Anything a Fighter can do, a Paladin or Ranger can do better (and more)

[BoxANT]

Eldritch Knight with healer feat is a hipster paladin.

[JAL_1138]

Short version: Fighters, Rangers, and Paladins do different things, or accomplish similar things in different ways. Paladins are kind of rubbish at ranged damage, Rangers are respectable at it, and Fighters can actually outshoot the Ranger. Ranger and Paladin get versatile spell lists and utility capability, both get some healing ability as well (Paladins get more healing, Rangers get more utility). Fighters and Paladins can be melee monsters; Ranger will be more of a skirmisher for the most part. Paladin gets aura effects that make it a good party buffer of sorts, but Fighters can out-tank them and can outlast them on long adventuring days. Etc., etc., so on and so forth. Different strengths and weaknesses for each. Fighters work best when feats are allowed (really, all three do), but, while less-effective, aren't totally worthless without them.

Shorter version: Fighters are good. They work, they're effective, and they're a solid addition to the party, and they can do some things better than Paladins and Rangers can, just as Paladins and Rangers do some things better than Fighters.

[cotofpoffee]

Nuh uh.

Psst: In my Pathfinder group there exists a druid and a fighter with both having fun, neither resenting the other, both contributing well in their ways. Also darn it the spellcasters do not always have the most perfect spell needed at the moment it would have been quite useful, and even when they do the bad guys are making their saving throws from time to time so the spellcasters aren't always saving the day doing everything. When the spell does work the warriors are quite happy about it.

Shall we continue in another useless edition war or get back to the main conversation?

And in my Pathfinder group where we played from level 1-15, the gap between martials and spellcasters became more painfully apparent each level we climbed. Anecdotal experience doesn't really help when discussing power levels of classes. You and I have opposite experiences. Both experiences are valid. So where does nothing to move the conversation forward. This particular conversation is also not an edition war conversation. It's talking solely about our views on balance in Pathfinder.

The fact remains, there is a huge crowd in Pathfinder that think there are these imbalances. Look on their forums. You cannot simply say every single one of them is wrong. That's both ignorant and disrespectful. In fact, people who are for these imbalances are the ones actively suggesting ways to fix it and engaging in compelling arguments where they back up their claims with numbers.

One argument i see a lot, and it has even been posted on this thread already, is that anyone can make a character compelling if they're a good roleplayer. Yet that is not because of the class. That is because the player is awesome. Such a player could even make playing a commoner with no abilities good. That doesn't make Fighters back then good. In fact, it makes then worse because it requires a player to roleplay better to make up for its flaws.

A person who makes a strong character can be a good roleplayer. Optimization does not automatically mean a person won't or can't roleplay. It can for sure, but they are definitely not mutually exclusive. The best roleplayers I've met also make the strongest characters.

[Citan]

I saw this proposed in the "Casters Rule, Martials Drool" thread.

Is it true? Why or why not?

I'd say not true at all.
Fighter will always win in the end (highest levels) on sustained damage to start with as long as feats are allowed (Sharpshooter / GWM).
There are also some niche that Fighters can fill in easier than Rangers and much easier than Paladins because...
a) They have 2 more ASI stat.
b) They are globally lesser attribute dependent.
A Ranger could "dump" WIS but would restrict his spelllist and reduce the efficiency of one of his primary role, tracking.
A Paladin would live this even worse, because Charisma affects prepared spells, Aura of Protection and some great archetype features.
Whereas even an Eldricht Knight could perfectly live fine with dumped INT, because he has not that many spells known and slots anyways so playing pure defensive is very valid, although a bit sad (Eldricht Strike is extremely good).

Meaning that, as far as weapon attacks are considered, Paladins and Rangers can be better than Fighters but usually at the cost of expending resources, whereas Fighter can use feats to get permanent advantages.

So, on ranged side, a Ranger could get the same essential feats as a Fighter (Sharshooter, Crossbow Expert, Mage Slayer) but couldn't afford also a Ritual Caster or Mobile for example.
With that said, Ranger has many features and spells that indeed a Fighter could never lay his hands on, so there are many things a Ranger would do better or be his exclusive field: scouting, tracking, sneaking, sustaining a party.

