D&D 5E The Fighter Extra Feat Fallacy

[TwoSix]

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.

Fair enough. I was using "caster" as synonymous with "magic-user", and a class that has magical flavor without a requirement to interact with the spell system is what I'm looking for in a "simple caster". That being said, building in invocations to grant 1/SR access to certain spells, or an invocation that allows ritual casting like the tome warlock, would certainly be in the boundaries of my personal definition of a simple caster. I would just prefer to see the complexity as an "opt-in", much like the Battle Master and Eldritch Knight allow opt-in complexity for the Fighter.

That being said, I'm already playing a simple caster, so my interest is more philosophical than practical.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I agree, a very common way to play D&D is as a group of "experts". We have our investigation guy, our stealth guy, our athletic guy, our perception guy, our tracking guy, our persuasion guy, etc. Generally everyone stands around while the expert does something unless a player is just bored and wants to do something or cause some tom fudgery. If the expert fails then the other players will often see if they can try.

Nod. That's not exactly a recipe for hours of fun. ;(

I think that's part of why D&D has so long had an all-about-combat rep, because everything but combat gets handled arbitrarily or with a single check (whether made by one expert, or just everyone taking a stab at it and the highest total gets the glory). Combat is a more involved process, everyone gets a turn, not everything always turns on the result of a single check.

5e addressed the expert problem via bounded accuracy: as you note, if the expert fails, everyone else can pile on and one of them will likely get lucky enough to get something done, because BA keeps a task that even an expert can fail remotely in the reach of the rest of the party. It doesn't come close to the depth of play you get in combat resolution, though.

The only thing I disagree with is that a fighter's extra level 6 feat somehow makes him good at out of combat activities.

At one such activity, anyway. If it can put him over the top into 'expert' territory, great. But then that feat isn't being used for anything else. It's not like a slot that you can use for a different spell each time...

I don't think it does at all. Many of those out of combat feats just enable skills to be used in a few unique ways. Almost everything you would want to do is still going to require a high skill check in the relevant skill to make good use of those feats. Skulker for example isn't that great if your stealth and perception isn't already higher. Actor isn't that great if you don't have a pretty good deception and performance. Observant doesn't do a lot if you don't already have a good perception or investigation. Linguist doesn't help nearly as much if you don't have good charisma or insight skills to back it up. That's really about all the out of combat feats listed.

If they let you do something 'unique' that just anyone with the skill couldn't do, though, that'd be enough to push you into 'expert' territory...

..y'know, for that one check in that one circumstance...

:shrug:

The Fighter is the party’s “Face”. His 14 CHA combined with Persuasion proficiency makes him the best at the social pillar. And he didn’t sacrifice anything combat wise in order to do so.

Nod, he's the one-eyed 9th-level-lord in the party of the blind. It happens. It doesn't necessarily always happen to the fighter, but it can.

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?

The spells. Remember, the Champion is the bar for 'simple' in this context. If the Warlock spammed Eldritch blast and only ever got two invocations (the Champ gets a 2nd Combat Style), it'd be in the ballpark.

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

The Champion doesn't get maneuvers to 'lead into' the BM.

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.

To be fair, a lot of that goes back to 2e. Druids healed even in 1e, just not until 2nd level, 2e changed that so they healed about as well as Cleric, and there could be quite a variety of Priests. 3e added some arcane classes that could heal, and 4e, of course, had a 'Leader'-role class for every Source, even martial. 2e opened up non-weapon proficiencies, and 3e opened up skills to all - just not being /really/ good at them, something 5e has retained in the form of Expertise.

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

Well, or DEX if he's an archer, and other classes excel at that, too. And, the Barbarian /really/ excels at STR.

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.

Replaced as in out-shone by another class that's clearly better, or just matched in some way. A class with a great out-of-combat spell might be matched by another class with the same spell. Bards & Rogues can both get Expertise in the same skill.

What the Fighter offers is a bit of versatility in Feat selection or Stat increases to help with non-combat

The versatility of ASIs is very limited. You distribute each one at the level you get it and can't change it thereafter. Level-up-only versatility is not very versatile, at all. Contrast that with the versatility of preparing a different set of spells after each long rest, or the versatility of a single slot that you decide how to use at the moment you cast.

 

[Alexemplar]

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.

