ERRATA: 1. At 9:32 Weapon Supremacy's extra action must be to STRIKE, so unfortunately no moving human fireball. BUT you can use the 3rd-level Haste spell to get the same effect at Level 14!! (Cheeky designers keeping things balanced and fostering party synergies.) For those interested, I've also done lengthy CLASS OVERVIEWS, all with COMBAT DEMOS, of all of Pathfinder's classes post-APG (Magus, Summoner, Gunslinger, Inventor, Psychic, Thaumaturge) Playlist of my class guides: th-cam.com/play/PL5LfnOlAZRY6KBVgOJy5_Dsz1uS_JZqjq.html (Btw I didn't plan for the music to be so perfectly timed in the end. Serendipity!)
and how would you build to have fun doing damage? Not shoving or tripping or any other of those mind numbingly boring actions, but pure, unadulterated damage? And no feat chains to plan for and look forward to? Seriously, I don't think 'fun' means what you think it means.
This explanation helps answer my question partly, but I'd love to hear more about what makes casters fun and rewarding to play. Maybe a combat demo with 5 wizards? Not sure. I do already watch your videos on casters, and would love more content that gets me pumped for playing a caster just as much as a martial character.
I'd honestly like to see a series of this on multiple classes, so people have a "stepping point" so to speak from the class they played in 5e over to pf2e. Could be helpful for them to see how the class plays, and the options you have compared to 5e.
Agreed! Unlike other class guides I've seen, this one is quicker, more flavorful, and really showcases how many options there are and how those options can impact the game.
I remenbered my first contact with PF2e when you mentioned the extension rune, I was waiting for the next rounds in a MTG tournament and just walked through the shop and saw a group playing, one of the guys used the greater rune, his threat range was the entire area, in his words "How far can I hit? Everywhere!".
"And we are talking about the boring class" he says! I nearly fell from my chair laughing ^^ I showed it to my newbie friend, like I mentioned on an earlier video, and he is totally fired up to play a fighter now. Thank you very much for this series!
I’m loving this series! Not only is it showcasing how great the martials are in PF2e (especially the Fighter), but this also feels like a class guide! I’d like to see a more like this for other classes as well if possible!
Extending rune is tons of fun, my barbarian had it on his greatflail, and beating up things at that range was rad. I will also say free archetype is great, it often leads to people picking arhetypes they usually wouldn't due to power level etc. and a lot of the archetypes can be tied to a background or subclass in a way that really help flesh out the characters and opens up for a lot of not just fun combat, but gameplay as well. Ran a game with a paladin who invested in the Everstand Stance and beating people up with her shield which was a lot of fun as well. Granted it can bump the power level of some characters a fair bit, though it rarely feels unbalanced in my experience.
So this series was definitely fun, I'd like to then see... the same thing but for the Wizard? You note closer to the end that some people say casters are overnerfed, and I feel the best way to dispute that is to show they are just as customizable.
I expect some to day that fighters/martials are now overtuned and it's impossible to play a blaster caster (which is untrue, I play one and while less reliable it is absolutely nuts when it does hit single target. And is incredible in multi-target)
Yeah, I play a magus and when I crit, something disappears. Did something like 27 damage in one hit at level 3 (with a cantrip), no runes on our weapons yet.
Another great video! I would also like to say that this is a great format for showcasing other classes as well (though time intensive i'd think?)! Sorcerer for example also got the short end of the stick in dnd 5e, maybe worth it to show how awesome they get to be in pf2e?
Sorcerers are awesome in 2e because I, as the GM, cannot succeed on a Reflex save to save my life 😂 I think I have critically failed saves against Sudden Bolt more than I have gotten regular fails and successes combined! My player loves it though
My first PF2 build was a lizardfolk fighter. I built him as an absolute rushdown predator with the acrobat archetype (which meant by late levels he was legendary in both athletics and acrobatics). Difficult terrain? Narrow terrain? Walls? Wall of enemies? Almost none of it can stop him from getting to someone and knocking them over.
Really love your both pathfinder and 4e content. As a player who loves to massively homebrew his own game systems, it is inspiring to look at something another than 5e.
Wow, warriors sound really fun in PF 2e! I started watching your videos for the One D&D commentary and now I'm really interested in trying PF. I was hesitant because the math sounds intense, but I'm increasingly nervous about the new d&d and am looking at alternatives. Thanks for your great work!