On melee side, a Paladin could grab probably GWM / Polearm Master and Sentinel, but anymore would become a hard choice, while Fighter could easily stack all weapon-related feats.
With that said, Paladin has many features and spells that indeed a Fighter could never lay his hands on, so there are many things a Paladin would do better or be his exclusive field: protecting the party, disabling an enemy, surviving attacks, sustaining a party...

However, a Fighter could easily come close to them in many of these fields, without having any opportunity cost relative to the efficiency of his basic class features. And a Fighter can go much beyond them in terms of sustained weapon efficiency by stacking feats granting non-resource benefits.

That is the main difference that makes all these three classes in fact very complementary. ;)

To give an illustration...

If I want someone to scout/track, I'll probably always prefer a Ranger (because even a Fighter with Observant won't beat Ranger's double proficiency in his Favored Terrains/Enemies - and Ranger has usually higher WIS and can take Observant too in the first place).

If I want someone to protect the party, I'll probably always prefer a (Ancients) Paladin because of his great self-resilience (Aura of Protection is much better than Indomitable overall) and his great party buffs (30 feets Aura of Protection / Aura of Warding / Circle of Power and can also take Protection Fighting Style, Lay on Hands / Cure Wounds people, Create Food and Water etc).

BUT... If I want someone to preemptively shut down a dangerous foe, especially a caster, I'll probably always take a (Battlemaster with Precision attack, second Eldricht Knight for Greater Invisibility) archer Fighter with maxed DEX, Sharpshooter, Magic Initiate: Cleric (Bless), Alert and maybe Crossbow Expert or Martial Adept and Lucky or Mobile or Healer or Ritual Caster or Skulker.

He will certainly start first (DEX + Alert + Lucky), can unleash 8 (Action Surge) or 9 (with Crossbow Expert) attacks, with 7 dice to spend on Precision Attack / Feinting Attack / Disarming Attack / Menacing Attack: either use Precision attack to ensure Sharshooter works, or use other dies which add to damage roll.
You can count on at least (1d8+5)*8 at worst, and probably add Sharpshooter +10 half of the time as an average. So a solid ~100 damage with average to bad luck, and well over it with a bit of luck.

[MeeposFire]

It is hard for me to agree with the premise that 3e put weapon users on a similar footing as a caster when it is the only edition that made it a rule that moving 10 feet made most weapon users only deal potentially 25% or LESS damage than normal damage (only one attack instead of 4 or more at higher levels). Not saying you could not make it work or that many groups can ignore the problem (the local store group essentially plays without full atack actions because they do not understand the action economy but hey it works out better for them so I do not say anything) just that if you look at the mechanics from where they were there was a big buffing to casters from AD&D to 3e and a major restrictions and reductions in capability for warriors on the whole (they make you think you are ahead because you get feats but in reality compared to the 2e fighter the 3e fighter loses a lot even with the extra choices).

In 5e paladins make for a great way to deal damage quickly but once they are out of power (and in games I have seen they either run out of juice REALLY fast or they never use anything) they are not offensively all that impressive (though still fine and they still have some excellent abilities like the auras). Ranger has some neat exploration abilities and have some neat things to do against groups but does not excel in many areas that most people think about (such as single target damage, defense, etc). Fighters are effective and durable. They have good nova capability (not quite as nasty as a paladin in most cases) and great potential for constant damage (more attacks means every source of damage per hit is multiplied more times like dueling). They are highly effective at what a warrior is expected to do. Personally I do feel there are changes that could be made but they are mostly to bring back things I think the class is missing from its AD&D days (better saves and leadership abilities).

[JAL_1138]

That is the main difference that makes all these three classes in fact very complementary. ;)

Now I'm thinking about how I'd build a party with a Pally, a Ranger, and a Fighter all in it. Probably want one or two fullcasters to round it out, to get a bit of AoE in and some good buffs for the three martials. There's several ways to go with it, and all of them would be really strong parties...they cover so much ground between the three of them, you could actually skip the fullcaster and roll with just those three, no fourth member, and still do quite well (unless you really needed flight or planar travel or something and the DM just didn't set up any alternatives to having those spells).

[MaxWilson]

Whereas even an Eldricht Knight could perfectly live fine with dumped INT, because he has not that many spells known and slots anyways so playing pure defensive is very valid, although a bit sad (Eldricht Strike is extremely good).