A Warlock that has only eldritch blast and a couple invocations does give you interaction with the spell mechanics- if you want. Eldritch blast is pretty much a cantrip and many invocations allow you to cast actual vancian spells along the per-rest recharge mechanic. But if you want, you could forgo any of the Invocations that granted vancian spells and just get straight benefits (like extending the range of eldritch blast) or tricks (see in darkness/spend an action to turn invisible in shadows). Move exactly at the pace you want. Your only choices in the class were what invocations you took. Everything else would be given automatically.

Which is pretty much how the 3e Warlock worked.

 

[Tony Vargas]

A Warlock that has only eldritch blast and a couple invocations does give you interaction with the spell mechanics- if you want. Eldritch blast is pretty much a cantrip and many invocations allow you to cast actual vancian spells along the per-rest recharge mechanic.

Spell-casting isn't simple, though. Not Champion-simple.

But if you want, you could forgo any of the Invocations that granted vancian spells and just get straight benefits (like extending the range of eldritch blast)

Yes, that kinda thing.

or tricks (see in darkness/spend an action to turn invisible in shadows)

Sorry, too complicated.

Move exactly at the pace you want. Your only choices in the class were what invocations you took. Everything else would be given automatically.

Flexibility to choose your level of simplicity isn't simple enough to be as simplistic as the Champion....

...Warlock as 'simple caster' is more complex than the BM as 'complex fighter.' Even a cut-down warlock would have to be cut down pretty far to get into the Champion's ballpark.

 

[Mistwell]

It's the most popular class in the game. It was the most popular in the WOTC surveys, and it's the most popular from the 528 data a year later.

Given it is the most popular, for whatever reason that might be, that means it really does not need an "official" fix of any kind. WOTC accomplished their goal with the class - an overwhelming majority like it, and not only like it but seem to like it more than any other class.

Which means it's literally last on the priority list of "official fixes".

So if you have issues with the fighter, and it's perfectly fair to have issues with the fighter, then it will have to come through a house rule. You will never, ever, ever persuade enough people to make enough fuss to get WOTC to make a change in their most popular class. That's reality. The rest is just counting angels that can dance on the head of a pin.

So just work on a house rule that works for you. What more is there to do on the topic beyond that? You're not going to persuade many people you're right, and you're not going to accomplish anything meaningful if you do persuade a few people, so what exactly is the point of belaboring this point further? Particularly given people are now to the point they're just repeating the same points over and over again using slightly different words, I cannot imagine there is much sport or fun left in it anyway.

 

[Alexemplar]

It's the most popular class in the game. It was the most popular in the WOTC surveys, and it's the most popular from the 528 data a year later.

Given it is the most popular, for whatever reason that might be, that means it really does not need an "official" fix of any kind. WOTC accomplished their goal with the class - an overwhelming majority like it, and not only like it but seem to like it more than any other class.

and the Ranger is also a very popular class- nearly as much as the classic Fighter/Rogue/Cleric/Wizard. It's the first class that's going to undergo a major revision.

Popularity doesn't mean nobody has an issue with a class.

So if you have issues with the fighter, and it's perfectly fair to have issues with the fighter, then it will have to come through a house rule. You will never, ever, ever persuade enough people to make enough fuss to get WOTC to make a change in their most popular class. That's reality. The rest is just counting angels that can dance on the head of a pin.

Entirely untrue. Back in 3e, people complaining about Fighter blandness and martial/caster imbalance got us stuff like the Swasbuckler, Knight, Warblade, and swordsage classes as well as a slew of variant Fighters in Dragon Magazine. In 4e, WotC gave us the Martial Power source and the Warlord and made the Ranger pretty much another non-magical class. If not for the continued demand for the Fighter to have a little more depth, we likely wouldn't have gotten so much as the Battle Master in 5e. Also, the Champion archetype exists as an obvious reaction to those people on the opposite side of the spectrum who wanted the option for a simpler and more straightforward Fighter. They also removed the Great-Weapon Fighter's "damage on a miss" mechanic it had in despite it's general popularity among players only after a significant minority protested it in the playtest.

WOTC absolutely does listen to its players on this issue.

So just work on a house rule that works for you. What more is there to do on the topic beyond that? You're not going to persuade many people you're right, and you're not going to accomplish anything meaningful if you do persuade a few people, so what exactly is the point of belaboring this point further? Particularly given people are now to the point they're just repeating the same points over and over again using slightly different words, I cannot imagine there is much sport or fun left in it anyway.

