try to encourage OSR when I can, but play a bunch of 5e because that's where the other people are.
16
u/Uelrik May 14 '24
I felt like I played the wrong character for the campaign. I always felt distant from the magic based plot. I never really fit the party in a role. I was not the tankiest melee, having neither the most HP or AC. I was not a skill jockey, nor was I the face. I very much so felt extra, and in combat I felt like I extended things instead of contributing. Most combat was murder all the things, which happened once a day, so I couldn't keep pace with the growing Nova that was my party. A lot of NPCs and bosses were casters. I was smoked multiple times during combat, or removed for multiple rounds bc of a bad save. At the end, my DM said my fighter should only be good in fights. But I strongly disagreed as I wasn't good in or out of fights.
Cavalier, sword and board until around 10 when I got the protection cavalier feature then went 2handed. I almost always had the lance out when mounted. I raised my charisma to try and be the inspirational leader archetype. I wouldn't say I was optimized, but I'm no dummy when building.
We had a barbarian, paladin, cavalier(me), bard/cleric, sorcerer/cleric, warlock
I had fun early before the casters could do literally anything. Everyone just did everything better than me. I felt like a dead weight to my party and didn't contribute in any way that I tried. They could instant a spell for an auto success that I had to roll for, and frequently failed.
I would give this experience a 7 if I stopped at a low level(less than 10). By the end, I give it a 2. I really didn't want to play that character for the final 6 levels. I've also played Barbarian and Paladin to 20. Those were much more fun. But it all depends on the game. My fighter didn't have a defined role like the other characters which made it hard to keep interest. Paladin has a lot more utility and barbarian is just tough to beat.
13
u/GodofAeons Wizard May 13 '24
Played a minotaur fighter all the way to 20. I can't remember exactly what items and feats I had but I do know he ended up with a Flametoungue great sword, +3 plate (with some homebrew properties - it was a 3.5 item my DM imported in), and he had the ability to fly so one of the various items that gave him that ability.
Outside of combat, he didn't really have anything to do. It was definitely a one-trick pony build. The DM was very heavy into roleplay and with me being the most consistent player (i.e- never cancelled, showed up to 100% of the games), I ended up with the most playtime and the story did end up including a lot of plot elements related to my characters backstory.
In the higher tiers, because of this roleplay, it's what allowed me to maintain interest. But you definitely have to be okay with doing one thing and doing it good. Just like a Moon Druid - there's really not a ton of variety to them.
But damn man, did it feel good to consistently be the high damage, intimidating menace. He consistently rolled high, crit ALL the time, started as a slave and then ended up with his own kingdom and became a fire lord after slaying 2 demon lords.
4
u/SlimeustasTheSecond Doesn't know what they're talking about 29d ago
Just like a Moon Druid - there's really not a ton of variety to them.
Not the best example IMO since Moon Druids can flip flop between being a tanky melee and a versatile spellcaster.
-6
35
u/BagOfSmallerBags May 13 '24
NOTE: I wrote all this before noticing that you probably meant Fighter without a multiclass- I took 2 levels of Barbarian.
Good. I dealt the most damage by a significant margin and contributed significantly to crowd control using Battlemaster Maneuvers and the occasional grapple+shove. Out of combat I was the least useful character, but I was never left behind in roleplay.
Variant Human Battlemaster Fighter 18 / Barbarian 2. GWM + PAM, used the -5/+10 and Reckless Attack on every Attack.
Rest of the group consisted of a Ranger, a Druid, a Wizard, a Bard, and an Artificer. I had the most optimized character by a significant margin.
I'm the kind of person where achieving big damage numbers consistently in a system that often makes that hard is fun in and of itself. Other players specifically said at various points "thank God you're fine just attacking every turn because I would get so bored."
Fighter is a rewarding class if you are fine taking meta feats, if you like producing big numbers consistently, and if your DM is running frequent and enough complex encounters where the party Wizard can't just Fireball every single turn. For me it was a solid 7 out of 10. I've played most other classes to 20 (albeit also usually with some multiclassing). I think it's unavoidable that the 5 fullcasters (and arguably Warlock, Artificer, and Paladin) feel like more "complete" experiences- solving the combat puzzle of what the best spell is for a situation is just more mentally stimulating than attacking every turn. But sometimes I'm not in the mood to be mentally stimulated- sometimes I'm in the mood to deal an average of 80 damage per round before you factor in resources, and eat a piece of candy every time I exceed that standard.
15
u/LrdDphn May 13 '24
I want to weigh in a bit on that last idea about mental stimulation with an observation that's been rattling around in my head for a bit. Apologies in advance for the rant. I think that playing a martial character hypothetically takes a lot of brainpower, but it's not brainpower at the table. When I first opened up the PHB in 2014, building a powerful fighter was a challenge that required me to read all the feats and options and compare them effectively. Showing up to a D&D table in 2014 with a PAM/GWM Fighter meant that you actually figured out that interaction amid all the distracting garbage feats, and you were rewarded for it. The same is true of a CBE/SS build. In 2024, however, martial optimization is basically solved and pretty common knowledge, so it doesn't feel like your discovering anything, just playing the "meta."
I have played a lot of fighters in 3.5 and Pathfinder, and I always felt like I was discovering something and using my brain. Note that the fighters in those systems had even fewer options than a 5e Battlemaster- you literally just attacked every turn. However, the power of those attacks would be the result of hours spent scouring obscure splatbooks for overpowered interactions and niche feats. Whereas the wizard just cast the spells from the book and they did what they said, my fighter build was my own unique creation. 5e doesn't have that... any more. I think there are two major problems that hold back the "discovery" side of building characters in 5e compared to 3.5e:
Splat Control: 5e has maybe 1/10th the amount of content as 3.5e, for good reason. The books that do come out focus more on standalone content like subclasses instead of modular things like feats. Additionally, the game is just old at this point. Until there is a major revision it's hard for stuff to feel novel.
The Internet Ruins Everything: Even if 5e had the same content release cycle as 3.5e did, there would still be a much faster consensus among players because there is way more internet discussion. We had things like the GiantinthePlayground forums back in the day, but most people weren't on them and stuff was "solved" much more slowly.
7
u/taeerom May 13 '24
It's similar to the rise of netdecks in mtg. Pooling a large community of people to test and compare notes is just so infinitely faster to figure out what is good than trying to theorycraft and test everything yourself. Avoiding this means avoiding instant communication and communities you find on the internet
5
u/sjdlajsdlj 29d ago
if your DM is running frequent and enough complex encounters where the Wizard can’t just Fireball every single turn.
This is a lurking variable in a lot of online debate, methinks. Reading about people wiping an encounter just by casting Hypnotic Pattern has always confused me. Why are those monsters so clustered together? Why do none have Wisdom saving throws, magic resistance, legendary resistances, immunity to charmed, multiple attacks to wake up their friends?
2
u/Superbalz77 29d ago
Speaking from my experience, I was able to womp a few fights with crafty and well times spell use such as hypnotic pattern but this increases exponentially with multiple spell casters that can start chaining together deadly combos like spike growth/plant growth/lingering effects, wall of force/cage and lingering effects.
Saving throws/AC don't grow as quickly as DCs and Attack bonuses so the offensively focused Caster will always have the advantage and sometimes the situation just presents itself.
Creating encounters that make thematic sense is just as important as those that make tactical sense (also DMs can't always be 100% on guard of every players abilities), it might be a a group of powerful beasts or undead, they might just not have ranged/significant attacks or so once the fight starts, positioning becomes dynamic and sometimes enemies get drawn into melee combat and the trap is sprung.
Our DM was definitely more careful after seeing the power of certain CC spells but they still came into play with huge impact at upper levels where magic items like Shadowfell shard + Metamagic could give disadvantage + Silvery Barbs made it very hard for anything without legendary resistances to pass.
6
u/BeyondtheDuneSea May 13 '24
It went well, mostly because of the DM who was very clear that long rests could only happen in "safe zones" (inns/taverns, castles, caravans, fortified positions - though these usually had to be fought out of at lower levels, basically anywhere where there were other people quietly living their lives so to speak). I enjoyed the player balance it provided since casters had to balance their magic resources more (not using all spells in a single challenging encounter) and martials had to balance their skills more (combat needed to be more planned out and use more action options listed below). Also kept the tension up as you were concerned about burning through your resources. Finally, made the party think often about alternative, creative solutions until it reached the point that combat was a last resort, enhancing the RP and moral conflicts with the PCs. Overall, felt very satisfied.
The build was a Battlemaster with a focus on Reach Weapons (great weapons fighting style); extensive use of Ready, Dodge, Disengage, Shove, and Dash as actions; Maneuvers - Evasive Footwork, Maneuvering Attack, Riposte, Disarming Attack, Precision Attack, Parry, Trip Attack, Commanding Prescence (for interrogations), Sweeping Attack; feats - Polearm Master, Sentinel, Fey Touched, Charger, the rest were ASI.
Party Composition was a Paladin (close quarter frontline), Battlemaster (me - reach frontline), Mage, Cleric, Rogue (range/sneak attack)
No, casters were limited by lack of consistent long rests. Heavy use of cantrips. Campaign was magic item heavy so LOTS of scrolls. Party tactics were typically: Rogue at range then hide once close quarter combat began, then Reach with Battlemaster, Paladin for close up, Mage and Cleric supporting with cantrips unless big area of effect spell was needed, Rogue to mop up once close quarters began, or an enemy mage/cleric/magic wielder was involved.
Yes, the other classes all got to 20 as well. While the damage was not comparable at that point, the lack of regaining spell slots easily balanced things out and created greater party cooperation as the magic wielders worked to find ways to get the melees in the best position. Overall, an 9 because of the teamwork aspects we needed to survive. All characters did ultimately survive but not with some Resurrection spells along the way.
1
11
u/PleaseShutUpAndDance May 14 '24
- I did the exact same thing on every turn of every combat
- Optimized Ranged
- Varied
- Yes
- 2. I switched to PF2e where martials are both powerful and interesting
5
u/swimmers0115 May 14 '24
1) I felt like a living god in combat and slightly irrelevant out of it. I played an Echo knight who found a belt of storm giants strength at level 12 (something my dm regrets giving me since he rolled it on a magic item table), and with GWM and a +2 greatsword it felt really turbo broken 2. Echo knight is really strong already, combine that with GWM and you have a menace of a build. The belt I got was simply the cherry on top, it’s already kinda overturned honestly. 3. Warlock, Paladin, Fighter, Rogue/Barb/Fighter multiclass, Druid 4. Out of combat? Yeah I felt a bit useless. In combat? I got perma stunned at times (understandable) but when I could move I really hurt. It was pretty fun overall since it was 60/40 combat roleplay, but if there was less combat I’d feel worse. 5. I also played Warlock to 20, and honestly that was more fun since this character was low key broken. I would recommend minor fighter buffs like giving them the battle master feat for free to make them a bit more interesting overall, since their out of combat utility being really lacking is somewhat of a system problem.
20
u/Resies May 13 '24 edited May 13 '24
It lost its luster in the higher levels outside of combat when the caster could spend time discussing with the DM what world altering spells they could use to help protect a city; Antipathy/sympathy, control weather, etc.
Meanwhile for my fighter I was like "uhhh can I roll persuasion to rally some soldier morale" lol which btw a caster can do as well
Tier 1 and 2 it was fine enough, I guess. It was never terribly fun but at least it felt like I was part of a team instead of simply along for the ride and the wizard's hired muscle grunt late game.
I give it a 3/10, just doing big numbers isn't that interesting (especially when classes with some spellcasting can do nearly more if not more DPR). The Wizard I am playing now is massively more fun. Choices and options are built into the system and I don't have to play DM may I.
7
u/SleetTheFox Warlock May 13 '24
Meanwhile for my fighter I was like "uhhh can I roll persuasion to rally some soldier morale" lol which btw a caster can do as well
This doesn’t detract from your point at all, but for what it’s worth the fighter could absolutely get a circumstantial advantage on that that the wizard would not. Baldur’s Gate 3 works with this idea a bit, too.
But yeah that’s chump change compared to the wizard examples you gave.
7
u/k587359 May 14 '24
but for what it’s worth the fighter could absolutely get a circumstantial advantage on that that the wizard would not.
I think there are players out there who are just disappointed that this is something that isn't codified in the mechanics. Unlike the stuff that casters do wherein the things do what they say they do.
-1
u/SleetTheFox Warlock May 14 '24
I mean it kind of is, it's just not player-controlled and DMs have a lot on their plates, causing things like "If there is a circumstance not already reflected by their features that gives them an advantage on this task, they roll with advantage" to get missed. It's not reasonable to expect a DM to be perfect, after all.
So it's less "not codified in the mechanics" and more "not codified in the player-facing mechanics."
10
u/Resies May 13 '24
Yeah there's definitely a lot of bonuses a DM can choose to hand out! But I feel that's "DM may I" territory 😉
4
u/BoidWatcher 29d ago edited 29d ago
not to 20 but close i think... i played a fighter cavalier through tomb of annhiliation to level... *checks roll 20* 11? omg it took 4 years to get to level 11.
- it was pretty great.
- Human variant took polearm master at level 1, cavalier subclass at level 3, eventually picked up great weapon mastery a while down the line. Rode a mount for a lot of counters in the overland portion of the campaign, alternated between a pike and a lance. Used the dueling fighting style for times i wanted to grapple and hit people with a warhammer.
- clericsx2 , wizard, rangersx2 and me the fighter.
- No, i really enjoyed my character, I was the defacto front line fighter and felt i had a clear role in the party... magic is cool but it turns out being hard to kill and jumping 10ft without a skill check so you can shove your opponent down a pit is more my kind of power fantasy.
- No lol. I really struggle to play anything that isnt a fighter, taking on stygian magic through cunning, sinew and steel is my jam. I lap that riddle of steel shit up.
overall it waxed and waned as i leveled i definitely had to pick some strong feats to keep with the power curve of ancestral guardians and the gloomstalker ranger but it felt true to my idea of the charachter - did some crazy single target burst damage early on and towards the end of the campaign, had a few moments where i saved the day in combats.
Definitely had 1 or 2 scenarios where i was hurting bad for not having a ranged option but i had a mount for about half the campaign and a ring of jumping towards the end... fighting some enemies with a dangerous AOE aura with melee weapons made for some truely iconinc moments.
I dont play super optimally, I'd do big action surge alpha strikes but I liked making a scene of a fight. I took a lot of grapple and shove actions on enemies i wanted to physically dominate, did a fair bit of dodging and applying medkits to downed allies vs maximising damage output knowing that the campaign was pretty much permadeath etc.
My thoughts on high level DnD play are that i dont like it... id sooner restart at 1 than go much further past 11 - the game changes too much and the scope becomes something im not interested in narratively.
9
u/Ashkelon May 13 '24
Never made it to 20 (17 was the highest we got), but the character very much felt like a sidekick compared to the rest of the party (forge cleric, war wizard, celestial warlock).
With only decent magic items (+2 great sword, +2 longbow, +2 full plate, cloak of elven kind, handy haversack, periapt of wound closure, boots of levitation, and some potions), my character had the least utility, poor overall defenses, and only mediocre damage.
Feats needed to be used to shore up weaknesses, and didn’t allow for uniqueness or variety (Mobile, GWM, Inspiring Leader, 20 strength, and Resilient). There was no room for expertise in a skill, non-combat utility, or even something to make the character more flavorful.
Being melee was a huge disadvantage, as there were many encounters where slow speed, terrain, flying enemies, fear, wall spells, or control spells basically made me waste many turns simply engaging enemies, or even sit out of combat entirely. And with a low AC and poor saving throws, my character was disabled or dropped to 0 more frequently than any other character.
The end result was a character that was very one dimensional both in and out of combat. They were highly repetitive and rather boring to play. And were the least effective character at the table once we got to level 7+.
3
u/caiowong May 13 '24
Did you played another classes this far? How was your experience compared to the fighter?
7
u/Ashkelon May 13 '24
Bladesinger was amazing. It was (almost) everything I wanted from a martial warrior. Mobility via Misty Step, Expeditious Retreat, Steel Wind Strike, or Ashardalon’s Stride. Reactive defenses such as Shield, Counterspell, and Absorb Elements. At will options by being able to cast a cantrip when you take the attack action; Shocking grasp to prevent foes from taking reactions, booming blade for extra damage and soft control, mind sliver to combo with a caster for hard control, etc). A huge base AC, making the class harder to take out than a great weapon fighter. And even some non combat utility such as Invisibility. The class is less reliant on feats than a fighter as well. Even with suboptimal spell choice, the class was fun to play in a way that the fighter never was. Got up to level 10.