I'd argue that Eldritch Strike exists specifically so that an Eldritch Knight can dump Int with no qualms. Without multiclassing, the EK doesn't have enough spells known to make serious investments in boosting spell DC worthwhile.

E.g.

Int 10 Eldritch Knight 13 casting Fireball on a Mummy Lord (Eldritch Strike active): DC 13 vs. Dex +0, 40% chance the Mummy Lord saves successfully
Int 20 Eldritch Knight 13 casting Fireball on a Mummy Lord (Eldritch Strike active): DC 18 vs. Dex +0, 15% chance the Mummy Lord saves successfully
Int 20 Evoker 13 casting Fireball on a Mummy Lord: DC 18 vs. Dex +0 (with advantage), 28% chance the Mummy Lord saves successfully
Int 18 Evoker 13 casting Fireball on a Mummy Lord: DC 17 vs. Dex +0 (with advantage), 36% chance the Mummy Lord saves successfully

Yes, by boosting your Int from 10 to 20, you can reduce the odds of the Mummy Lord saving against your Fireball from 40% to 15%, which will increase your average damage by (0.25 * avg(8d6/2)) = 3.5 points of damage (doubled to 7 for fire vulnerability). Not worth 10 stat points. Even if you leave your Int at 10, Eldritch Strike ensures you're about as successful as the Int 18 Evoker, and not that much worse than even the Int 20 Evoker.

With multiclassing, Eldritch Strike becomes more interesting because you have more spell slots to use on e.g. Bestow Curse. Against, say, an Ancient Red Dragon, it might look more like this:

Int 10 Eldritch Knight 11/Enchanter 7 [note: illegal multiclass with Int 10!] casting Bestow Curse V on an Ancient Red Dragon (Eldritch Strike active): DC 14 vs. Wis +9 (disadvantage), 64% chance the dragon saves successfully
Int 13 Eldritch Knight 11/Enchanter 7 casting Bestow Curse V on an Ancient Red Dragon (Eldritch Strike active): DC 15 vs. Wis +9 (disadvantage), 56% chance the dragon saves successfully
Int 16 Eldritch Knight 11/Enchanter 7 casting Bestow Curse V on an Ancient Red Dragon (Eldritch Strike active): DC 17 vs. Wis +9 (disadvantage), 42% chance the dragon saves successfully
Int 20 Eldritch Knight 11/Enchanter 7 casting Bestow Curse V on an Ancient Red Dragon (Eldritch Strike active): DC 19 vs. Wis +9 (disadvantage), 30% chance the dragon saves successfully
Int 20 Enchanter 18 casting Bestow Curse V on an Ancient Red Dragon: DC 19 vs. Wis +9, 55% chance the dragon saves successfully

Is it worth boosting Int for this scenario? Maybe. You have to boost to 13 anyway in order to multiclass; I probably wouldn't go past Int 16. And note that even the bare minimum Int 13 Eldritch Knight is doing as well as a specialized Enchanter could hope to do, at least when it comes to landing that initial curse.

TL;DR a pure Eldritch Knight doesn't cast enough spells to make seriously investing in Int worthwhile, but Eldritch Strike keeps his spells effective anyway.

=============================

On the topic of nova capability, a GWM-oriented fighter can sometimes, by 12th level, kick you in the chest to knock you prone and then power-attack you five times more for over a hundred points of total damage in one round. (Average damage would be somewhat less--I'm relating an anecdote here, not a formula. But a Battlemaster or a Lucky Eldritch Knight could hit at least four out of five times fairly reliably, especially with bardic inspiration dice or a magic weapon--the anecdote isn't much of an outlier.) I haven't ever seen a paladin nova that hard.

[Ninja-Radish]

Alot of people bring up that Fighters don't have many long rest resources like the Paladin and Ranger, but considering nearly every other class runs on long rest resources, is that really a benefit?

It's very difficult to squeeze 6 encounters into an adventuring day, so the Pally and Ranger's limited resources rarely end up hurting them, while the Fighter's "tortoise-like" consistency generally doesn't help much.

[Sigreid]

Now I'm thinking about how I'd build a party with a Pally, a Ranger, and a Fighter all in it. Probably want one or two fullcasters to round it out, to get a bit of AoE in and some good buffs for the three martials. There's several ways to go with it, and all of them would be really strong parties...they cover so much ground between the three of them, you could actually skip the fullcaster and roll with just those three, no fourth member, and still do quite well (unless you really needed flight or planar travel or something and the DM just didn't set up any alternatives to having those spells).

