D&D 5E The Fighter Extra Feat Fallacy

[guachi]

And yet there are players, actual ones, who refuse to chip in for the pizza, and then stand around saying, "That looks good ..." until someone takes pity on them and gives them a slice.

In the realm of bizarre, unsourced, and inapposite anecdotes, I believe that pizza moochers are the worst.

Even worse, those pizza moochers inevitably play gnome paladins.

 

[Tony Vargas]

How is that possible in 5e? A DC value is a DC value no matter who attempts the check. .

DC's are determined by the DM, when the player declares an action and the DM calls for a check rather than narrating success/failure. Both the character and the action as well as the circumstances might be figured into that DC. No matter how similar they may be, even if the DM is running from a module that gives a DC, the DC could well be different each time - or a check not even called for.

It's all up to the DM.

Agreed. But theoretical discussions about D&D shouldn't be derailed with the pernicious possibilities of the proverbial "Bad DM" or "Bad Player."

Nor by assumptions that all players will be so so saintly that they never cause problems (I mean, there are players who will choose 'paladin' or 'gnome' or 'rapier' for instance), nor that all DMs will be so capable they compensate for all such problems effortlessly & seamlessly. ;P

 

[Sacrosanct]

Agreed. But theoretical discussions about D&D shouldn't be derailed with the pernicious possibilities of the proverbial "Bad DM" or "Bad Player."

If there are specific issues with specific behaviors of players or DMs, that can be a fruitful topic of conversation.

But it's not helpful to talk about D&D topics in the abstract, and then have someone say, "But a bad DM / bad player can ruin it!" Well, of course they can! Bad players and bad DMs can ruin anything, any time, and totally rain on your parade regardless of your rule umbrella.

Yeah, a bad DM can set a DC of 5 BILLION. Or just kill you. That's kind of orthogonal to the conversation.

Exactly. Even Mearls said, "Rules can't fix broken players." Meaning, games should be designed around a typical group of behavior, and if you start spending time creating all these rules to address bad player behavior, not only will you not succeed (because bad players will be bad players), but you end up with a very rigid game system that does not lend easily to ad hoc and creative suggestions by players. And for a TTRPG played with people, that's a horrible thing to have happen.

So like you say, when we talk about things like this, we need to talk about them in the context of an average reasonable person standard. And with how the DC mechanic works in 5e, an "average reasonable person" won't arbitrarily change the DC depending on the class or race the player happens to be playing. In fact, it's quite clear that DC values are independent of PCs.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Mistwell]

It's not the DM's job to keep everyone involved.

DMG page 246 (in addition to other areas of the core rules) disagrees with you.

 

[BookBarbarian]

DC's are determined by the DM, when the player declares an action and the DM calls for a check rather than narrating success/failure. Both the character and the action as well as the circumstances might be figured into that DC. No matter how similar they may be, even if the DM is running from a module that gives a DC, the DC could well be different each time - or a check not even called for.

It's all up to the DM.

Coming to realize this has had a huge impact of the quality of the games I DM.

 

[Mistwell]

I'm not going to go too much into it, since we have already established we have differing styles even though you still seem to have not accepted that others have fun playing the game differently to you.

You just said you'd judge a player harshly if they made a Fighter with a high charisma, and you're chiding others for not accepting people with different play styles? Are the repair bills expensive for you, with all that stone throwing you're doing in that glass house?

 

[James Gasik]

There's no such animal as a "standard" D&D group. I know that makes it hard to have these sorts of discussion, as who can take into account all the myriad ways people play (and enjoy) the game? Some months back on another forum, I witnessed a massive thread that blew my mind away as it was full of DM's who actively believe that, no matter what the rules say, "there's no way a Barbarian can get a better Arcana check than a Wizard". Their perception of what D&D characters are like was so strong that, in order to preserve that image (and apparently some measure of niche protection), they would give higher DC's or even deny "inappropriate skill checks" outright. Even when it was pointed out that a Rogue could Expertise his way into being better at Religion or Arcana than Clerics (easily, as most Clerics don't get a lot of advantage from Intelligence) or Wizards (harder, but still quite possible).

Now if you feel this is tangential and just clouding the discussion at hand, I apologize. But given that the game is based on "rulings, not rules", and thus subject to a given DM's "vision" of how the game should be, I think we should at least acknowledge the fact that the Fighter may very well be exposed to some prejudice when he attempts to step outside of his accustomed role (ie, big dumb thug with high AC and lots of hit points that the DM can beat up to make him feel like his game is challenging without killing the other PC's), no matter how much effort his player goes to. Maybe if his design actually put more thought into the other "pillars of play" this wouldn't be a problem. Maybe.

 

[smbakeresq]

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.

That’s the point of the thread.

Fighter IMO, should be able to do more versatile stuff but general stuff than other martial classes as they wouldn’t be burdened with, using a Paladin as an example, religious duties. Think of the fantasy fighters you read about it, they maintain and understand their own equipment, maintain and use beasts of burden, generally have some cartography knowledge, have some sense, and also seem to persuade or intimidate people easy, and are famous for their exploits. In game terms it seems like some tools should be part of the fighter chassis, as well as bonuses to intimidate or persuade by level, survival part of the chassis, beyond what is given to them, a danger sense ability.

On phone so will think of more later.


Sent from my iPhone using EN World mobile app

 

[Tony Vargas]

Think of the fantasy fighters you read about it,

OK, to start with, they're not 'fighters,' they're 'heroes.' They just happen to be depicted as tougher than the Rogue class would support, and don't cast spells, and don't go berserk on a regular basis. They're Fighters by default - the fault(pi) of the system.

they maintain and understand their own equipment, maintain and use beasts of burden, generally have some cartography knowledge, have some sense, and also seem to persuade or intimidate people easy, and are famous for their exploits. In game terms it seems like some tools should be part of the fighter chassis, as well as bonuses to intimidate or persuade by level, survival part of the chassis, beyond what is given to them, a danger sense ability.

In an entirely different sort of RPG system, you'd give a hero like that generally better stats than the sneak or mage or muscle-bound barbarian, and a lot of skill (in combat & out) - and no particular magical powers or supernatural abilities. If 5e gave the fighter more high stats than other classes at first level, an extra skill every few levels, an honor/reputation track, and expertise here and there, it might start to look something like a character from genre.