D&D 5E The Fighter Extra Feat Fallacy

[The Crimson Binome]

These statements amaze me. You seriously think like that? That if I turn up to the table with a Cha 16 fighter that I'm a selfish, self-absorbed player that's going to get the party killed and then you will hold it against me forever? Wow, I'm just glad the guys I play with are a little more reasonable

There's a minimum investment that I expect from players at my table. If you're not going to take things seriously, then you're going to ruin the game for all of the other players who are taking it seriously, and you probably won't be invited back to a second session.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

A DM awarding a bonus or advantage on a check based on the in-game fiction is obscure or made up new rules?
Utilising Inspiration on a check is obscure or made up new rules?

The DM determines the DC of a check based on the in-game reality, and may assign Advantage or Disadvantage as appropriate.

That a DM may award Inspiration is an obscure technicality which is unlikely to show up at any given table. The DM is entirely empowered to not do so.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

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?

Groups were more standardized in 3E, and especially in 4E, but 5E in particular is taking us back to the AD&D days where every table was its own experience.

That a fighter will never have 20 Charisma is true within the context of this thread, because the OP posits an environment where the fighter is expected to dominate combat. If that environment doesn't describe your table, then the ensuing discussion of the fighter from within that context would not apply to your situation.

 

[Lehrbuch]

You could be rolling randomly (not assigned to taste) and just chance into having a high Charisma for your fighter, although I'd really expect them to go paladin or bard if their Charisma was that high. Nevertheless, it's certainly within the realm of possibility. Good point.

Even if you are assigning, there is nothing that says a fighter can't have a high value into their Charisma Ability score. Nor that a bard / paladin has to have a high value for Charisma.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Even if you are assigning, there is nothing that says a fighter can't have a high value into their Charisma Ability score. Nor that a bard / paladin has to have a high value for Charisma.

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.

 

[smbakeresq]

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. 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.

I worded it poorly while waiting in court but you get what I mean. I always liked when Fighters got a different to-hit bonus then other classes to reflect their training, maybe that needs to be revisited. Right now only the archer style gets it, which I think is absurd, it should be a damage bonus (+2 to hit in bounded accuracy is way to powerful.) That's another thread.

Really I am all for things that make fighter be more differentiated from other classes, especially in the non-combat areas.

 

[Mistwell]

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.

Given wizards with a low Con are one of the primary iconic images of fantasy wizards (Raistlin from Dragonlance and Elric of Melnibone), I have to disagree. I think wizards with a sub-10 Constitution scores are rather common.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

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.

Hang on. You view characters as being able to assign their stats in-character?
Rather than it be a decision made purely by the player based on the sort of character they want to play?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Hang on. You view characters as being able to assign their stats in-character?
Rather than it be a decision made purely by the player based on the sort of character they want to play?

Well, a character who wanted to be strong could, like, work out a lot...

Even if you are assigning, there is nothing that says a fighter can't have a high value into their Charisma Ability score. Nor that a bard / paladin has to have a high value for Charisma.

Right, just that the return on investment in CHA will be much, much higher for the bard or paladin, over and above the impact it has in the social pillar.

Given wizards with a low Con are one of the primary iconic images of fantasy wizards (Raistlin from Dragonlance and Elric of Melnibone), I have to disagree. I think wizards we sub-10 Constitution scores are rather common.

The consequences of dumping CON are brutal for anyone, for the smallest-HD class, and one that might like to be able to maintain CONcentration, they border on suicide. I mean, even a 16 CON essentially doubles a wizard's hps, long term. In practical terms, the character type most amenable to dumping CON would be an archer - good HD but hanging out in the back lines with the glass cannons.

Elric is a good example, low-CON, in theory, but consistently boosting it through self-brewed herbal/alchemical potions - and y'know the whole soul-sucking thing.

Besides, once you've broached the challenge of playing the traditionally-most-complicated D&D class, you're probably going to be up for a little optimizing. But, yes, for anyone willing to counter-optimize for the sake of role-not-roll cred, sure - there are probably more such characters than the extreme disincentives against them built into the system would suggest, just as there were way more folks playing fighters (at least as a build component) in 3.x than it's Tier 5 status might've led one to expect.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Hang on. You view characters as being able to assign their stats in-character?
Rather than it be a decision made purely by the player based on the sort of character they want to play?

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.