I personally would skip the ranger and do fighter/pally/wolf totem barb for advantage given to the other two when the barb rages. Should be a world class murder fest.

[Pex]

And in my Pathfinder group where we played from level 1-15, the gap between martials and spellcasters became more painfully apparent each level we climbed. Anecdotal experience doesn't really help when discussing power levels of classes. You and I have opposite experiences. Both experiences are valid. So where does nothing to move the conversation forward. This particular conversation is also not an edition war conversation. It's talking solely about our views on balance in Pathfinder.

The fact remains, there is a huge crowd in Pathfinder that think there are these imbalances. Look on their forums. You cannot simply say every single one of them is wrong. That's both ignorant and disrespectful. In fact, people who are for these imbalances are the ones actively suggesting ways to fix it and engaging in compelling arguments where they back up their claims with numbers.

One argument i see a lot, and it has even been posted on this thread already, is that anyone can make a character compelling if they're a good roleplayer. Yet that is not because of the class. That is because the player is awesome. Such a player could even make playing a commoner with no abilities good. That doesn't make Fighters back then good. In fact, it makes then worse because it requires a player to roleplay better to make up for its flaws.

A person who makes a strong character can be a good roleplayer. Optimization does not automatically mean a person won't or can't roleplay. It can for sure, but they are definitely not mutually exclusive. The best roleplayers I've met also make the strongest characters.

Of course people have issues with Pathfinder. My original point was that it wasn't a universal truth that everyone believes magic rules, warriors drool, fighters suck in Pathfinder. It's not an established fact of evidence.

[mgshamster]

Q&D archery analysis

Thank you! That shores that up rather nicely.

And just to confirm, Kryx does not have a paladin archery analysis - because why would he?

[MadBear]

Alot of people bring up that Fighters don't have many long rest resources like the Paladin and Ranger, but considering nearly every other class runs on long rest resources, is that really a benefit?

It's very difficult to squeeze 6 encounters into an adventuring day, so the Pally and Ranger's limited resources rarely end up hurting them, while the Fighter's "tortoise-like" consistency generally doesn't help much.

That really depends entirely on if the DM is living up to the game's expectations. Maybe it's warranted to critique the 6-8 encounters per day as a model for an adventuring day, but you can't really critique the classes if you don't follow that model.

I mean, that'd be like saying Mike Tyson was a terrible boxer because he didn't kick or use takedowns the way MMA fighters do.

So I guess what I'm saying is that, throughout these multiple threads, it sounds like your bigger and real issue isn't "Casters rule, Martials drool", but rather you have an issue with the expected adventuring day model.

There isn't many fixes to that model that work well with 5e, buy you might try the long rest variant. That way, you can have 1-2 fights on a given adventuring day, and only get a short rest out of it. That might fit your groups style better, and pull the classes back in line. That'd also mean you only get a long rest when you rest for a week, making it much better suited to only happening at the end of a dungeon.

[Contrast]

Now I'm thinking about how I'd build a party with a Pally, a Ranger, and a Fighter all in it.

A human paladin, elven ranger and dwarven fighter can get along fine all on their own - they don't need no pesky aasimar sorcerors or groups of halfling rogues to back them up

[alchahest]

I've found that eldritch knight is an incredibly versatile, fun class to play. I'm currently playing one at 13th level, full EK with no dips. Dex/Int/Con, with a rapier and a shield. I've got the warcaster feat, the skilled feat, and the UA Skill feat for investigation (former cop, basically) It's been really rewarding, contributing in and out of combat, and having three attacks per attack action is REALLY nice for those turns when not casting. Most of the spells I've selected don't have a material component, so there's no issue with weapon-dropping shenanigans, unless it's a specific use (I took wall of sand, for example, as a spell, and if I'm casting that, then I can drop my sword, cast it, then call the sword with a bonus action.)

We've had a battlemaster archer in the game at one point who was pretty darn decent, as well.

with that being said, having my spells recharge on long rest does limit my non-attack options and I can see how a champion (even one with the same feats) might feel like he's contributing less, if he gets a string of 17s or 18s, which would be great rolls, if they weren't just shy of allowing his class feature to activate.

