D&D 5E The Fighter Extra Feat Fallacy

[Eubani]

Here's the thing though about backgrounds.

Unlike feats, they're non-optional, and a core part of character creation.

A core part that everybody gets one of, as I said it is a bit of a cop out unless you take the exploration and social abilities/spells out of all classes and make them lean on Backgrounds to support those parts of the game.

 

[Lehrbuch]

A core part that everybody gets one of, as I said it is a bit of a cop out unless you take the exploration and social abilities/spells out of all classes and make them lean on Backgrounds to support those parts of the game.

A character is more than a class. A character is also Ability Scores, and a Background, and a Race, (and Feats, if you are using those), and what-the-player-does-in-play.

Using all those tools it is possible to have a fighter PC who is perfectly able to participate in exploration and social aspects of the game. Why does it matter which particular aspects of the game mechanics you use to accomplish this? You should look at the character holistically, and worry less about the components.

 

[Croesus]

Many Posts since the release of 5e have brought up some shortcomings of the Fighter design. Raising these concerns is usually met with the sage advice "The Fighter gets two extra feats use them to fix the issue".

Other classes are out damaging the Fighter - Use your extra feats
My Fighter can't do much in the Exploration pillar - Use your extra feats
My Fighter can't do much in the Social pillar - Use your extra feats
My Non AC defences are bad - Use your extra feats
etc.

Now the first issue is obvious, you only get 2 extra feats.......well sort of. WoTC numbers showed that most games go up to 12th level meaning you get 1 extra feat half way and the second right at the end where it does not impact as much as it should. The second issue is that the Fighter sacrifices ability in the Exploration and Social Pillars to be "The Best" in Combat, so it should be ahead in combat by default not by spending it's limited resource. This is of course if feats are allowed in your game, feats being optional and all.

I am interested to hear the thoughts of others on this. Now I need to be off so I can hide from the Spellcasters Supremacy League and the "Fighters Can't Have Nice Things" arm of the Grognard Alliance.

I would argue the fallacy is that the fighter (or any class) should be good at all those things. For example, sorcerers and monks have no special abilities affecting exploration. Most classes have nothing that affects the social pillar. There are classes that do have specific abilities in one of the those pillars, precisely because that's a main focus of the class: rangers are good at exploration, barbarians can be good at exploration, and bards are good in social situations. Other classes: use race, background and feats to flesh out those areas, if desired, just like the fighter.

 

[Brotton Goodfellow]

I really don't understand this sentiment that fighters should be just as good at social/exploration, as they are at fighting. That's not what the class is meant for. A small bonus maybe if there's a niche not being filled by say the rogue or bard, but if the fighter isn't stacking bodies, they're failing at being a fighter.

 

[Eubani]

I would argue the fallacy is that the fighter (or any class) should be good at all those things. For example, sorcerers and monks have no special abilities affecting exploration. Most classes have nothing that affects the social pillar. There are classes that do have specific abilities in one of the those pillars, precisely because that's a main focus of the class: rangers are good at exploration, barbarians can be good at exploration, and bards are good in social situations. Other classes: use race, background and feats to flesh out those areas, if desired, just like the fighter.

I don't remember saying they had to be good (aside from the areas where they should be) I implied not under done.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[ccs]

I’m fully onboard for this. I dislike the statement “Fighters get extra feats”. It’s not helpful.

The Fighter isn’t a weak class, it’s just a little boring. It gets very little that others don’t get in exploration and social pillars. Maybe it’s for players who don’t care.

I think the best way to go with this is to rebuild the Archetypes. Level 3 could afford a ribbon, and that would go a long way to giving them something to play with when they aren’t killing people.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And what would that ribbon be?

Boring fighters occur when the players don't participate in non-combat actions.
They don't participate because they precieve that they don't have enough +s to make it worth it. (How many +s does that take btw? I've asked before & no one's ever before entering able to answer that).
Or because they're afraid to fail. So they sit there & let others dominate sections of the game.
Then they post online about how boring playing fighters is....

Thing is? (Assuming you dont roll for stats) They have the same control over how many +s they have to something as any other player. That they CHOOSE to max out the physical 3 as much as possible, treating Wis, Int, & Char after thoughts (thus reducing their +s in alot of skills) isnt a flaw of the game, but of the player.

ASIs, feats, & racial bonuses. Once again, completely under the characters control.... They COULD pick something that would help in the social/exploration catagories. Or just be interesting.
But the players of boring fighters? They dont. Because it's all about getting to +5 in Str or Dex asap.

And then the campaign ends/fizzles out and these players haven't invested in anything else & spent alot of time sitting around playing on thier phones inbetween combats.
Never realizing that a +3 (from a stat) would've been enough combat wise most of the time.
But it gets worse! The next time this type of player makes a fighter (and they will)? They'll repeat this pattern.

So what is this ribbon you'd give them that would convince them to participate in social/exploration with thier intentionally all physical fighter?
And why would you reward poor play?

 

[DEFCON 1]

Game is already written and published. The Fighter is what it is. Anything needing to be done to "fix" it will be done at their home table by the DM and player who feels it's necessary.

Any further discussion is purely about houseruling the game.

 

[AmerginLiath]

Fighter are as boring or weak as the player is.

Said in a Hans and Franz voice.

 

[Xeviat]

And what would that ribbon be?

Let’s take a stab at the three subclasses in the PHB. Maybe I’ll look at the name and expand upon them a little bit better:

Champion
What does champion mean? They’re the best. What’s something champions share? Their people like them. Whether they’re athletes or war heroes or whatever, the common people love a champion. As a ribbon, give them some type of social advantage with common folk. Yes, this overlaps a bit with Folk Hero, but the two would stack. Your town loves you, your enemies fear you. Combined with their half proficiency on physical checks (which should stack with proficiency), they’d have an edge in exploration too.

Battle Master
What is the Battle Master? Their artisans tool proficiency makes me think of a literal artist, an artist of war, a martial artist. Their level 7 size up their opponents ability is really good and flavorful. Give it some more oomph. Let it be used a little faster. Make them especially intimidating to other warriors. Expand upon the maneuvers and have some that can work out of combat (bonus to intimidate, bonus to athletics or acrobatics).

Eldritch Knight
Yeah, they have spells, but I doubt they’ll be using them out of combat. I’m really at a loss here. Maybe give them free Arcana proficiency (because it’s really weird they don’t have it). Just a bone of a ribbon.

Really, Fighters don’t need much. The other warriors don’t have too much.

Barbarians don’t have much. They can squeeze out some advantage to Str checks, which could help in exploration. Their subclass features offer some abilities. I wish they had done more with fear stuff and resistance to other social things. Their fast movement can help in exploration.

Monks have very little. Their movement helps in exploration. Their class reliance on Wisdom gives them some better skills. You know what? I’m going to stop there. I feel like that’s a strong part of it. If the Champion rewarded Charisma, the Battle Master rewarded Wisdom, and the Eldritch Knight rewarded (more) Intelligence, I think this would be less of an issue. You’d see what they can do in social and exploration. That, combined with a little bone, would really help the fighter to feel like they have something unique to use in social or explorative encounters.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk