I mean, resistance only means half damage, so if the fighter is attacking with 1d8 6 times a round, and actually hitting with three of them, that's about 12 damage a round. I would hope that sometime takes a bonus to enchant one of his weapons, which would add an additional 6 or so a round. Assuming the battle lasts 6 rounds, that would be 70-100 damage.

I take it the group isn't actually supposed to fight this demon? I'd generally assume that the group would already have magic weapons once they meet strong enemies that they aren't expected to run away from.

Sadly action surge is once per ahort/long rest until later lvs, when it's twice. Fighter's are so boring in DnD 5e

Nah, the fighter is just being stubborn about magic items. If he'd asked for real help the wizard would've been happy to give the fighter a temp magic weapon or whatever.

Magic Weapon is a pretty good way to make weapons magical.

I'm getting flashbacks to Kangaxx in Baldur's Gate 2. What do you _mean_ I'm not supposed to fight the optional hidden boss right after completing the tutorial? I don't care if four out of the six members of my party can't even scratch him, I'm assembling and fighting that demilich the first second I can! It's a self-inflicted hell that I put myself through every. Single. Time. Just like fighting the ancient red dragon Firkraag when he's introduced instead of coming back much later as intended.

[The fighter](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQFik9nlBcw)

If the fighter throws/swings the wizard, does that count as a magic improvised weapon?

Ahh, that would significantly hamper the fighter then.

Depends, is the Wizard affected by Mage Armor? Because then you might have a case

Hugely improved with the new rules at least, something they got right

Yes, but also Fighters are just way cooler in either edition of Pathfinder

And yet they still have lots of features in their subclasses, work great with quick multiclass options, and can just, ya know, *wield a magic weapon*. My battlemaster fighter had a few levels in Battlesmith artificers and I had sooo many things I could do even though the only spells I really ever cast were Shield and Arcane Weapon. I had my steel defender doing all kinds of fun stuff, and even though being ranged took _some_ flavour out I was still able to be creative. It was also awesome to have such a clean base to build my roleplay on top of and by the end he was the least background-heavy character yet still had tonnes of depth and character. The only “issue” with them is that the burden of creativity lies much more heavily on the player and it’s more difficult to rest on cheap stereotypes. I’m playing a warlock now, _the_ plot class, and I still took it several steps further all on my own _because I can_.

"FIghter isn't bad, just need to get level in another class!", which is like, really hard specially for newer players. Pathfinder does fighters waaaay better without needing to get creative with building your character.

This is still miles ahead of Fighter in 3.5 which simply didn't exist. It was two levels you took to get extra feats for your REAL class and no one ever took more.

In 2e Pathfinder, yes. In 1e...no because 1e is just D&D 3.5 with a paintjob and there Fighter SUUUUCKED.

*pours alchemist's fire onto swords* khaby_lame_shrugging.jpg

Meh, Great Cleave combined with improved critical and some other stuff could lead to some crazy slot machine combo turns

I’m aware of what I said, but the other point I made is that fighters are _not_ the boring easy class everyone makes them out to be. They are very open-ended and that can be a lot for people but it’s not a sign that they’re bad. They also have the echo knight and eldritch knight subclasses if you want a little help/inspiration/spice built into the class itself. I have an echo knight minotaur I played for a bit who was great fun to play in combat. If we’re talking about complexity being the issue then you can back right the heck up with that “just play Pathfinder” nonsense. I really want to try PF2e, actually, but to act like it’s simpler than a 5e multiclass is something you must surely know is not going to fly. I made a PF1e barbarian once and the amount of choices I had to make as an experience 5e player was within my skill level _but_ for your hypothetical new player it would be far more daunting a task. Also “without needing to get creative” is such a tell. It’s really not that complicated, and it’s not 5e’s fault that someone might need a stricter framework. You’re not a worse person for it, necessarily, but the whining about it sure isn’t a good look.