[Specter]

A human paladin, elven ranger and dwarven fighter can get along fine all on their own - they don't need no pesky aasimar sorcerors or groups of halfling rogues to back them up

Maybe the Human Wizard got split from the party and the halflings are now traveling on their own to destroy an artifact?

[JAL_1138]

A human paladin, elven ranger and dwarven fighter can get along fine all on their own - they don't need no pesky aasimar sorcerors or groups of halfling rogues to back them up

Nice LotR reference aside (kudos), unless the DM throws situations that need particular spells or class features that none of them can get in order to solve, yeah, they'll be fine. Really, no sarcasm, that party could work quite decently in 5e.

They can have a good deal of melee damage, ranged damage, defense/durability, healing, buffing, and utility; they can get a reasonable amount of control; about all they lack is much AoE, and they can get a little bit of that too as they level.

If the DM's not a jerk who specifically builds challenges to target their lack of certain low/mid-level spells or any spells over 5th level, or sets DCs so high that it's mathematically impossible to hit them without Expertise, or something like that, the three of them can cover so many roles adequately enough (with the right builds--not necessarily even particularly high-op builds, but they shouldn't all go exclusively melee or some such) that it'll work without too many problems.

[Pex]

That really depends entirely on if the DM is living up to the game's expectations. Maybe it's warranted to critique the 6-8 encounters per day as a model for an adventuring day, but you can't really critique the classes if you don't follow that model.

I mean, that'd be like saying Mike Tyson was a terrible boxer because he didn't kick or use takedowns the way MMA fighters do.

So I guess what I'm saying is that, throughout these multiple threads, it sounds like your bigger and real issue isn't "Casters rule, Martials drool", but rather you have an issue with the expected adventuring day model.

There isn't many fixes to that model that work well with 5e, buy you might try the long rest variant. That way, you can have 1-2 fights on a given adventuring day, and only get a short rest out of it. That might fit your groups style better, and pull the classes back in line. That'd also mean you only get a long rest when you rest for a week, making it much better suited to only happening at the end of a dungeon.

How long in game a rest takes only matters for flavor text. For the play of the game what matters is the ratio of how many rests the players get per game session. Too few shorts rests warlocks, monks, and battlemasters will grow frustrated. Too few long rests paladins and spellcasters will grow frustrated. Too few rests at all makes everyone frustrated.

A game session that provides two short rests and a long rest at the end to start fresh the next game session in a real world week or two will be fine. It's also ok for the game to end on a cliff hangar, deal with it next session, then immediately after long rest and start again. If it's a mostly roleplay/exploration session where there was harldy even a combat then no rests are needed so that session won't count against anything. When it's a succession of combats without short rests, the spellcasters conserve spells but cast them and paladins smite the BBEG or Lieutenant, but the warlock is just doing Eldritch Blast all day while the monk and battlemaster say "I attack". When it's a day full of roleplay, exploration, and combat, but the adventure isn't over yet so that it's only been 3 in game hours for normal resting procedures or 2 game days for gritty realism resting procedures such that the party only gets a short rest or two a game session and this repeats for three game sessions, the warlocks are casting, the monks are kiing, the battlemasters are maneuvering, but the paladin says "I attack" and the spellcasters are flinging cantrips all day. When the party can't rest at all because the DM won't let them through interruptions of random encounters or rough weather with no shelter or the atmosphere is poisonous that only hurts you if you stay in one place too long, or some other excuse, all the warriors just say "I attack" and all the spellcasters are just casting cantrips.

[Beelzebubba]

Fixed that for you.

That is not a universal truth.

Sure, an absolute idiot can build a caster that will lose to an optimized martial.

And, a 1.x Grognard like me can play a caster that won't outshine everyone up to about 10th level or so, because I play 'by the rules', buff party members instead of myself, focus on evocations, don't min/max DCs, etcetera.

But equalize that in any way with player optimizing skill, and it's absolutely true.

It's true to WoTC, too, considering the Concentration mechanic, huge reduction in spells cast per day at mid to high levels, elimination of stacking bonuses in almost all contexts, elimination of casting stat increasing number of spells known, elimination of spell save DC being driven by the spell's level, reduction in spell durations, addition of 'save every round' to escape 'save or suck' spells, rewriting magic items that grant stat bonuses to move to a flat 'cap' rather than stacking...they nerfed casters in SO MANY WAYS.

I mean, my fingers hurt typing this out, and I'm not even done.

Sorry dude, casters were RIDICULOUS in 3.X and literally broke the game. Just because you didn't break it at your table doesn't mean it isn't broken. You just weren't trying.

[MadBear]

How long in game a rest takes only matters for flavor text. For the play of the game what matters is the ratio of how many rests the players get per game session. Too few shorts rests warlocks, monks, and battlemasters will grow frustrated. Too few long rests paladins and spellcasters will grow frustrated. Too few rests at all makes everyone frustrated.

While I overall agree, using the long rest variant can help with verisimilitude if your players work on the 5 minute adventuring day.

From my experience the groups that try and abuse the rest system, go in to a dungeon, nova it, walk out and camp. Rinse and repeat till the process is done. You make them wait a full week to get that long rest, and now it makes perfect sense that the dungeon is completely restocked with new baddies since a week is plenty of time for reinforcements to enter, and dungeons traps reset.

Having that happen during an 8-hour rest makes less sense.

[Mikal]

Fixed that for you.

That is not a universal truth.

CoDzilla would like to have a word with you, as would the Batman Wizard.

Nuh uh.

Psst: In my Pathfinder group there exists a druid and a fighter with both having fun, neither resenting the other, both contributing well in their ways. Also darn it the spellcasters do not always have the most perfect spell needed at the moment it would have been quite useful, and even when they do the bad guys are making their saving throws from time to time so the spellcasters aren't always saving the day doing everything. When the spell does work the warriors are quite happy about it.

Shall we continue in another useless edition war or get back to the main conversation?

Optimized spellcasters did have the right spell at the right time, actually, and plenty of spells that allowed them to do anything a martial could, except better.
You can disagree, but you're factually incorrect. Martials were heavily mechanically disadvantaged compared to casters in the 3.x ruleset.

Also, having fun has nothing to do with whether something is inherently weaker than another.
Otherwise, you could argue a 1st level commoner is as equally viable as a 20th level wizard/incantatrix/archmage if both are having fun.

[Theodoxus]

A human paladin, elven ranger and dwarven fighter can get along fine all on their own - they don't need no pesky aasimar sorcerors or groups of halfling rogues to back them up

Only quibble - it's human ranger and elven fighter... but otherwise, yeah.

[Matticusrex]

Fighters have absolutely nothing on paladins. I think those two are the best example of imbalanced design with martials. Half-casters and above easily trounce pure martials in both combat and rollplay ability. Playing 5.e without homebrewing anything is like playing elder scrolls with no modes, It's okay but it looks like **** compared to a fully modded version.

[JNAProductions]

Fighters have absolutely nothing on paladins. I think those two are the best example of imbalanced design with martials. Half-casters and above easily trounce pure martials in both combat and rollplay ability. Playing 5.e without homebrewing anything is like playing elder scrolls with no modes, It's okay but it looks like **** compared to a fully modded version.

Do you have examples and numbers to back that up?

[Matticusrex]

Do you have examples and numbers to back that up?

I kind of assumed we were all playing the same edition here.

[JNAProductions]

I kind of assumed we were all playing the same edition here.

5E. We're talking 5E.

And when it comes to at-will damage, I don't think anyone beats the Fighter, except maybe a Reckless Attacking Barbarian (which has its own problems).

[Corran]

Fighters have absolutely nothing on paladins. I think those two are the best example of imbalanced design with martials. Half-casters and above easily trounce pure martials in both combat and rollplay ability. Playing 5.e without homebrewing anything is like playing elder scrolls with no modes, It's okay but it looks like **** compared to a fully modded version.

I dont think I have ever played an edition where the fighter was worse than the paladin (started playing with 3e; never made the jump to 3.5, even though we were still playing 3e at the time, weird...).
I quite like their balance and their design (with a few minor exceptions) in 5e. I was surprised at this comment... (I assume a very short adventuring day)

[Mikal]

I kind of assumed we were all playing the same edition here.

Then you should be able to easily provide your maths on this.

[MadBear]

I kind of assumed we were all playing the same edition here.