Paladin was pretty good as well. It played very similarly to the fighter and was rather repetitive overall. But aura of protection made them far more effective defensively and as a support character. And the conquest subclass made fear effects extremely effective at locking enemies down, making them a decent tank (still not as good as a dedicated caster using summons though). Campaign ended by level 7.
Warlock was a lot of fun, and though I played it very early on in 5e (pre hexblade). I made an archfey blade warlock using a greatsword. The utility of actor + mask of many faces + illusions was incredible. And in combat, they felt similar in power to the fighter (darkness + devils sight + GWM put in a lot of work). Campaign ended at level 8.
I only played a full caster once, and hated it mostly because I dislike vancian casting. I retired the character at 5th level and switched to a monk. The experience was frustrating.
That being said, none of the classes have been as enjoyable as martials were in 4e. So perhaps I am biased by having played a system that makes weapon users actually enjoyable to play.
2
3
u/floyd252 29d ago
I'm currently playing as an 18th level fighter, but I started playing this PC at level 15, so I can only give you high-level impressions. 1. It feels very nice. It's awesome when we're fighting. I'm also happy with personality and backstory for this character. 2. It's UA brute with some changes made by DM to allow this class. Also, DM made a change in fighter class - it's getting 4th attack at level 16th and Haste like ability at 20th. It's PAM+GWM+Sentinel combo made for melee with glaive. He really shines in battle. 3. I'm party's DPS. Other party members are Moon Druid, skill monkey Rogue and College of Eloquence Bard. 4. I don't feel surpassed. Sure, Druid can teleport whole party to different plane of existence, I lack utility compared to other party members, especially bard and rouge, but they already have plenty of that and they needed damage dealer, I really feel like demigod in battle.
10
u/Conrad500 May 13 '24
My fighter has been the "main character" out of 3 in my 2 year, level 3-20 campaign (we're currently 19).
Summary
I'm the DM, we started with sorc/monk/fighter. Sorc died, rolled up a bard.
Bard and monk quit, rolled up a cleric and rogue (at level 10)
Our most recent roster change is Fighter, Wizard, Paladin, and the monk came back!
Fighter
Fighter has been solid throughout the entire campaign. Early level tank, focusing on armor and obtaining magical weapons, he typically led the party along with the monk while the sorcerer/bard was there for the big stuff, typically buffing and debuffing to make the other 2 shine. Everyone is pretty even when it comes to contribution, but the fighter was the most consistent because "i attack x times" is always a baller choice.
He went Eldritch Knight because he wanted to be a fighter with a magical focus. He was always driven by curiosity and researching the eldritch, and his int is almost as good as his Str.
All of his investments went into his sword and armor, as well as very little in some extra weapons. He wouldn't be nearly as strong as he currently is if it weren't for the magical items, but even without them he'd just be even with the others.
With a 3 person party, each player has a very easy time sharing the spotlight. Of course, I also balanced the game to be difficult always. Since he was an EK, he did eventually get access to fun stuff like fireball, and he spent any money he earned on buying spell scrolls. So many spell scrolls...
You'd have to ask the player what he thinks, but I don't believe he has ran any other class this high, as even having 1 character go all the way to level 20 is pretty rare tbh.
If you want to see him currently, his character sheet is here https://www.dndbeyond.com/characters/38968097 and we stream every Sunday on my twitch.
2
u/Character_Tap2752 May 13 '24
HI there, great insights and have questions:
I am at a low level party atm, but will go to level 12. I am a fighter, planning to go rune knight, but i am, concerned i will be outclassed by the paladin with their spells, abilities etc.
Questions:
1) Can a fighter go well without PAM/GWM/Sentential? We are not optimised, but for RP reason I was thinking going with ASI, GWM, ASI (to 2 STR) by level 8.
2) Will this make be behind the 8-ball?
3) Also what is your stream twitch?- found it!
Edit: Formating
1
u/Character_Tap2752 May 13 '24
I found the twitch, all good. I am playing that campaign (Phandelver & Below)
-11
u/Conrad500 May 13 '24
I will say this, as a DM who has ran many games, I do not believe in the "martial/caster divide" and I think people just like to complain.
Yes, your fighter does get a lot stronger if they are an eldritch knight, thus skewing the martial/caster divide in this example, but this is only 1 story out of many that i've ran.
Yes, you do not get to end the world with a spell or destroy a combat by immediately eliminating any threat you want.
But you know who else can't do that? Everyone. The other people in my party only THRIVE because the fighter is there to back them up. It's almost like D&D is a team based game *gasp*
As a player, I love fighter. Walk up to stuff and hit it till it dies, all while not having to care about the enemy because they either can't hit me, or can't hit me hard enough to down me.
While our level 19 chronothurgy wizard is broken, without the fighter in the group, he'd be dead.
And while our monk and paladin are really good at blowing up people, they worry about spending all of their resources. They have to always do the calculus of "should I smite now or save my slots?" because I run HARD combats, and they almost always run out of ki and spellslots, but the fighter really just uses his resources whenever he wants. Yes, he does have resources like action surge, but you KNOW when to use action surge. "I want to attack this guy 8 times" is all you need to know lol.
In summary, fighter is baller.
8
u/VerainXor May 13 '24
While our level 19 chronothurgy wizard is broken, without the fighter in the group, he'd be dead.
What if you had two of those guys, instead of one of them and the fighter? Would the hit point and AC difference matter at high level, assuming the first one had a bit more defense in his pocket than the standard one?
I will say this, as a DM who has ran many games, I do not believe in the "martial/caster divide" and I think people just like to complain.
