D&D 5E The Fighter Extra Feat Fallacy

[smbakeresq]

How is that possible in 5e? A DC value is a DC value no matter who attempts the check. A DM who changes the DC of something just because of the class is a pretty crappy DM. I imagine they are quite rare as well, as I have never seen a DM do that in 35 years of gaming. A DM is a referee (says so right in the AD&D books, and that's what the job was called before DM became common). A referee is impartial and fair.

Well, no.

I have a standard "playbook" I use. About 4-6 combats(or dangerous traps or obstacles) between short rests, each one set up to make one of the PC's shine and maybe another less effective. The traps or obstacles will be set up to sometimes make a PC make a skill check or saving throw they might be bad at, like a pressure plate set up with a weight limit that the Halfling rogue wont trip but the goliath would, something along those lines. For the social aspect, same thing. Sometimes the Fighter is always in the tavern, so the CHR check goes to him as the most "well known" of the group, with the idea that if he fails and gets into trouble then the Bard can talk him out of it but if the fighter succeeds the group will get a bonus to later checks ("Hey the friend of Tordek the mighty, any friend of his is ok by me.")

Since I am choosing who will make a checks to make different players shine at different moments, I will change the DC of things no matter what the published material says. I understand the concept of a party face, but unless a PC plays a shut-in he will have to interact with someone in the game world sometime. The optimized archer fighter build will sometimes have to fight hand to hand, the wizard will have to fight in silenced room, etc.

The idea is to sometimes get the players out of their comfort zone, that's what makes in fun.


So the fighter who put 16 CHR on the sheet will be rewarded, I will work it in somehow. The fighter who plays it brave but suboptimal, maybe by charging through a door that the rogue hasn't checked for traps yet wont get punished every time for it. That PC is trying something different, just trying to have fun instead of "winning," that should be encouraged.

 

[Lehrbuch]

If you compare the probability of a player intentionally giving their fighter character a Charisma score higher than their Strength or Dexterity, because they think that's the rational decision that their character would make, to the probability of them making such a decision as a joke because they aren't taking the game seriously, then the latter is significantly more likely than the former.

If a player wants a fighter character who is good at the social pillar, then sure why wouldn't she assign a high Charisma Score? Of course, the trade-off might be a lower Strength or Dexterity, depending on the methods used for Ability Score generation. Isn't that the whole point of min/max play? She can't max everything, she needs to make some choices.

Besides, while a high Strength or Dexterity Ability is certainly nice to have, most of the fighter's combat effectiveness actually comes from the class/archetype features (proficiency, fighting styles, extra attacks, action surge, etc.) If you are trying to optimise in-play effectiveness of a fighter, you are certainly missing a trick if you are not considering lowering Strength and Dexterity to increase the PCs other capabilities.

Also, this seems like a weird comment as PCs don't make decisions about that their Ability Scores at all? That's exclusively a player decision.

Likewise with a wizard having a Constitution score below 10.

Hard to know whether you are being serious or not here. The sickly/crippled wizard is the stereotype.

 

[smbakeresq]

During the game, the only decisions the players make are in-character ones. The character is the one who decides to work out, or brush up on their social skills, based on their understanding of themselves and their place in the world.

Before the game, during character generation, the player decides what kind of character they want to play. They can either choose to play a rational character who chose a career that aligns with their natural abilities (or trained themself to be capable for the career they chose, however you want to explain your starting scores aligning with your class); or they can play a goofball who doesn't make rational decisions and whose competence the party has no reason to trust.

Wouldn't that rule out any chaotic alignments, whose decisions would in general be considered irrational to non-chaotic types?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

If a player wants a fighter character who is good at the social pillar, then sure why wouldn't she assign a high Charisma Score?

More to the point, if the player wants a fight-y character who is good at the social pillar, then why would they play a fighter instead of some other class that would actually benefit from a high Charisma score?

Hard to know whether you are being serious or not here. The sickly/crippled wizard is the stereotype.

It's a dead unicorn trope. I'm not convinced that sickly wizards ever existed in D&D. Over the course of two decades and four editions, I've never seen a serious wizard character (not made as a joke or personal challenge) that actually had an HP penalty from low Constitution.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Wouldn't that rule out any chaotic alignments, whose decisions would in general be considered irrational to non-chaotic types?

Chaotic doesn't necessarily mean irrational. Robin Hood is your classic Chaotic Good hero, who is nevertheless capable of making rational decisions to further his goal of opposing the Crown.

It does necessarily rule out fish Malks.

 

[Tony Vargas]

If a player wants a fighter character who is good at the social pillar, then sure why wouldn't she assign a high Charisma Score?

The priority of wanting a fighter is at odds with the priority of 'good at the social pillar' because CHA makes you good (well, not as bad) at the social pillar, but it has no synergy with the fighter's class abilities, which provide you virtually nothing in the social pillar, to begin with.
OTOH, if you were willing to get a little bit religious, you could gain a lot of perks for having a high CHA as a Paladin, and have very similar abilities to the Fighter.

