D&D 5E The Fighter Extra Feat Fallacy

The Crimson Binome · Oct 10, 2017

smbakeresq said:
He didn't oppose the Crown, he was completely and utterly loyal to the Crowns lawful authority, not the usurper. In fact he felt it was his duty to the King to oppose the usurper, that's seem very lawful to me.

I'm willing to buy your argument, but I'm pretty sure that the PHB has him pegged as Chaotic Good. Likewise with Drizzt. Pretty much all rangers, actually.

cbwjm · Oct 10, 2017

I often wonder if the players who expect everyone to be overly optimised would complain about anyone who decided to play a tiefling fighter (for example) who can easily start with a high charisma or intelligence but would be limited to starting with a +2 modifier in Strength if using point buy or the default array. A tiefling fighter could easily be the party face if they chose to leverage that Charisma increase with appropriate skills and still be an effective combatant.

Mistwell · Oct 10, 2017

Tony Vargas said:
The consequences of dumping CON are brutal for anyone, for the smallest-HD class, and one that might like to be able to maintain CONcentration, they border on suicide. I mean, even a 16 CON essentially doubles a wizard's hps, long term. In practical terms, the character type most amenable to dumping CON would be an archer - good HD but hanging out in the back lines with the glass cannons.

Elric is a good example, low-CON, in theory, but consistently boosting it through self-brewed herbal/alchemical potions - and y'know the whole soul-sucking thing.

Besides, once you've broached the challenge of playing the traditionally-most-complicated D&D class, you're probably going to be up for a little optimizing. But, yes, for anyone willing to counter-optimize for the sake of role-not-roll cred, sure - there are probably more such characters than the extreme disincentives against them built into the system would suggest, just as there were way more folks playing fighters (at least as a build component) in 3.x than it's Tier 5 status might've led one to expect.

In our games, wizard players tend to be very good and keeping their PCs from ever getting hit in the first place. They make concentration checks extremely rarely, and expect if they do get hit it's common for them to go down. But our healers have their backs, and our fighters tend to be melee fighters who get in the faces of foes as a means of protecting wizards. It's never been suicide to play a low Con wizard in our 5e games.

It's not a factor of counter-optimizing, it's often that none of us really cares much about optimization as a concept. I don't have anything against people who view the game like that...until they tell others that it's the only right way to play the game. That's really the only time the optimizers bug me. (which you have not done by the way, I was just explaining my reaction which started this part of the thread - where someone said they judge players who don't optimize and would give their fighter a high charisma poorly, while simultaneously telling others to respect different play styles).

Tony Vargas · Oct 10, 2017

Lehrbuch said:
Sure. Exactly. It's a trade-off. That's what makes the game interesting.

And the fighter boring. ;P
....

Mistwell said:
It's not a factor of counter-optimizing, it's often that none of us really cares much about optimization as a concept.

You don't have to care about it to just do the exact opposite of what makes sense, and it's not like you can be at all familiar with the game and not understand the difference "half as many hps."
So, yeah, dumping CON for your wizard is willfully looking at what'd be optimal (or just prudent), and doing the exact opposite. For concept.

"...not that there's anything wrong with that!"

I don't have anything against people who view the game like that...until they tell others that it's the only right way to play the game.

Exactly. And I have no problem with you stepping up and being counted ("One!") as someone willing to put concept first in that very sub-optimal way.

It's when you assert:

Mistwell said:
I think wizards with a sub-10 Constitution scores are rather common.

That I have to point out all the logical reasons there really probably wouldn't be at all common. (Oh, and, of course, they'll be rendered less common by being instantly killed at first level by anything that happens to dish them 10hps.)

More common than the 0 one might expect from a cynical power-gaming stand point, but not "rather common."

Maybe, like the high-CHA fighter, just technically possible. Nothing stops you from putting your fighter's best score in CHA, nothing stops you from dumping your wizard's CON.

Maybe something should, but nothing does.

where someone said they judge players who don't optimize and would give their fighter a high charisma poorly, while simultaneously telling others to respect different play styles.

Y'know, I think you called Sadras out on that, but I couldn't find where he actually did the first bit.

Y'may have just been the victim of some jumbled attribution or lack of threading, there. It happens a lot* around here.

*Citation needed. ...C'mon, someone jump in and tell me not to make blanket statements about ENWorld behavior, you know you want to. Demand to see the statistics!

The Crimson Binome · Oct 10, 2017

Lehrbuch said:
What if I want to play a warrior princess who can effectively lead her people, or a courtly knight who has to fight by both intrigue and sword, or simply a soldier who is charismatic.

You can either roll randomly and hope for high Charisma, or you can't play those things under the D&D ruleset. Not if they want to be taken seriously, at least. The rules tell us that those characters are not viable upon the battlefield, and are likely to die.