If we couldn't discuss things that have no impact on reality on online forums, what would forums be good for?

In all seriousness, one of the reasons I visit these forums (among other places) is to read other peoples' opinions, analysis, ideas, and fixes to inspire my own homebrewing. There wouldn't be much analysis/ideas/fixes to be had if everyone were in unanimous agreement that the game was perfectly complete as is and there was nothing worthy of being altered for any legitimate reason.

 

[Mistwell]

and the Ranger is also a very popular class- nearly as much as the classic Fighter/Rogue/Cleric/Wizard. It's the first class that's going to undergo a major revision.

Popularity doesn't mean nobody has an issue with a class.

They got a lot of complaints about the beastmaster. They acknowledged that the survey results were coming back repeatedly with a lot of complaints about that subclass. Their feedback on Fighter just isn't anything close to that sort of feedback.

Entirely untrue. Back in 3e, people complaining about Fighter blandness and martial/caster imbalance got us stuff like the Swasbuckler, Knight, Warblade, and swordsage classes as well as a slew of variant Fighters in Dragon Magazine. In 4e, WotC gave us the Martial Power source and the Warlord and made the Ranger pretty much another non-magical class. If not for the continued demand for the Fighter to have a little more depth, we likely wouldn't have gotten so much as the Battle Master in 5e. Also, the Champion archetype exists as an obvious reaction to those people on the opposite side of the spectrum who wanted the option for a simpler and more straightforward Fighter. They also removed the Great-Weapon Fighter's "damage on a miss" mechanic it had in despite it's general popularity among players only after a significant minority protested it in the playtest.

But that feedback phase is done. They GOT that feedback on fighter. It was found to be wildly popular across the board. It's done man - you needed to campaign for a change back during the playtest to get that sort of change. There was a campaign about damage on a miss, and that's it. They've not got a lot of data saying what they published is wildly popular and there is not much demand for change. It's DONE! They listened, and what people said simply isn't what you guys want. And all data since that time is consistently showing that people are pleased with the class overall, by a wife margin, by wide majorities. There just isn't enough movement on this topic to get the change you want. And we're four years in, with no movement on your cause. When is it enough?

If we couldn't discuss things that have no impact on reality on online forums, what would forums be good for?

In all seriousness, one of the reasons I visit these forums (among other places) is to read other peoples' opinions, analysis, ideas, and fixes to inspire my own homebrewing. There wouldn't be much analysis/ideas/fixes to be had if everyone were in unanimous agreement that the game was perfectly complete as is and there was nothing worthy of being altered for any legitimate reason.

The focus of this thread isn't on house rules, and isn't on new ideas, but it's bickering with each other over linguistics and minutia that I cannot imagine accomplishes that homebrewing goal nearly as well as a thread about homebrewing!

 

[Alexemplar]

They got a lot of complaints about the beastmaster. They acknowledged that the survey results were coming back repeatedly with a lot of complaints about that subclass. Their feedback on Fighter just isn't anything close to that sort of feedback.

But that feedback phase is done. They GOT that feedback on fighter. It was found to be wildly popular across the board. It's done man - you needed to campaign for a change back during the playtest to get that sort of change. There was a campaign about damage on a miss, and that's it. They've not got a lot of data saying what they published is wildly popular and there is not much demand for change. It's DONE! They listened, and what people said simply isn't what you guys want. And all data since that time is consistently showing that people are pleased with the class overall, by a wide margin, by wide majorities. There just isn't enough movement on this topic to get the change you want. And we're four years in, with no movement on your cause.

They released 5th edition in 2014. The surveys came in 2015 nearly a year later. The revised class isn't appearing in 2017. It's a long process. People are also still discussing balance regarding feats, skills, spells, etc, and those are pretty much all "done with" too.

People continue to debate various aspects of the game even outside of official feedback periods. That's what the overwhelming majority of threads on most any game related forum are.

When is it enough?

Probably when 5e releases some more optional class features or something akin to a 3e Warblade/4e Warlord or people stop disagreeing. They didn't do either overnight either.

The focus of this thread isn't on house rules, and isn't on new ideas, but it's bickering with each other over linguistics and minutia that I cannot imagine accomplishes that homebrewing goal nearly as well as a thread about homebrewing!