Of course, the trade-off might be a lower Strength or Dexterity, depending on the methods used for Ability Score generation.

Given the standard array, you could always put your second-highest - 14 - in CHA. So you're not sacrificing your primary, just your secondary (probably CON).

...well, and whatever you dump instead of CHA (DEX? INT? WIS?)...

OTOH, if you rolled an 18 and a bunch of 9-12s, ouch - or, alternately, two 18s! Sweet, CHA 18 fighter it is!

Besides, while a high Strength or Dexterity Ability is certainly nice to have, most of the fighter's combat effectiveness actually comes from the class/archetype features (proficiency, fighting styles, extra attacks, action surge, etc.)

All of which synergize powerfully with maximizing your attack & damage bonuses.

It's really the same thinking you want a wizard who's startlingly good in melee. You could give him a high STR and a halberd, but he really won't eke much out of it, considering he's not even proficient. He could take the Soldier background, and now he can swing that weapon around, but the high STR just isn't benefitting him the way it is the fighter with all those features that act as a multiplier to it. Just like the fighter's high CHA isn't doing as much for him as the Paladin's.

I mean, or it would be the same thing if the wizard couldn't just go Bladesinger or even just Mountain Dwarf and do surprisingly well in melee - not /well/ like a fighter, but well enough to cover the concept at no great cost in wizardliness.

If you are trying to optimize in-play effectiveness of a fighter...

...then you've already failed. ;P

It's like trying to maximize the flight envelope of your boat. No matter what you do, it'll only work at sea level. (OK, or on a high-altitude lake, sure, that totally makes it a plane ...damn, it's exactly like that!)

Hard to know whether you are being serious or not here.

He's always seemed completely serious to me.

The sickly/crippled wizard is the stereotype.

The elderly wizard certainly is. Gandalf, for instance. Elderly. Also wrestled a balrog.

And he was "...only a 5th level magic-user." ;P

 

[Lehrbuch]

More to the point, if the player wants a fight-y character who is good at the social pillar, then why would they play a fighter instead of some other class that would actually benefit from a high Charisma score?

The other classes you seem to be thinking of (bard and paladin) are quite specific things. It's quite possible to want to play a social-fighter sort and at the same time not want to play either a musician or a religious lunatic.

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.

 

[Pauln6]

If you compare the probability of a player intentionally giving their fighter character a Charisma score higher than their Strength or Dexterity, because they think that's the rational decision that their character would make, to the probability of them making such a decision as a joke because they aren't taking the game seriously, then the latter is significantly more likely than the former. Likewise with a wizard having a Constitution score below 10.

Not every player builds characters for combat optimisation. 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. We've run two campaigns where I encouraged the players to build PCs against type and they were some of the most fun games we've played.

It can be challenging if one player is a devout optimiser and another prefers building to fit the concept but as a DM, I find it harder to deal with the arms race of the optimiser than someone trying to tell a story through a concept.

 

[smbakeresq]

Chaotic doesn't necessarily mean irrational. Robin Hood is your classic Chaotic Good hero, who is nevertheless capable of making rational decisions to further his goal of opposing the Crown.

It does necessarily rule out fish Malks.

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.

Chaotic means you are unwilling to be governed by the laws or desires of any group, you would be unpredictable. CG means you do good but in your own way, CN is a nonconformist who doesn't care (or has their own) views on good or evil, CE means you simply are not interested in any order or morality you just do whatever you feel like.

I do realize that most groups are full of chaotics who are completely organized and follow orders and evil hating neutrals. But I do think that PC groups can have a goofball or oddball and be effective.

We had a LE pacifist cleric healer of Asmodeus, the theory was that if he kept you alive long enough eventually you would owe or lose your soul to him. Same group had a CG Ranger that was mute (he never spoke at the table while in character) and always shot as many different targets as he could to show off. Worked well.

 

[Lehrbuch]

Given the standard array, you could always put your second-highest - 14 - in CHA. So you're not sacrificing your primary, just your secondary (probably CON).

...well, and whatever you dump instead of CHA (DEX? INT? WIS?)...

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

I notice that the example, fighter character, Bruenor, in the PHB (Basic PHB, page 7) trades low Int and Dex for a high Wis and Cha.

You also have to bear in mind the context of the campaign and the capabilities of the other PCs in the party. The whole idea of being good at the social pillar presupposes that this will be a good way to achieve things in the campaign / adventure. If the social pillar is important to the campaign then it could well be worthwhile (even from a min/max perspective) to sacrifice some combat effectiveness for social pillar effectiveness. You will have a more effective character in that campaign.

Likewise, if the rest of the party has dropped their 8 Score in Cha, then it could be very optimal, for the party, for your fighter character to have a base Cha of 14 or 15.