Pauln6 said:
If one of my players wants to build a plucky stable hand with 9 St, 14 Dx, 16 Cha, and the skilled feat, the game will not break.

A plucky stable hand is not a professional warrior, which is the reality that the fighter class is intended to represent, and it is disingenuous to model them as such. You're describing an NPC commoner or, at best, a rogue.

Lehrbuch · Oct 10, 2017

Saelorn said:
Lehrbuch said:

What if I want to play a warrior princess who can effectively lead her people, or a courtly knight who has to fight by both intrigue and sword, or simply a soldier who is charismatic.

Click to expand...

You can either roll randomly and hope for high Charisma, or you can't play those things under the D&D ruleset. Not if they want to be taken seriously, at least. The rules tell us that those characters are not viable upon the battlefield, and are likely to die.

That seems a very radical approach. However, I'm quite sure that such characters are entirely viable and can be played in other people's rather more inclusive games.

On the other hand, this seems to tell us that you are playing in game where the social pillar is utterly no value, so its not really clear any PC would bother to have a social-pillar capacity, in your game.

The Crimson Binome · Oct 10, 2017

Lehrbuch said:
On the other hand, this seems to tell us that you are playing in game where the social pillar is utterly no value, so its not really clear any PC would bother to have a social-pillar capacity, in your game.

I am running a game where the social pillar is of such incredible value that the fighter dare not interfere, because failure is likely to get the entire party killed. You may have missed that part. This is a very long thread.

Lehrbuch · Oct 10, 2017

Tony Vargas said:
Lehrbuch said:

Sure. Exactly. It's a trade-off. That's what makes the game interesting.

Click to expand...

And the fighter boring. ;P

Well, it just means that the trade-off is more difficult. I would argue that makes fighter one of the more interesting, mature, and harder classes to play.

Mistwell · Oct 10, 2017

Tony Vargas said:
You don't have to care about it to just do the exact opposite of what makes sense, and it's not like you can be at all familiar with the game and not understand the difference "half as many hps."
So, yeah, dumping CON for your wizard is willfully looking at what'd be optimal (or just prudent), and doing the exact opposite. For concept.

No really, it's not. See now we've gone into you telling me what my players do as if I don't understand my own players. They're not willfully looking at what would be optimal or prudent and doing the opposite. THEY REALLY ARE NOT CONSIDERING OPTIMIZATION. No really, don't try and refute what's happening at my table as if you know people you've never met in your life better than people I've known most of my life. They're saying things like, "What should my wizard be like" and concluding that being particularly healthy or disease proof or able to engage in activities which require a lot of endurance just isn't their concept of a wizard. They're thinking "This guy is the nerd of this world, weak, maybe he has asthma, but damn he is smart!" That's often the kind of thinking they are engaging in.

"...not that there's anything wrong with that!"

Exactly. And I have no problem with you stepping up and being counted ("One!") as someone willing to put concept first in that very sub-optimal way.

It's when you assert: That I have to point out all the logical reasons there really probably wouldn't be at all common. (Oh, and, of course, they'll be rendered less common by being instantly killed at first level by anything that happens to dish them 10hps.)

I disagree. And I think this is a matter of conflating your experiences with general experience. I think a LOT of games are not combat-fests. I have seen so many games that are role-playing first, that can go for four sessions in a row without a single combat. I know lots of players who literally would not care if their PC died as long as it was a good death that made sense in the world. This idea that people will automatically optimize - I really don't think it's as common as message boards (which tends to attract rules-focused people) lead one to believe.

Y'know, I think you called Sadras out on that, but I couldn't find where he actually did the first bit.

You're right! Sorry [MENTION=6688277]Sadras[/MENTION]. I meant [MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION] who said this:

Saelorn said:
A fighter who increases their Charisma instead of a useful stat is a liability to the party, and they're going to get everyone killed. Don't be that player, who puts their own character quirks ahead of their responsibility as part of the team. Either build a functional character who is competent at their job, or go play a video game so you're not dragging down everyone else.

And even if you do have some selfish, self-absorbed player who increases their Charisma up to 16 (because they don't care who else suffers from their poor choices), they will still never be able to reliably hit DC 11. I don't know what kind of game you're running where anything that really matters to a level 17+ character will still be hinging on a DC 10 check.Sure, you can always invoke obscure optional rules, or make up new rules of your own, to address shortcomings within the system. That doesn't excuse the system, itself, for being faulty.

Eubani · Oct 10, 2017

Aside from flavour or optimization there is a third reason why players may pick stats a certain way......Teamwork. They may pick a stat to be higher so as to not be a drain on party resources and not be in need of protecting/saving as often. They may pick a stat to be lower so as to not step on another character's niche. This reasoning for some reason does not get discussed as often as flavour/optimization.