D&D 5E yes, this again: Fighters need more non-combat options

doctorbadwolf · Jan 11, 2019

Blue said:
How is this a problem with the class?

If players have the option to be good in other pillars of play and they opt to be better in combat instead, is it valid to say the class has nothing to do in other pillars?

If the bonus ASI/feats were restricted to force feats that affected other pillars of play, that would seem to meet your criteria of what you want, by limiting player options.

This is a nonsensical response to the point I made. Feats are an optional rule that not everyone even likes or wants to deal with. The fact that some feats revolve around non combat pillars is irrelevant to that.

Blue · Jan 11, 2019

doctorbadwolf said:
This is a nonsensical response to the point I made. Feats are an optional rule that not everyone even likes or wants to deal with. The fact that some feats revolve around non combat pillars is irrelevant to that.

And this is a nonsensical response, since we've already established that in featless games having extra ASI gives +1 to 3-5 skills each and therefore boost fighter even when feats are't used.

Please note that I did list ASI/feats, not just feats.

In other words, my original was a perfectly sensible response that you failed to understand.

So, let's try this again. If a player has the choice to get better in a particular pillar and chooses not to, is that the fault of the class?

If a ranger doesn't pick any of animal handling, nature or survival from among their skills, is it that the ranger class is no good at these things, or just a character choice?

Blue · Jan 11, 2019

doctorbadwolf said:
I’m not suggesting any such thing. I’m stating that most players don’t use feats.

And I'm calling that out as a unsupported statement. You're the one presenting it, please provide some proof.

Quickleaf · Jan 11, 2019

Blue said:
And I'm calling that out as a unsupported statement. You're the one presenting it, please provide some proof.

I have that evidence I believe [MENTION=6704184]doctorbadwolf[/MENTION] is speaking of saved...

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2018/03/09/a-majority-of-dd-characters-dont-use-feats/

It was from Jeremy Crawford citing their internal data.

[section]Another piece of D&D data: a majority of D&D characters don't use feats. Many players love the customization possible with feats, but a larger group of players is happy to make characters without feats. Feats are, therefore, not a driving force behind many players' choices. #DnD[/section]

EDIT: If you're in the camp that believes Jeremy is misinterpreting data, you can scroll down to see Adam Bradford's comment about DND Beyond characters who have feats as supporting evidence.

Blue · Jan 11, 2019

Quickleaf said:
I have that evidence I believe [MENTION=6704184]doctorbadwolf[/MENTION] is speaking of saved...

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2018/03/09/a-majority-of-dd-characters-dont-use-feats/

It was from Jeremy Crawford citing their internal data.

[section]Another piece of D&D data: a majority of D&D characters don't use feats. Many players love the customization possible with feats, but a larger group of players is happy to make characters without feats. Feats are, therefore, not a driving force behind many players' choices. #DnD[/section]

Yes. And [MENTION=6704184]doctorbadwolf[/MENTION] has been attempting to say that "a majority of D&D characters don't use feats" is the same as "most D&D games do not allow feats".

I don't think those statements are the same, what Jeremy Crawford said does not support the second.

The majority of my characters don't have feats - but a good chunk of my characters haven't gotten their second ASI yet (I rarely go for it with my 1st ASI), and of the ones that have many have gone for a second ASI. But that doesn't mean I'm playing in a featless game - feats are allowed by the various DMs and on the table.

doctorbadwolf · Jan 11, 2019

Blue said:
Yes. And [MENTION=6704184]doctorbadwolf[/MENTION] has been attempting to say that "a majority of D&D characters don't use feats" is the same as "most D&D games do not allow feats".

I don't think those statements are the same, what Jeremy Crawford said does not support the second.

No, I’m not. You’re lying about my position in order to knock down a straw man and claim victory in a contest that never happened. Nothing about my position interacts with whether or not feats are allowed in any given group, in what frequency, etc. It doesn’t matter.

doctorbadwolf · Jan 11, 2019

Blue said:
And this is a nonsensical response, since we've already established that in featless games having extra ASI gives +1 to 3-5 skills each and therefore boost fighter even when feats are't used.

Please note that I did list ASI/feats, not just feats.

In other words, my original was a perfectly sensible response that you failed to understand.

I already addressed ASIs. (EDIT: you may have missed it, since it was one line in a lengthy post, IIRC) The two extra ASIs taken together, equal either +1 modifier to two sets of skills, or some +1s from adding 1 to multiple odd stats, or +2 modifier to a single set of skills. That isn’t particularly meaningful. Certainly not enough to dismiss the people who were trying to have a discussion about how best to address what they experience as a deficiency in the fighter’s out of combat repertoire.

<unneeded snark removed>

EDIT: The reason I say it isn't that meaningful is that it's going to make much less of a difference than training the skill would, and I don't buy the whole "just don't roll dice that much" that someone else was suggesting. In most games I've ever seen, people roll. FOlks may just narrate through some scenes, but even those still are partly determined by some dice rolls. And they should be! You can't just say that you're stone faced and unreadable! Roll that deception check!

I'm all for letting Fighters get away with a bit more than others in terms of using non-standard atributes for skills, but they simply have less than other classes out of combat, unless a player wants to use feats, and feats should be optional. It's good that you don't need them! Why should a player who wants to play a very non-magical knight gladiator have to take feats over ASIs in order to have more out of combat utility than a wizard in an anti-magic zone? Fighters don't surpass other warrior classes in combat, so why do they simply get less outside of combat? IF a group isn't happy with fighters having to rely more than any other class on improv and lenient ability check rulings to contribute out of combat, why the hell do some folks feel the need to tell them they're wrong? What even is that impulse? WHy not just either offer advice within the scope of the OP, or move on?

/rant, i guess

Blue · Jan 11, 2019

doctorbadwolf said:
No, I’m not. You’re lying about my position in order to knock down a straw man and claim victory in a contest that never happened. Nothing about my position interacts with whether or not feats are allowed in any given group, in what frequency, etc. It doesn’t matter.

I owe you an apology. Someone I responded to recently was talking about most games don't allow feats, but in reviewing your comments I see it wasn't you. It was not an intentional strawman, but it was a problem of my understanding that is all on me.

So again, my apologies for that.

doctorbadwolf · Jan 11, 2019

Blue said:
I owe you an apology. Someone I responded to recently was talking about most games don't allow feats, but in reviewing your comments I see it wasn't you. It was not an intentional strawman, but it was a problem of my understanding that is all on me.

So again, my apologies for that.

Man, I thought either I was going crazy, or you were having a REALLY bad day! Glad it was just a misunderstanding!

No worries. It happens.

GlassJaw · Jan 12, 2019

Wiseblood said:
I’m sorry I haven’t been helpful. I will try to suspend my bias and help. I will try. Ok, something to boost fighters in the area of exploration and or social encounters.

Group leader: add half proficiency bonus to an ally’s roll on an action you have just attempted. E.g. you climb over a wall you can add half of your proficiency bonus to their roll. (You do not need to actually succeed nor do you need to be proficient in the skill)

Teamwork: Use your reaction to allow an ally to retry a skill check or reroll a saving throw. You may use this ability once. it recharges when you take a short or long rest.

W**l**d: for one hour make persuasion/intimidation checks with advantage after winning a fight.

Expecting trouble: if any ally can act during a surprise you may also act even if you were surprised.

Double time: you may double your overland movement for 8 hours without incurring exhaustion. This does not apply to tactical movement.

Nerves of steel: you remain calm when threatened. You may negate advantage against one opponent within 5 feet of you as a bonus action.

Undaunted: you may use your second wind to suppress one condition for a number of rounds equal to your proficiency modifier. (Including The condition Dead excepting death caused by a death spell, decapitation or disintegration )

Relentless: at the end of a short rest you may expend one hit dice to remove a level of exhaustion from yourself.( if that’s not a thing yet)

Derision: when someone with fewer hit points than you is in your presence you may impose a penalty to their social skill checks. This penalty is equal to twice your proficiency bonus. “Pay him no mind he’s full of piss and wind.”

I really like this, or at least something along these lines.

There are many examples from movies and literature of the "warrior" archetype doing things like keeping watch, repairing equipment, walking into a room and commanding attention, mentoring his squire, pushing his troops past their limits, or boosting the morale of his companions, etc.

A few more simple abilities the Fighter can choose from (like Fighting Style) would really help rounding out the Fighter. I wouldn't create any more combat abilities though. It could be called Fighter's Versatility or something.