This video series helped me pinpoint rules I was not using right and some rules that I was unaware of. Hide, death saves, reach attack among others. Gameplay videos with explanations like these are needed. Thanks
Next: "Rangers but actually invaluable" There is actually more than enough to make 4 rangers. Outwit Ranger with a mount Animal Companion, as a battle leader giving bonuses to other's skills and using a reach weapon, using recall knowledge and monster hunter. "classic" flurry dual wielding ranger, maybe dual thrown weapons and intimidation ? Precision Ranger using stealth and deception to create opportune openings. Another outwit, focusing on snares and focus spells maybe. Lot of other possibilities (a precision ranger sharing prey with a monk is no joke, but we are looking at only rangers here)
"And we're talking about the boring class" he says, with a straight face. My players are gonna play this game. They no longer have a choice in the matter.
I think pf2e people misunderstand martial to caster disparity. It was never about damage. It is about the impact caster makes overall. Caster can basically tie up any enemy and stick their name out for the party to chop off. And casters can solve a lot more problems that arise during the campaign. Travel, search, exploration, puzzle solving is all covered by casters better in 5e
Thank you for the video. While most of the video made me pumped, the part on extending runes and reach advantages gave me pause. Doesn't becoming a so called human fireball step on the toes of casters? How about casting fly? Doesn't that make the casters feel less cool and useful? I'd love to hear why this isn't the case, and all about the fun you xan have as a caster in a party with a fighter like this.
I feel a little forced into the core options looking at them (double slice is pretty unavoidable if you're using two separate implements, for example, and the existence of trees of "make thing better" feels like it makes decisions more linear). I will say though, the free archetype variant sounds like a banger option as the archetypes are not really built to have the almighty "synergy" with the class features, so you can really look in all kinds of places to find fun options. Its cool that a lot of the core options come online at later levels, giving you time to pick fun/flavor stuff in the meanwhile.
Yes, when you pick Double Slice it is very strong. But not always your go-to: if something needs 1 hit to go down, you don't want to sink 2 actions into it. Also as we saw in the combat demo you want to attack 2x with a weapon with the damage type you want, or to be able to trigger a weakness 2x. And there is a counter-play: tripping you and Striding away means you are reduced to only 1 action to Strike. Grappling and Tripping can deny you the luxury of 3 actions.
@@TheRulesLawyerRPG Fair points. Weakness and resistance is one of my favorite things as I'm watching these. Actually having a reason to attack fewer or more times is pretty cool.
this video made me wonder if all the martial are as effective as the fighter, (barbarian, monk, ranger, etc). I understand that the fighter in pathfinder 2e, is more balanced compared to the mages, but what about other classes?
People on reddit white room math complain that fighter is OP because of their +2 to hit... But every other class is still super viable and varied in their own rights. The fighter focuses very hard on strikes, but the other classes have things aside from Strike to make them good From CRB Barbarians have more HP, better will/fort saves, and some of the best damage from rage... At the cost of some AC. Barbarians get some pretty solid movement and area denial features at higher levels as well. I would say Barb and Fighter are pretty similar in function "big damage dealer frontline character" Champions (paladin equivalent) are way more focused on defense where they get the ability to heal others and a devastating reaction that can protect an ally while (based on subclass) either striking back at full accuracy, applying a debuff to attack rolls and damage, or letting that ally move Fighters in their core are still damage based brawlers, they get attack and opportunity with better accuracy as their main class benefit, but have some of the worst movement options as they get almost nothing that does not involve strikes without multiclassing. If you compare everything based on "how good are strikes" of course the class that goes all in on strikes in its design is "best". Monks are very protected damage units that can attack twice as one action thus freeing up a lot of space to do the other auxiliary things in the game. They still get 10hp per level and have their armor proficiency (unarmored only) scale like a Champion! Rangers have a massive benefit against a chosen single target based on subclass (extra damage on first strike, lower MAP by a lot, more AC) and can share that with their animal companion. With the companion they are more efficient at single target DPR than the fighter and also have a lot of build variety Some Rogues can deal damage similar to Barbarians (ruffian/theif) and they get double the skills and skill feats of any other class (tied with investigator from APG) so they have more access to the cool things skills can provide inside and outside of combat
In PF1 fighters almost always are dealing the top DPR, and have a lot of fun doing so. In fact my players usually start sweating when they realize they are going up against enemy fighters, especially if they are using a two handed weapon and can typically deal more than their max HP every round, all day every day, without ever running out of sword swings. Being made the easiest class and the strongest class is one reason I don't play PF2 anymore. Why play any other martial class when a very well built ranger or champion might be as strong as a poorly built fighter, under favorable conditions?