Paladin's excel and single target DPS in short bursts, there's no doubt about that. You need the BBEG dead as quick as possible, the paladin's your man. But over the long haul, the fighter will deal more consistent damage to all foes and won't have to conserve their resources the way a paladin does.

But if there's something else you were trying to say, I'd suggest, that you give us some examples, so that we can see where you're coming from. Otherwise we're left making assumptions about your position, which doesn't benefit anyone.

[Sigreid]

I've come to the conclusion that some people will never like the fighter unless it's given abilities that essentially make it something different than what it is.

[Matticusrex]

5E. We're talking 5E.

And when it comes to at-will damage, I don't think anyone beats the Fighter, except maybe a Reckless Attacking Barbarian (which has its own problems).

Why the paladin is purely better than a fighter.

Lay on hands is the equivalent of gaining additional health equal to having a bonus maxed out constitution score, yet it can be dispersed between alleys in small spurts or huge bursts and can even cure diseases. Right off the bat the paladin is both a damage dealer and healer for the team without even having to do anything, if he tanks he gains a huge health pool, if ally tanks, they have a backbone to rely on if they fall.
Both them and fighter get the same health, fighting style choices, weapons armors, but then paladin gets spell-casting using the best casting stat in the game, Charisma. Charisma gives them very powerful rollplay tools while also buffing their spell-casting, its pretty hard to build a bad paladin when everything is served to you on a silver platter. With spell casting you can have even more healing, or give everyone on your team a +20% chance to both hit and succeed on saving throws, or have a permanent free horse, or boost everyone's damage with crusader's mantle, the list goes on but you get the point. Have spell slots to spare? You get one of the best guaranteed damage dealers in the game, Divine smite! Every crit you ever deal will now be a game changer guaranteed to make your DM regret not buffing the boss. Being radiant damage protects it from almost ever being resisted while a huge portion of the monster manual is weak to it, did anyone say quad damage? You can keep your action surge, the paladin is packing a holy hand grenade with a lot of uses. Oh hey its time to pick my archetype, and now I get channel divinity, another amazing power I can use every short rest which is also almost always going to be better than action surge, like oh I dont know, mass 30 foot radius fears, huge attack bonuses, or how about marking the big bad for dead? On to choosing an archetype. Do I wanted incredibly boss destruction for vengeance? Do I want to tank better than a barbarian with ancients? Maybe I should just break Great weapon master with devotion? How about I just go oath breaker and have a higher sustained attack than fighter. Every single archetype is powerful in its own way. When fighter picks in archetype you know what goes through your head? "which one of these suck the least?" Its sad how weak they are and people try to look for 20th level to justify them yet never even play a game at that level or even half that. SO you have your character defining archetype now you get aura of protection at level 6 and get to learn what a real party tank is, this one skill guarantees a slot for you in anyone's party. If you played your cards right you now give your other front-liners an average of a 20-40% chance to succeeding on their saving throws at will almost all the time. Traveling with the whole party? everyone gets the protection all the time. Aura of Protection is one of the strongest abilities in the game and it requires absolutely nothing from the paladin. You thought that aura was great? well through levels 7-8 you get another aura from your archetype! and it's just as amazingly strong! People standing next to you will feel untouchable as your mere existences grants them invincibility. Oh **** its level 10 did someone say more auras? Thats ****ing right, a 3rd ****ing aura thats at-will always on and requires nothing from you. Now you can shrivel the DM's **** as he trys to mass fear you all with every ****ing dragon from the monster manual. You are now a ****ing god at killing dragons and can bring your allys with you in your glorious crusade. Oh hey wheres my 3rd multiattack? oh whats this, improved Divine smite? on all my attacks? it doubles when I crit? It's ****ing radiant damage? Yeah keep your ****ing multiattack. Oh damn the fighter has indomitable and can remake his -2 wisdom saving throw, whoa so amazing! Oh hey I have cleansing touch, it removes EVERYTHING and I can use this **** 3-5 times a day. How many times can you use indomitable, mr.fighter? whoa twice a day? whoaaa 3 times at 17? daaaamn now you can fail your ****ty mental saving throws an extra 3 times a day! hey want to use my 3 auras? Well you see where I am going with this folks. If you want to talk about damage at max level I'm sure a fighter can inch out the paladin but at what cost? everything else, thats the cost.