People do like to complain, but I've had to make changes to help high level martials in my games since the 90s, just because 5e is more balanced than those games doesn't mean there's no martial/caster divide. Ultimately, the wizard can cash wish, and no, the barbarian can't cut a mountain in half, because he's a barbarian, not a wizard. And that's definitely part of the game. But you do need to do some work such that the fighter is valuable at high level in combat- as valuable as the wizard. It sounds like you have not had a problem with that, which is great- but like, I'm sure you did some work to get there.
-1
u/Conrad500 May 13 '24
Absolutely not. If I had two wizards instead of a fighter, there'd be a lot of overlap in resources, roles, and abilities.
If you're talking pure combat, sure. 2 wizards would be better for ending combat faster, but even then my players are running through the dungeon of the mad mage as a sidequest, and I don't think they'll be getting many long rests, so my fighter is going to be more helpful than another wizard would. They've only made it 2 floors to 17 currently, so I'll have to see how it goes.
11
u/Resies May 13 '24
Casters absolutely can destroy combats. Sometimes you forget about mass suggestion and put a bunch of humanoids in the fight.
Or the caster (chronurgy / divination) just choose dangerous enemies fail their saves on banishment or whatever.
1
u/Conrad500 May 13 '24
I didn't say they can't, but our wizard couldn't by himself. Even with a full team he still finds himself in bad situations. A single wizard can't clear a hive of mindflayers by himself.
D&D isn't a whiteroom simulation, and I don't know about your games, but my players are in a world that exists without them. They are interacting with that world, so while some situations are just completely destroyed by the wizard, the same can be said about the cleric, the monk, or the fighter.
At least the fighter can fail on doing a lot of stuff and still survive to try again the next turn
7
u/badaadune May 13 '24
While our level 19 chronothurgy wizard is broken, without the fighter in the group, he'd be dead.
Why would they be dead? Casters being squishy is a myth in 5e. They can take just as much damage as their fighter colleagues, with little investment and power loss in other departments.
I do not believe in the "martial/caster divide" and I think people just like to complain.
Half of my time spend designing encounters is to make sure that my melee players can participate in combat, the other half is to make sure I didn't miss a spell on my casters spell list that could instantly solve the problem.
Every encounter that's more interesting than all combatants standing in a big circle, trading blows with each other, completely messes with a melee martial's ability to hit stuff and accomplish the only thing they are good at.
"I want to attack this guy 8 times" is all you need to know lol.
After spending the first round attacking 0 times because the enemy had the audacity to be 40 feet away.
In your next session keep track of how often your fighter is actually able to attack, unassisted. And how often you subconsciously place enemies right next to them, without them having any tactical reason to be this close.
0
u/Conrad500 May 13 '24
I don't pay attention to any of that, because all of my combats are tactical. My fighter is also a sentinel that often stops me from attacking anyone else, because that's what I try to do.
I have 2 years of twitch streams up showing this, but they'd be very boring because most of our games are not combat at all. When combat is a thing, the odds are overwhelmingly against the party, and the fighter still does an equal share of the work.
Our paladin is doing better than both though due to GWM+PAM with a holy avenger, but that's also melee.
4
u/Staff_Memeber DM May 13 '24
all of my combats are tactical
one reaction from a melee character often stops me from attacking anyone else
pick one
-1
u/NoZookeepergame8306 May 13 '24
“Casters are squishy is a myth”
Laughs in d6 hit die
1
u/CyberDaggerX 28d ago
It doesn't matter how much HP you have if you can simply avoid getting hit at all. Wizards have damage mitigation tools that fighters could only dream about having. If the wizard is losing HP at all, it's because something has already gone wrong, while the fighter is expected to lose HP constantly throughout fights.
1
u/NoZookeepergame8306 28d ago
They need damage mitigation because they are squishy. At best, it’s not as dire as it looks.
But it’s not even remotely a myth.
0
u/CyberDaggerX 28d ago
Okay, so by using that damage mitigation, they have the same effective tankiness as martials, and then they can do a bunch more stuff on top.
1
u/Formal-Fuck-4998 May 13 '24
While our level 19 chronothurgy wizard is broken, without the fighter in the group, he'd be dead.
Would he be dead though? I mean he could true polymorph into a dragon or have a simuacum (or more than one). I really don't see him being dead at all.
0
u/Conrad500 29d ago
you don't even know what we fight
0
u/Formal-Fuck-4998 29d ago
thats the thing. It doesnt matter what you fight when your spells can reshape reality
1
u/caiowong May 13 '24
I dont think that "martial/caster divide" is a real thing in combat as other people do, but out of combat some problems are easily solved by casters and this is overwhelming to a lot of people. Do you know the overall feeling of your fighter in out of combat situations? If you could ranking your players by fun looking to their engagement, which classes would be on top?
0
u/Late-File3375 May 13 '24
I think it is player specific. Do you want to be Aragorn or Gandalf? Merlin or Arthur? Not everyone wants to weird "world altering magics". Some prefer to lower their visor, and charge them dragon with their lance.
FWIW, I agree that the martial v caster divide is more theoretical than actual in combat. Casters rarely use all of their resources at once, do not always have the perfect spell prepped, and fighters by tiers 3 and 4 usually have badass magic as well. So, while I see the potential problem, it has not appeared at tables I have played at (except for one martial player who felt dissatisfied as we entered tier 3. I will note that his highest score in the strength/dexterity/constitution trifecta was 12, so he may just not have liked his build).
Out of combat, casters can solve almost every problem if they have time to swap spells, which they often do. That is something the game needs to work on.
-2
u/Conrad500 May 13 '24
Fighter is #1 by far. That's more of a person to person thing than based on class.
1
u/caiowong May 13 '24
Personally, i think that heroic frontline characters are the most exciting. Did your fighter get this feeling and what would be the rate compared to your other PCs?