Why play something other then the OP thing you are complaining about. Well the easy answer is you play other things so you are not using the OP thing. Not every gamer feels forced to use only the best and strongest. They like overcoming challenges.
Idk, I never experienced this disparity. Maybe at 1st level? Fighters tend to be strong… fighters. But every class has unique things going on. DPR is not the only thing that matters in pf2e, that’s all. And you can absolutely easily make character with higher dpr with any other martial class than pretty well build fighter (there isn’t really a thing called poorly build character in pf2e, at least not when it comes to martials, with casters differences are a bit bigger). One of my players built fear-based rogue (with some non-magic healing abilities and illusion-based innate spellcasting thrown into the mix, not a single damaging spell tho), and his dpr maybe not the highest in the group, but he is definitely the most useful martial. Everything is constantly frightened, and because of his “your next” ability group’s fighter regularly gives final shot to the rogue. And the highest dpr in the group is definitely monk’s. This guy is a menace. Fighter is more of a tank.
Hopefully never, so I can keep my editorial independence! Though if ever I do a one-off thing it will explicit. (like being explicit about the Beginner Box giveaway)
Why did you remove your recent video you posted 50minutes ago? About how OneDND might have even harsher subscription to squeeze more money because they think DnD is "under monetized"?
Honestly as glad as I am for pf2e martials, the damage example does show how fighters are downright overtuned. It's just fundamentally not good that a limited resource attack (that, mind you, needs to succeed a universally-worse spell attack roll AND make it through a fortitude saving throw) does significantly less damage than just a normal strike. I don't believe blasters suck in pf2e. But it is still slightly overcorrected, even if only by a small acceptable margin. Well, that's why I slightly buff casters in my campaigns, after all!
Most agree that, when optimised, they are the strongest class ( they and the bard, support is insane), but not by enough that it eclipses other options. They are strong as all Abaddon, but not broken.
They are very powerful and, in a way, they can be an issue when balancing stuff. Anything given a bonus to hit is very hard to implement because the fighter is already ahead. And you can't make it be like "this gives +2 to hit, except to fighters" There is also the issue of advanced weapons being very hard to access if you're not a fighter
They are very strong in combat, but not nearly as useful outside of it. And in combat every fighter has clearly defined weaknesses. Most of them struggle with hitting enemies from a distance, ranged ones have a whole lot less damage outputs and are worse at pressuring enemies because they cant get into their face with attack of opportunity. When comparing them with other martials, no, they are not broken, but its undeniable that theyre pretty powerful. It is rather hard to break the math of this game and the fighter is not enough.
Fighters are good at one thing, fighting, which they excel at. The downside of a fighter is they don't add to the party's exploration/downtime activities unless the player makes a conscious effort to design their fighter to do just that, which comes as a cost at their combat effectiveness. Outside of combat, the Fighter is the worst, or among the worst, class to pick for that job.
ERRATA:
1. At 9:32 Weapon Supremacy's extra action must be to STRIKE, so unfortunately no moving human fireball. BUT you can use the 3rd-level Haste spell to get the same effect at Level 14!! (Cheeky designers keeping things balanced and fostering party synergies.)
For those interested, I've also done lengthy CLASS OVERVIEWS, all with COMBAT DEMOS, of all of Pathfinder's classes post-APG (Magus, Summoner, Gunslinger, Inventor, Psychic, Thaumaturge)
Playlist of my class guides: th-cam.com/play/PL5LfnOlAZRY6KBVgOJy5_Dsz1uS_JZqjq.html
(Btw I didn't plan for the music to be so perfectly timed in the end. Serendipity!)
and how would you build to have fun doing damage? Not shoving or tripping or any other of those mind numbingly boring actions, but pure, unadulterated damage? And no feat chains to plan for and look forward to? Seriously, I don't think 'fun' means what you think it means.
This explanation helps answer my question partly, but I'd love to hear more about what makes casters fun and rewarding to play. Maybe a combat demo with 5 wizards? Not sure. I do already watch your videos on casters, and would love more content that gets me pumped for playing a caster just as much as a martial character.
I'd honestly like to see a series of this on multiple classes, so people have a "stepping point" so to speak from the class they played in 5e over to pf2e. Could be helpful for them to see how the class plays, and the options you have compared to 5e.
Agreed! Unlike other class guides I've seen, this one is quicker, more flavorful, and really showcases how many options there are and how those options can impact the game.
Maybe the ranger or the monk would be a good example of this potential sequel?
@@kenkoopa7903 Monk is slightly different than people's expectations coming from D&D for sure.
Also ranger is more useful than it's D&D counterpart.
Yes! I would definitely come back for that
The Monk one is great too!
It really is the best guide I've seen on how to play these classes
I never thought about Lunge Trips on a whip build before that is so funny
I remenbered my first contact with PF2e when you mentioned the extension rune, I was waiting for the next rounds in a MTG tournament and just walked through the shop and saw a group playing, one of the guys used the greater rune, his threat range was the entire area, in his words "How far can I hit? Everywhere!".
Haha
"What range is your sword?"
"Yes."
I wanna hit that guy all the way over there minding his own business
"And we are talking about the boring class" he says! I nearly fell from my chair laughing ^^
I showed it to my newbie friend, like I mentioned on an earlier video, and he is totally fired up to play a fighter now. Thank you very much for this series!
Please join my server and keep me posted! Hearing how my videos help is fuel for my engines!
I’m loving this series! Not only is it showcasing how great the martials are in PF2e (especially the Fighter), but this also feels like a class guide! I’d like to see a more like this for other classes as well if possible!
Hmm, yet another good idea. I've been thinking of ways to iterate on this series concept somehow.
@@TheRulesLawyerRPG I’d personally recommend the more difficult to build/work with ones first (Alchemist and Oracle mainly, from what I’ve seen).
@@TheRulesLawyerRPG Or continue the trend of classes that have a 5e equivalent. Monk or Ranger comes to mind.
you spelt 'terrible' wrong,
Assisting Shot literally made the Raging Barbarian Crit the already flat-footed, demoralized Boss last week on our table. >.
This series was a lot of fun to follow, definitely easier to digest this way
this four part series is what I will be using to convert my friends over and join my pf2e games =)
That's the intent! Lovers of martials - you have nothing to lose but your chains!
19:30
bard; i try to seduce
me; gains the benefits of cringe as a reaction
Like the little "ow and btw you're playing the "boring" class..." Christmas challenge do a series like this for ORACLE =))
great series, if you feel like punching down on dnd, do ranger next haha
Extending rune is tons of fun, my barbarian had it on his greatflail, and beating up things at that range was rad. I will also say free archetype is great, it often leads to people picking arhetypes they usually wouldn't due to power level etc. and a lot of the archetypes can be tied to a background or subclass in a way that really help flesh out the characters and opens up for a lot of not just fun combat, but gameplay as well. Ran a game with a paladin who invested in the Everstand Stance and beating people up with her shield which was a lot of fun as well. Granted it can bump the power level of some characters a fair bit, though it rarely feels unbalanced in my experience.
What a great series, really shows how much thought was put into creating the Fighter in PF2.
So this series was definitely fun, I'd like to then see... the same thing but for the Wizard? You note closer to the end that some people say casters are overnerfed, and I feel the best way to dispute that is to show they are just as customizable.
Great series!
I love that the Fighter is so versatile in PF2!
I expect some to day that fighters/martials are now overtuned and it's impossible to play a blaster caster (which is untrue, I play one and while less reliable it is absolutely nuts when it does hit single target. And is incredible in multi-target)
Yeah, I play a magus and when I crit, something disappears. Did something like 27 damage in one hit at level 3 (with a cantrip), no runes on our weapons yet.
Another great video!
I would also like to say that this is a great format for showcasing other classes as well (though time intensive i'd think?)! Sorcerer for example also got the short end of the stick in dnd 5e, maybe worth it to show how awesome they get to be in pf2e?
Sorcerers are awesome in 2e because I, as the GM, cannot succeed on a Reflex save to save my life 😂 I think I have critically failed saves against Sudden Bolt more than I have gotten regular fails and successes combined! My player loves it though
My first PF2 build was a lizardfolk fighter. I built him as an absolute rushdown predator with the acrobat archetype (which meant by late levels he was legendary in both athletics and acrobatics). Difficult terrain? Narrow terrain? Walls? Wall of enemies? Almost none of it can stop him from getting to someone and knocking them over.
You missed my favorite fighter option. A pixie fighter that jousts from a corgi
Really love your both pathfinder and 4e content.
