D&D 5E The Fighter Extra Feat Fallacy

[Imaro]

Again, sure a Barbarian may be able to do this just as well....but so what? A Sorcerer might be just as charming as a Bard.

Lol... I find it funny that this lack of uniqueness is brought up for the fighter but never for say the bard, sorcerer & warlock who cast many of the same utility spells and are all charisma primary.

 

[Sacrosanct]

And your broad brush is completely wrong. Thers a lesson in there: mainly stint attribute malice to a difference of opinion.

.

No, I think the real lesson here is not to tell someone else what they have and haven't seen, especially when you're doing the same thing you're warning against.

 

[Ovinomancer]

No, I think the real lesson here is not to tell someone else what they have and haven't seen, especially when you're doing the same thing you're warning against.

I'm accusing everyone that things the fighter is fine as is of dime generally negative group thought? Weird, I need to keep my alternate personalities from using this account.

You're trying to put everyone that disagrees with you into a conveniently dismissable box. Don't do that.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I'm accusing everyone that things the fighter is fine as is of dime generally negative group thought? Weird, I need to keep my alternate personalities from using this account.

You're trying to put everyone that disagrees with you into a conveniently dismissable box. Don't do that.

No I'm not, and you accusing me of such is the same thing you're chastising me of. I'm saying I've noticed many of the same people who argue the fighter can't do anything are also the ones who have argued that only the best PC should attempt something while everyone else shouldn't bother to. That's true. That's what I have noticed. And I'm saying it's disingenuous for people to keep dismissing feats as not giving value while repeatedly refusing to acknowledge feats like magic initiate and ritual caster. Also true.

You're the one ascribing motivations to someone they don't have, and are being dismissive of their comments, not me.

 

[Imaro]

I'm accusing everyone that things the fighter is fine as is of dime generally negative group thought? Weird, I need to keep my alternate personalities from using this account.

You're trying to put everyone that disagrees with you into a conveniently dismissable box. Don't do that.

He never said everybody.

 

[Imaro]

I think that a simple caster could gain a lot of traction. People often hand the new guy a Fighter first as they're the simplest and suggest that magic is for when you understand the rules better.

Isn't this the warlock (more specifically the tome warlock)? Low number of spells... recharges on short rests...Invocations don't require memorization... I'm trying to grasp why this wouldn't be considered a simple caster?

 

[TwoSix]

Isn't this the warlock (more specifically the tome warlock)? Low number of spells... recharges on short rests...Invocations don't require memorization... I'm trying to grasp why this wouldn't be considered a simple caster?

Take the warlock. Strip off the spell casting and the pact boon, and add some stronger invocations and gain them at an increased rate, and make eldritch blast a class feature (no cantrips) and you'd be pretty close to what a simple caster should look like. It should have magic, but no base spells, unless the player chooses to opt into them via invocation choice.

 

[Imaro]

Take the warlock. Strip off the spell casting and the pact boon, and add some stronger invocations and gain them at an increased rate, and make eldritch blast a class feature (no cantrips) and you'd be pretty close to what a simple caster should look like. It should have magic, but no base spells, unless the player chooses to opt into them via invocation choice.

But if it's a simple caster you want them to interact with the spell casting mechanic just at a minimal level... otherwise it doesn't provide the base for moving into more complicated spellcasters (you don't take the ability of fighters to grapple, knock prone, etc. away)... I also don't see why the pact boon needs to be stripped... it's akin to choosing a fighting style and I don't think the Invocations need to be beefed up either... I do agree that giving a default combat/blaster spell as a class ability is probably a good idea. But again it seems to me in order to have a simple caster you have to get rid of the spellcasting mechanics which doesn't make sense to me. You seem to be describing a magical archer with magical "effects"... that's mnot really a caster IMO.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Even the best counterargument -- use your extra feats to branch out -- requires an optional rule. So, thers a valid argument about the fighter even if you don't care about optimization.

No...in a game that didn’t allow Feats, the Fighter still gets more ASIs so he can devote some of them to “non-essential” stats like CHA. And if the other classes also don’t have Feats, then the risk of the Fighter falling behind when it comes to combat is almost nil.

Lol... I find it funny that this lack of uniqueness is brought up for the fighter but never for say the bard, sorcerer & warlock who cast many of the same utility spells and are all charisma primary.

Exactly. This edition more than any other except possibly 4th, allows for multiple classes to fill a necessary role. Healing is not limited to the Cleric, skills are not limited to the Rogue...and so on. Each class has strengths and can excel in certain areas.

The Fighter excels in Strength. It’s not the only class to do so, but if the party can’t think of some uses outside of combat for a big strong guy, then they aren’t thinking too hard, or the DM isn’t challenging them in that area. But every class, no matter how good they are at a specific non-combat task, can be replaced with another. So I don’t really see the criticism.

What the Fighter offers is a bit of versatility in Feat selection or Stat increases to help with non-combat encounters. Sure, if the party has a Bard who’s maxed out CHA and is built for Persuasion based encounters, then maybe it would be foolish for the Fighter to try and keep up with such am expert. But maybe the party doesn’t have a Rogue...so taking Dungeon Delver really helps. He can do that without really affecting his combat output.

I can understand the criticism of the class at its most basic, but I just don’t think it really holds up under scrutiny.

 

[Sacrosanct]

For the record, and I've brought this up before, one of my favorite characters in 1e was a halfling fighter/thief. When I converted him to 5e, he is a straight fighter with the criminal background and dungeon delver and skulker feats.

In play, he feels exactly the same as he did in 1e as a fighter/thief. Just as "thiefy" as the 5e rogues

Oh, I take that back. he does feel different. Now, if the rolls go bad and I get discovered in a bad place, I can take and deal much more punishment than my 1e f/t version could. Now? He literally walks softly and carries a big stick.

So this idea that fighters aren't competent in other areas doesn't jive with my experiences at all. Even without feats, I'd have another +2 bonus to DEX with those ASIs and be even better at stealth checks than I am with feats.