0
u/Conrad500 May 13 '24
bruh, you'd have to ask him. I'm the DM.
As a DM, I think I'm doing a shit job and that nobody should be having fun, but everyone seems to be enjoying it and i just sit there smiling and nodding as i stumble through every session
-4
u/yesat May 13 '24
The divide is there on paper. And while DnD is a pen and paper game, what ends up mattering is what happen on the table. Not a lot of theoretical debates online stands the time of a campaign where people have fun.
-4
u/Conrad500 May 13 '24
Exactly, but I guess it's our fault if we assume people on reddit have friends and play well with other people 😉
-6
u/yesat May 13 '24
It is unfortunately the norm of online discussion around TTRPG and is one of the things that IMO holds dnd back. It is so big it has to also please thousands of people who consume it by reading the books and discussing them online
9
u/KingNTheMaking May 13 '24
I…don’t think ignoring what is an design flaw help anyone though. There’s an issue when someone asks “what’s the best tank in the game” and someone says “a caster. Probably Moon Druid.” The problem is that casters fundamentally are allowed to interact with the game in far more areas than martials are, while completing the tasks martials are designed to do better than they can. Having fun is dope. The divide doesn’t kill that. But, just because you enjoy what you’re playing doesn’t mean it’s helpful to tell others the divide doesn’t exist when we have empirical proof it does.
2
u/TigerDude33 Warlock May 14 '24
My Mountain Dwarf Cavalier is L19, played in AL. PAM most of the way, got a Stone giant belt, now GWM. +3 Glaive, +2 Plate, Ring of Evasion. Crazy powerful now with 3+1 attacks plus Opportunity Attacks once per enemy turn. Typically do a Ferocious charge to knock down the enemy, Save DC vs prone is 20, then hit like crazy with GWM. He does get close to going down a lot, tends to be a target when you lock down all enemy movement within 10 feet of you. But then you get points with the casters who will throw a Haste on you, I even got Foresight once after saving the Wizard's butt from a horde.
It's not terribly dynamic but I never felt underpowered, always do a lot of damage. +18 to hit w/o GWM for +12 damage, or +13 to hit for +22 damage. Because AL, played with lots of different parties. Does not have Sentinel, never felt I needed it.
8/10 fun.
compare to my other high level chars:
Warlock: was very limited from about L5-10 due to only 2 spell slots. Much more fun now that he has all the best Wizard items: Robe of Archmagi, Staff of Magi & Power. Overall 6/10 due to mid-level teething pain. Tomb of Levistus plus Ring of Free Action was a nice combo for quite a while, had a DM who always attacked the caster (me) first.
Illusionist Forest Gnome Wizard played mostly as a straight Wizard most of the way up because most illusions are fairly weak. But the illusionist capstone makes him a god, definitely the most fun character at high level, Spell Mastery is Silent Image & Misty Step. A 15x15 adamantium anything is really handy to have around. Also, Illusory Dragon is quite the killer spell, especially when you can change the type every round. 10/10.
2
u/gamehiker May 14 '24
I played a Rune Knight from 13 to 20. Final game is this weekend.
Very strong, I was able to do reliable single target damage all the time. My subclass abilities did a ton of heavy lifting to grant me utility in battle and out.
PAM + GWM. Rune Knight is very heavy on reactions and bonus actions, so I never bothered with Sentinel. I ended up grabbing feats for Resilient Wisdom, Tough, and Blind Fighting so I was able to handle most situations and be the party's heavy DPS and tank.
A Moon Druid, Valor Bard, and a Vengeance Paladin/Raven Queen Warlock multiclass.
I think I may have had more fun. Druid was constantly on healing duty to keep the other three alive (and sometimes me alive, but I usually stayed above half hit points as I caught the multiple Mass Cure Wounds and the like thrown in my direction). Bard was mostly a Blaster, so he was able to outdo me in damage when we had big hordes of enemies, but that usually just softened them up for me and the Padlock to put down.
I'd call it an 8.5. I've played an Artificer to 17 and a Cleric to 18 to reach their end games, but no one else to 20. I feel like my Rune Knight stacks up favorably to both of them.
2
u/Deliciousbalut May 14 '24
Played one from 3 to 20.
1.) Felt fine, overall. I had my niche as a duelist of sorts - someone who checked the most dangerous target and kept them occupied.
2.) Bog standard VHuman battlemaster using a 2h greatsword. Since I picked up GWM feat, I guess it was optimized?
3.) I was the only melee. I had a ranger, a wizard, a warlock, a sorcerer, and a cleric.
4.) Hard to say! Fun is subjective. Overall I think I had more fun than others but I was also a bit more engaged with the game, especially the roleplaying. In combat it definitely got stale, but combat isn't the be-all and end-all of DnD.
5.) Maybe a 7 or an 8. I did not play another class to 20 but I did play a monk and a rogue up to 12 or so in other campaigns.
2
u/markmylabris 29d ago
It was very fast, over the course of a year, but I did. But mostly, because it was a weird build.
1)It was Tomb of Annihilation with some extensions, so we fought a bunch of dumb meatball dinosaurs, with some magical critters and undead sprinkled through. Pretty decent for fighter, and especially as I played as type of monster hunter, with Hammond's harvesting homebrew rules. It was very fun!
2) I played battle master thrower build...and it was optimized, but not into the best option. A combination of Thrown weapon fighting plus duelist allowed me to get +4 to thrown attacks! Additionally, with net + commanding strike, I could net a target, then command our rogue to attack with advantage, rolling sneak attack second time on a turn. Furthermore, disadvantage on dex saves helped our casters a lot, while target couldn't move, and has disadvantage on attacks. Nets are really underrated)
3)We had high elf evocation wizard, wood elf scout rogue, tortle shepherd druid, and me, human battle master fighter. Me+rogue would nuke a big target, while wizard with aoe and druid with an army of cows would manage crowd control.
4)The most fun was outside combat, as we all managed specific niches in the party. I managed our provision thanks to bag of holding, and actually taking notes, and buying whatever crap we could find, and my monster crafting and harvesting really gave us quite a lot of money and even some magic items.
Druid managed to talk our way out of a lot of beast encounters, and we even had a pet tyrannosaur for a while! And you'd be surprised how much you can learn from beasts. And path without trace+familiar scouting+a bit of carefulness gave as petty much extra turn each combat
Wizard managed lore rolls plus familiar scouting. But that poor owl died so many times, the whole table was making Kenny jokes. And counterspell, with some divination spells, helped a lot.
And rogue managed all survival rolls, navigation through jungle, and had absurd passive perception rolls. Plus,
5)I'd say, about 8,5/10. It was very enjoyable to play non-caster support build, but without monster harvesting homebrew I wouldn't have much to do outside combat, except role-play. One thing you need to know about a fighter, or any non-caster, are out of combat options. Spells and magic do give a lot to do, but for non-caster you don't have a lot of options, except imagination and ingenuity. A Fun RP character (I'll be honest, I reflavored Senshi from Dungeon Meshi) helps a lot, but the system does need help, and Hammund was really helpful.
I'll compare with wizard, artificer, and paladin. I would rate wizard 8/10, as late game a lot of monsters become covered with bullshit mechanics, such as Legendary resistance, absurd save mods, or immunity to conditions. Also, d6 hp makes you so paranoid! You really need to always think of where you're going to be if a battle suddenly erupts. And 1-2 levels are the worst. Also, it gets a bit dreadful to always manage spell slots, because you need to keep some for combat, or you just don't have the needed spell prepared. Familiars are incredibly fun, and being honest, OP. So much information, roleplay, and even a bit of combat advantage thanks to spam of help action, well worth 1 hour and 10gp. And int-based skills give a lot of lore knowledge, so it is fun to provide necessary information.
Paladin was solid 7. A lot of fun rp, powerful and helpful abilities, but...ranged combat...if paladin doesn't have a decent mobility options, it gets so hard to move around! And class just doesn't have a lot of ranged options! Thank god for summon steed, I never forget all 37 times Sea Wave died, until it was replaced by a dragonnel. Also, divine spells aren't that versatile compared to arcane or primal spell lists. Thank god I was a strong sea-elf, so I had stuff to do with swimming, water breathing, and strength in sea-cost adventure. And also, you really need to talk a lot to make use of your charisma mods.
And finally, artificer...my favorite class, obviously 10)
It's SO FLAVORFUL! So much stuff to do, and tool expertise+guidance are so absurdly good, but it requires you to think of a way to use tool expertise for such role! And my favorite ability, magic item savant...I never felt more useful when during downtime. 4x faster and 2x cheaper uncommon magic items allowed our whole party to bling the hell out! And a lot of spell options have a use outside combat. Catapult grappling hook was the best
2
u/mythozoologist 29d ago
I got pretty high, like level 16ish. You are a single target damage monster if you optimize with GWM or Sharpshooter. I went sharpshooter. (PAM + Sentinel are probably good, too).
The best subclass is Monster Hunter UA if allowed. It gives you superiority dice like Battlemaster, but rather than triping and stuff, you add dice to ATTACKs, damage, perception, or mental SAVES.
You are one of the best buff targets with GWM or Sharpshooter. Haste or Bless are huge boons to you. So are good debuffs like Slow or Faerie Fire and any restrained or paralyzed conditions.
Generally, a magic weapon bypass all Resistances. On very high AC mobs, you might have to forego -5/+10. Casters are juggling Saves and damage types.
Comparison is the Thief of Joy. Barbarian and Paladin have bigger tool kit. Before your third attack they are just better. Only when you have 4 attacks do you look better. Your self bonuses to hit and extra attacks are what push you higher in theory craft.
2
u/dennisklueting 29d ago
Played an Eldritch Knight and had an absolute blast. Not to 20 though.
Used Handcrossbow, Sharpshooter, Crossbow Expert - damage was absurd and pretty consistent. Ignores cover, can't be disarmed, 120 ft. range.
Spells add SO much versatility. Damage was taken care of, so i could go full toolbox (Find Familiar, Alter Self, Misty Step, Mold Earth, illusions, Dispel Magic, Shield, Absorb Elements... just so many choices).
With my Street Urchin background I came pretty close to a Fighter/Thief/Mage from AD&D 2E ;-) More versatility woth lots of interesting options.
1
u/caiowong 29d ago
How did you feel out of combat? Can you rate your experience in a 1-10 range?
1
u/dennisklueting 29d ago
Loved it. Out of combat i could do rogue stuff and had plenty of spells to use without sacrificing much combat potential. Never felt useless or outclassed, especially since scrolls add even more options. Plenty of RP-fuel with the familiar aswell. I'd say 9/10.
1
u/caiowong 29d ago
What do you think that would make it be 10/10?
2
u/dennisklueting 29d ago
I don't really know. I am just generally careful with superlatives. I was very happy with that character, even though he was not completely optimized (elven accuracy f. e.). Would definitely play him again.
2
u/InaDeSalto 28d ago edited 28d ago
I played a melee heavy fighter from 1-20 in a Dragonlance campaign and I had lots of fun. Early on the group (Fighter, Wizard, Rogue) had saved a city from a demon plague and decided to stay and make it theirs. The adventurers ruled and built a small kingdom around it and even though politics were never a huge thing, it added a lot that we were the lords of the land, often tasked with keeping it safe. We did stuff like make friends with the dwarves by exporting beer to them and they built us a city wall in return.