As a player who loves to massively homebrew his own game systems, it is inspiring to look at something another than 5e.
Wow, warriors sound really fun in PF 2e! I started watching your videos for the One D&D commentary and now I'm really interested in trying PF. I was hesitant because the math sounds intense, but I'm increasingly nervous about the new d&d and am looking at alternatives. Thanks for your great work!
This video series helped me pinpoint rules I was not using right and some rules that I was unaware of. Hide, death saves, reach attack among others. Gameplay videos with explanations like these are needed. Thanks
This series of videos is spectacular! Well done, please do other classes too if you can!
It's amusing to me how much of the changes pathfinder brought are similar to homebrew rules I've made to "fix" 5e for me personally.
Next: "Rangers but actually invaluable"
There is actually more than enough to make 4 rangers.
Outwit Ranger with a mount Animal Companion, as a battle leader giving bonuses to other's skills and using a reach weapon, using recall knowledge and monster hunter.
"classic" flurry dual wielding ranger, maybe dual thrown weapons and intimidation ?
Precision Ranger using stealth and deception to create opportune openings.
Another outwit, focusing on snares and focus spells maybe.
Lot of other possibilities (a precision ranger sharing prey with a monk is no joke, but we are looking at only rangers here)
"And we're talking about the boring class" he says, with a straight face.
My players are gonna play this game. They no longer have a choice in the matter.
I think pf2e people misunderstand martial to caster disparity. It was never about damage. It is about the impact caster makes overall. Caster can basically tie up any enemy and stick their name out for the party to chop off. And casters can solve a lot more problems that arise during the campaign. Travel, search, exploration, puzzle solving is all covered by casters better in 5e
11:07 *Rules of Nature starts playing*
You make solo play look kinda fun
Thank you for the video. While most of the video made me pumped, the part on extending runes and reach advantages gave me pause. Doesn't becoming a so called human fireball step on the toes of casters? How about casting fly? Doesn't that make the casters feel less cool and useful? I'd love to hear why this isn't the case, and all about the fun you xan have as a caster in a party with a fighter like this.
I feel a little forced into the core options looking at them (double slice is pretty unavoidable if you're using two separate implements, for example, and the existence of trees of "make thing better" feels like it makes decisions more linear). I will say though, the free archetype variant sounds like a banger option as the archetypes are not really built to have the almighty "synergy" with the class features, so you can really look in all kinds of places to find fun options. Its cool that a lot of the core options come online at later levels, giving you time to pick fun/flavor stuff in the meanwhile.
Yes, when you pick Double Slice it is very strong. But not always your go-to: if something needs 1 hit to go down, you don't want to sink 2 actions into it. Also as we saw in the combat demo you want to attack 2x with a weapon with the damage type you want, or to be able to trigger a weakness 2x. And there is a counter-play: tripping you and Striding away means you are reduced to only 1 action to Strike. Grappling and Tripping can deny you the luxury of 3 actions.
@@TheRulesLawyerRPG Fair points. Weakness and resistance is one of my favorite things as I'm watching these. Actually having a reason to attack fewer or more times is pretty cool.
Remember: shout "This isn't even my final form!" before using Final Form.
I never have gotten why people always think Fighter is a boring class either in D&D (any edition) or Pathfinder.
this video made me wonder if all the martial are as effective as the fighter, (barbarian, monk, ranger, etc).
I understand that the fighter in pathfinder 2e, is more balanced compared to the mages, but what about other classes?
People on reddit white room math complain that fighter is OP because of their +2 to hit... But every other class is still super viable and varied in their own rights. The fighter focuses very hard on strikes, but the other classes have things aside from Strike to make them good
From CRB
Barbarians have more HP, better will/fort saves, and some of the best damage from rage... At the cost of some AC. Barbarians get some pretty solid movement and area denial features at higher levels as well. I would say Barb and Fighter are pretty similar in function "big damage dealer frontline character"
Champions (paladin equivalent) are way more focused on defense where they get the ability to heal others and a devastating reaction that can protect an ally while (based on subclass) either striking back at full accuracy, applying a debuff to attack rolls and damage, or letting that ally move
Fighters in their core are still damage based brawlers, they get attack and opportunity with better accuracy as their main class benefit, but have some of the worst movement options as they get almost nothing that does not involve strikes without multiclassing. If you compare everything based on "how good are strikes" of course the class that goes all in on strikes in its design is "best".
Monks are very protected damage units that can attack twice as one action thus freeing up a lot of space to do the other auxiliary things in the game. They still get 10hp per level and have their armor proficiency (unarmored only) scale like a Champion!
Rangers have a massive benefit against a chosen single target based on subclass (extra damage on first strike, lower MAP by a lot, more AC) and can share that with their animal companion. With the companion they are more efficient at single target DPR than the fighter and also have a lot of build variety
Some Rogues can deal damage similar to Barbarians (ruffian/theif) and they get double the skills and skill feats of any other class (tied with investigator from APG) so they have more access to the cool things skills can provide inside and outside of combat
@@SwingRipper Thank you very much for your very complete answer, I am still a noob with the system, your answer helps a lot.
In PF1 fighters almost always are dealing the top DPR, and have a lot of fun doing so. In fact my players usually start sweating when they realize they are going up against enemy fighters, especially if they are using a two handed weapon and can typically deal more than their max HP every round, all day every day, without ever running out of sword swings.
Being made the easiest class and the strongest class is one reason I don't play PF2 anymore. Why play any other martial class when a very well built ranger or champion might be as strong as a poorly built fighter, under favorable conditions?
Why play something other then the OP thing you are complaining about. Well the easy answer is you play other things so you are not using the OP thing. Not every gamer feels forced to use only the best and strongest. They like overcoming challenges.
Idk, I never experienced this disparity. Maybe at 1st level? Fighters tend to be strong… fighters. But every class has unique things going on. DPR is not the only thing that matters in pf2e, that’s all. And you can absolutely easily make character with higher dpr with any other martial class than pretty well build fighter (there isn’t really a thing called poorly build character in pf2e, at least not when it comes to martials, with casters differences are a bit bigger). One of my players built fear-based rogue (with some non-magic healing abilities and illusion-based innate spellcasting thrown into the mix, not a single damaging spell tho), and his dpr maybe not the highest in the group, but he is definitely the most useful martial. Everything is constantly frightened, and because of his “your next” ability group’s fighter regularly gives final shot to the rogue.
And the highest dpr in the group is definitely monk’s. This guy is a menace. Fighter is more of a tank.
Pathfinder needs a playable Half-Ogre race.
When will Paizo hire you?
Hopefully never, so I can keep my editorial independence! Though if ever I do a one-off thing it will explicit. (like being explicit about the Beginner Box giveaway)
Why did you remove your recent video you posted 50minutes ago?
About how OneDND might have even harsher subscription to squeeze more money because they think DnD is "under monetized"?
Reposted it a bit more commentary
This series goes to show Wizards has no respect for Warriors (pun intended).
Honestly as glad as I am for pf2e martials, the damage example does show how fighters are downright overtuned. It's just fundamentally not good that a limited resource attack (that, mind you, needs to succeed a universally-worse spell attack roll AND make it through a fortitude saving throw) does significantly less damage than just a normal strike.
I don't believe blasters suck in pf2e. But it is still slightly overcorrected, even if only by a small acceptable margin. Well, that's why I slightly buff casters in my campaigns, after all!
Are Fighters just broken?
Most agree that, when optimised, they are the strongest class ( they and the bard, support is insane), but not by enough that it eclipses other options. They are strong as all Abaddon, but not broken.
They are very powerful and, in a way, they can be an issue when balancing stuff.
Anything given a bonus to hit is very hard to implement because the fighter is already ahead. And you can't make it be like "this gives +2 to hit, except to fighters"
There is also the issue of advanced weapons being very hard to access if you're not a fighter
They are very strong in combat, but not nearly as useful outside of it. And in combat every fighter has clearly defined weaknesses. Most of them struggle with hitting enemies from a distance, ranged ones have a whole lot less damage outputs and are worse at pressuring enemies because they cant get into their face with attack of opportunity.
When comparing them with other martials, no, they are not broken, but its undeniable that theyre pretty powerful.
It is rather hard to break the math of this game and the fighter is not enough.
They are only broken if the DM insists on making the campaign be exclusively on Combat and never tries to exploits the fighter weakness in their build
Fighters are good at one thing, fighting, which they excel at. The downside of a fighter is they don't add to the party's exploration/downtime activities unless the player makes a conscious effort to design their fighter to do just that, which comes as a cost at their combat effectiveness.
Outside of combat, the Fighter is the worst, or among the worst, class to pick for that job.