D&D 5E The Fighter Extra Feat Fallacy

[FrogReaver]

Comparing anything to the monk for versatility is absurd. It’s built as one of the most versatile class in the game, that was the idea when it was implemented years ago, when it was even better, topping out at d20 for monk damage.

I was just comparing Paladins to the fighter class, the thread we are in.


Sent from my iPhone using EN World mobile app

In which case I agree. Anything with any versatility at all compared to the fighter looks like the best thing ever because he lacks almost any versatility at all.

 

[Stalker0]

I don't know anyone that's ever looked at a paladin and said wow that's a versatile class.

Congratulations you just met one. Fighting, social, great saves, spells and mobility like misty step, nova damage when needed, healing, immunity to some key conditions, a very durable mount that can be called on when needed. Sure its no "wizard with prep time" versatility, but nothing is.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I'm about to play a fighter in my upcoming campaign. I'm worried about the lack of out of combat stuff. So at level 5 or 6 i'm really considering taking some rogue levels to really boost that.

To make out of combat bearable I'm going to play him as a hillbilly. Super Smart at outdoorsy stuff like hunting and tracking and not bad at basic tactics like kiting but dumb as a brick when it comes to most everything else.

When I say versatility I'm talking about the ability to contribute meaningfully to the three pillars. Fighters only contribute to the combat pillar strongly, and weakly to the exploration pillar (worth athletics and survival). Paladins also contribute strongly to the combat pillar, but also strongly to the social pillar. Rogues contribute strongly to exploration and combat with options to contribute strongly to social as well. And so on.

What you're talking about is more options on how you can contribute within a pillar. Fighters hit things, so yeah, fewer options but still a strong contributer.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

And really, if these abilities are only worth having if you're the best at it, then there's no need to have any of it.

Which is the problem, because the Fighter will never be best at any of these things, or even really second best, so the skills that they actually have are still pointless. It doesn't matter that they have +5 to something, because the bard has +15 and, in the off chance they aren't available at the moment, the paladin still has +10.

 

[Prism]

Which is the problem, because the Fighter will never be best at any of these things, or even really second best, so the skills that they actually have are still pointless. It doesn't matter that they have +5 to something, because the bard has +15 and, in the off chance they aren't available at the moment, the paladin still has +10.

Why do they need to be the best at these things to allow them to contribute? If we assume that they are the best at combat (under debate I know) then of course they shouldn't be quite as good in other areas. In our game every player makes skill checks at various times regardless if they at the best at it. Every character benefits from being decent in skills like perception, investigation, persuasion, athletics, stealth etc. If the DM is only requiring the best at something to make the rolls then that's a failure right there in keeping everyone involved.

Why is the paladin any better at social skills than the fighter? And one of the bards main purpose is to enable the other party members the be as good or better then themselves out of combat

 

[The Crimson Binome]

If the DM is only requiring the best at something to make the rolls then that's a failure right there in keeping everyone involved.

It's not the DM's job to keep everyone involved. The DM's job is to play the NPCs, and adjudicate uncertainty.

I'm not sure why you would have the fighter making a persuasion check, rather than the paladin or bard, unless the stakes were so low that failure was meaningless (in which case contributing to that check is equally meaningless). Why would the fighter take point in social situations, when they know that doing so is likely to cause serious problems when they fail?

Why is the paladin any better at social skills than the fighter? And one of the bards main purpose is to enable the other party members the be as good or better then themselves out of combat

The paladin has high charisma, which the fighter does not. The bard has high charisma and expertise. That's just the way the system is designed. You're never going to have a fighter with higher charisma than the paladin or bard, because they would be a liability on the battlefield, and then everyone dies and it's entirely your fault.

 

[Lehrbuch]

I'm not sure why you would have the fighter making a persuasion check, rather than the paladin or bard...

Or, you know, there is no bard or paladin PC in the party.

You're never going to have a fighter with higher charisma than the paladin or bard, because they would be a liability on the battlefield, and then everyone dies and it's entirely your fault.

I think I see your problem. I don't think you have read the rules on how Ability Scores can be assigned.

 

[Sadras]

It is perfectly acceptable to have Fighters make social checks especially when the fighter PC takes the lead in a social encounter.

Other PCs may assist ofcourse. The DC need not always be 15+. The Fighter is permitted to increase his/her CHA. One may select a background/feat to allow one to pursue/assist in the social pillar. A Fighter may use their inspiration. Depending on the specific scenario or the fighter's actions/words/player innovativeness they might be awared with a bonus or even advantage in the check.

But most importantly their DM doesn't have to be a

Lastly, it is not necessary to have a character roll every time they open their mouth...

 

[The Crimson Binome]

It is perfectly acceptable to have Fighters make social checks especially when the figther character takes the lead in a social encounter.

Okay, but if they fail and the party dies, then it's entirely your fault and everyone at the table will hold that against you forever. You chose to kill the party, and waste months of time for everyone at the table, because you didn't want to let someone else take their turn in the spotlight after they've explicitly declared their intent ahead of time (by building a character that is competent at the task). You just had to hog the spotlight, even though you knew that you might fail. I can't imagine such an inconsiderate player would be welcome at any table for long.

Other PCs may assist. The DC need not always be 15+. The Fighter is permitted to increase his/her Charisma.

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.

One may select a background/feat to allow one to pursue/assist in the social pillar. A Fighter may use their inspiration. Depending on the fighter's actions/words/player innovativeness they might be awared with a bonus or even advantage.

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.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Or, you know, there is no bard or paladin PC in the party.

Fair enough. If the best the party can put forward is a +5 to the check, then that's better than +0. Sometimes there just aren't any viable alternatives.

I think I see your problem. I don't think you have read the rules on how Ability Scores can be assigned.

You could be rolling randomly (not assigned to taste) and just chance into having a high Charisma for your fighter, although I'd really expect them to go paladin or bard if their Charisma was that high. Nevertheless, it's certainly within the realm of possibility. Good point.