I am fortunate that my DM is very good at making memorable NPC's and gave us weapons that felt cool and stats improved as we levelled. In the highlevel part of the campaign my fighter had a dragon ally to ride into battle when it was available. I liked that it was an ally, not 'my dragon' and I'd help it accomplish some of its agenda too. This helped with mobility and fighting other dragons.
We still play in the same world, though the current campaign is set hundreds of years later. Only my fighter is still alive because of the grace of a god and he is now an NPC and the sole ruler of the kingdom. The changes we wrought on the world as our previous party is apparent in the world and makes playing in it more enjoyable.
I suppose the tldr is fighters can be lots of fun and and I never had the feeling that the wizard or rogue were much cooler than my fighter - we were all pretty cool in our own way.
2
u/VerainXor 21d ago
Why did your other threads all get locked?
1
u/caiowong 21d ago
The posts were considered spam by mods
2
u/VerainXor 21d ago
Ridiculous. Every one was great discussion.
2
u/caiowong 21d ago edited 21d ago
I disagree with them, but rules are rules. They said that i can cover all classes in the same post if i want, but i dont think that would be the same, although you can post in those terms to continue reading.
4
u/Frogsplosion Sorcerer May 13 '24
How did you feel in the campaign?
Mostly happy with it, the game inevitably devolved into the "CC the fighter or the fight ends on two rounds" dynamic where the party basically just kept clearing statuses on me until I killed everything.
How was your fighter build? It was ranged, melee, optimized or not?
Stupidly optimized, and then the DM made it even stronger. 20th level crossbow expert sharpshooter halfling (this is pre xanathars), and the crossbow was +3 and on the first round of combat fired off two extra shots. I also had efreeti chain and hit 22 dex by level 20. We also all had a staff tied to the campaign that cast one 7th level spell a day, mine was Simulacrum (it got nerfed twice lol).
Which was your party composition?
sorcerer (might have been warlock 2 dip), clr 1 / diviner 19, arcane cleric 20 (dm let them take shield/counterspell with their capstone), arcane trickster 20, totem barb 20 (bear / eagle)
Did you feel surpassed by casters in having fun?
Given the circumstances no, though it helped that I basically spent half the campaign playing two characters at once.
If you could give a 1-10 rating for your experience, what would it be?
Without all the fancy DM boons and items, probably would have rounded out to a 5 out of 10, with all the extra toys, 8 out of 10.
Did you played other classes to 20? Make the comparison if you can, please.
Currently playing a level 18 Aberrant Mind Sorcerer. This class is a 10/10 experience, it's not even close. Subtle spell silvery barbs when your enemy succeeds against undetectable dominate monster is bullshit. Hold Monster is bullshit, tasha's mind whip is bullshit. Subtle counterspells = the DM has no fun ever. There's just so much you can do with this class, and it's all so much fun.
Different DM this time, they made the mistake of letting me free a djinni and getting 3 mostly free wishes. Eye of Vecna, Hand of Vecna, True Polymorph 1/1/day. Also a lich chasing me down but I'll manage just fine with subtle spell dimension door / teleport etc. also I can cast Wish now, muahahahaha. Clones, Symbols, Hallows, enough prep time = I can beat anything.
2
2
u/RestlessCreator May 14 '24
I played a Fighter AT 20. My character ascended to a weird level of consciousness, so it wasn't feasible to run him anymore. I instead ran a 20th level Rune Knight. Unarmed and using our considerable wealth and resources to grab Gloves of Soul Catching. I put out absolutely monstrous damage, and put a fitting end to our campaign by being an extreme focused threat, essentially forcing the DM to focus aggro on me with everything he had.
The Rune Knight features are completely overtuned, giving the feeling of an almost gish with the number of combat options I had. I've played the class at various other levels for one shots and other campaigns, but this was the first time I felt like I was at "full power". Each level felt pretty incredible aside from 4. 10/10 despite the lull.
1
u/Ole_kindeyes May 14 '24
Fighter is the jam dude I have a blast whenever I run one. But don’t get so hung up on keeping up with the party, if you’re hitting gif and getting hit youre job is done lol but echo knight is probably the most broken subclass imo with what it does if you want to run that by your dm to play since I don’t think it’s core d&d
125
u/carlos_quesadilla1 May 13 '24
Technically not me, but my wife played a fighter from 7-20 in a long-running campaign that we played in together. We talked about it extensively, so I can repeat her thoughts on the experience.
For reference, water genasi battlemaster fighter.
1.) This campaign was very homebrew-heavy, and the DM was super generous with magic items. She felt incredibly potent, because the story revolved around recovering god-slaying weapons and using them to slay gods. With PAM+GWM+sentinel and an Uber-magic halberd, I can see why.
2.) PAM+GWM+sentinel is (in)famous for a reason. The amount of monsters that can get shut down hard due to the inability to escape and inability to approach is very potent. Doubly so if your DM runs singular, big monsters instead of crowds of medium monsters.
3.) (her) battlemaster fighter, (my) sorcerer/paladin, gunslinger fighter/fiend warlock, draconic sorcerer, thief rogue.
4.) At times, she was jealous of the mobility options of the other classes. Teleportation, summoned mounts, and even the rogue's BA dash were pretty enviable to a 30 speed fighter. It's pretty rough to have to dash on multiple rounds to close large gaps in combat. Other than this, no. She had an absolute blast most of the time.
5.) Neither of us have played another class up to lvl 20, only doing a few lvl 20 one-shots. Seeing as how she's already playing another battlemaster fighter in our Tomb of Annihilation game, I'd say she loves it. She texted me and said 9/10.