No, it's not the focus of *this* thread. *This* thread is more or less a debate about whether or not such a thing is even worth consideration. Neverthless, it has resulted in people spit-balling ideas for a "Simple Caster" that would allow for the kind of basic choice/game-play for the "Mage" archetype as Fighter allows for the "Warrior". I'm working on such a class right now based on ideas expressed in this thread.

So not totally without merit.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It's the most popular class in the game. It was the most popular in the WOTC surveys, and it's the most popular from the 528 data a year later.

It was far and away the most popular class in 4e, too, before and after Essentials 'fixed' it (in the veterinary sense). And 3e. And 2e. It's always been the most popular class...
... no matter how good or bad the design....

It's also been among the most-criticized classes. Again, in spite of popularity, in spite of whether the design was good or bad. Remember the Gleemax 'Fighter SUX' threads? The fighter being put in Tier 5? "Fighters cast spells!?" The last was the best-balanced the design had ever been, the former two were both inflicted upon it's most elegant design incarnation.

It was still the most popular class.

Given it is the most popular, for whatever reason that might be, that means it really does not need an "official" fix of any kind.

Both true and fallacious. If the reasoning is that the design is popular, therefor it must be perfect (or at least, better than all the other class designs), then, that's fallacious, classically so. FWTW.
If the reasoning is that having an indifferent fighter isn't hurting sales, well, popularity is quite a valid thing to consider.

So if you have issues with the fighter, and it's perfectly fair to have issues with the fighter...

And it's perfectly reasonable to discuss those issues. Less reasonable: denying they exist. Also, it's perfectly fair to have a favorite class, /and still have issues with it/.

You will never, ever, ever persuade enough people to make enough fuss to get WOTC to make a change in their most popular class. That's reality.

Except folks did just that not so many years ago. Not only to change the most popular class, but to change it twice in comparatively rapid succession. And, even as the fighter has remained the most popular class, it has been revised in every edition. If popular = perfect, we'd still have fighters with % STR.

It's clearly a more complex issue than just relative popularity.

and the Ranger is also a very popular class- nearly as much as the classic Fighter/Rogue/Cleric/Wizard. It's the first class that's going to undergo a major revision.

Popularity doesn't mean nobody has an issue with a class.

It can mean the issues are that much more important to address.

If people had problems with the Druid they could figure "meh, it's never been that popular, whatever..."


(...hypothetically, that is: the Druid's pretty darn good this time around, if still unpopular...)

Probably when 5e releases some more optional class features or something akin to a 3e Warblade/4e Warlord or people stop disagreeing.

The problem is that a fighter that is up to snuff would be too much of a departure from the traditions of any past ed (even those of 4e, it's fighter was arguably the worst class of the ed out of combat) to be tollerated by the base. So, yes, the solution has to be a different martial class with less baggage that can pick up the concepts currently relegated to the fighter and do them justice. Both a Warblade and a Warlord would not be at all out of line.

The advantage is they could be pretty out there, while leaving the Fighter pristine and traditional.

 

[Mistwell]

Stuff about prior editions

We're not talking about prior editions. They got feedback on this editions Fighter, starting in 2013. It's been positive all the way through. They have not received a lot of complaints about it. It has not been a controversial class, unlike other editions.

Both true and fallacious. If the reasoning is that the design is popular, therefor it must be perfect (or at least, better than all the other class designs)

That is not the reasoning. I stated my reasoning so there was no reason for you to guess. I never said or implied the class was perfect. I said it's not getting complaints, is wildly popular, and therefore it's low on their list of "things to fix". There is no rational way to read what I wrote as implying I thought the class was perfect or that WOTC thought it was perfect. Total strawman for you to make that claim. There is no fallacy in what I said - they're not getting a lot of criticism of the class, and it's wildly popular, and therefore they're not feeling the need to revise it. That is true, and not a fallacy.

And it's perfectly reasonable to discuss those issues. Less reasonable: denying they exist.

Not only did I not deny they exist I said in the very thing you were quoting that I think it's fine for you to have those issues.

You have this tendency to manufacture arguments for people you disagree with when they don't make the arguments that you find it easy to knock down. I wish you'd stop. If you continue to do that, at least to me, I will slap you back on ignore again. And I know how that messes up your forum formatting and ease of use so if you'd rather not go through that pain in the butt please stop. I asked you nicely once before, now I am adding the stick. Your choice.