D&D 5E The Fighter Extra Feat Fallacy

[Ancalagon]

That could actually be fun.

The party gets to a cliff face and everyone is expecting the wizard to cast levitate to get up there only to turn around and see him pulling pitons and rope out of his backpack, getting ready to climb.

An enemy engages the wizard only to find himself knocked to the ground by the wizard who hides a herculean figure beneath his wizard robes.

As the party is relaxing at the local tavern, the wizard beats all challengers in friendly arm wrestling matches while the barbarian sulks in the corner.

I had a thread about this guy

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...EK-or-an-option-for-low-magic-game&highlight=

 

[Ancalagon]

I made no claims about your players. You're the one who keeps holding them up as proof of your sweeping claims about player behavior...
...as if that somehow contradicts or nullifies the actual content of the game.

But at this point he's not holding up his players as example - he's invoking survey and consultant data showing that the gamist perspective is the minority. That argument (and if you see flaws in it) is the one you should be addressing.

I have to admit I've seen my share of players who just don't care that much about the rules - at least not enough to optimize.

 

[shoak1]

I have a standard "playbook" I use. About 4-6 combats(or dangerous traps or obstacles) between short rests, each one set up to make one of the PC's shine and maybe another less effective. The traps or obstacles will be set up to sometimes make a PC make a skill check or saving throw they might be bad at, like a pressure plate set up with a weight limit that the Halfling rogue wont trip but the goliath would, something along those lines. For the social aspect, same thing. Sometimes the Fighter is always in the tavern, so the CHR check goes to him as the most "well known" of the group, with the idea that if he fails and gets into trouble then the Bard can talk him out of it but if the fighter succeeds the group will get a bonus to later checks ("Hey the friend of Tordek the mighty, any friend of his is ok by me.")

Since I am choosing who will make a checks to make different players shine at different moments, I will change the DC of things no matter what the published material says. I understand the concept of a party face, but unless a PC plays a shut-in he will have to interact with someone in the game world sometime. The optimized archer fighter build will sometimes have to fight hand to hand, the wizard will have to fight in silenced room, etc.

The idea is to sometimes get the players out of their comfort zone, that's what makes in fun.

So the fighter who put 16 CHR on the sheet will be rewarded, I will work it in somehow. The fighter who plays it brave but suboptimal, maybe by charging through a door that the rogue hasn't checked for traps yet wont get punished every time for it. That PC is trying something different, just trying to have fun instead of "winning," that should be encouraged.

Well I definitely would rather be the DM at your table than a player. Deciding to make each player shine in an encounter kinda makes the whole character creation/stat.build process moot. Give your Wizard 18 CHA, he gets rewarded...give him 18 WIS, he gets rewarded, give him 18 DEX, he gets rewarded.....Now not to be offensive, but why even play a game like D and D with stats if all you care about is "fun" and story time?

And why bother commenting on a character optimization thread? Its kind of like me responding to a thread about character story ideas with "OMG make a pally with 14 CON, 18 STR and give him such and such feat"....Just seems out of place.

 

[cbwjm]

Well I definitely would rather be the DM at your table than a player. Deciding to make each player shine in an encounter kinda makes the whole character creation/stat.build process moot. Give your Wizard 18 CHA, he gets rewarded...give him 18 WIS, he gets rewarded, give him 18 DEX, he gets rewarded.....Now not to be offensive, but why even play a game like D and D with stats if all you care about is "fun" and story time?

And why bother commenting on a character optimization thread? Its kind of like me responding to a thread about character story ideas with "OMG make a pally with 14 CON, 18 STR and give him such and such feat"....Just seems out of place.

This isn't a thread about optimisation it's a thread about how a player or DnD thinks that the extra feats or a fighter isn't enough to compensate them in the exploration or social pillar. And if you aren't playing DnD to have fun then why are you playing it. If all I care about in a game are the numbers then I'll play a board game.

 

[shoak1]

t's never been suicide to play a low Con wizard in our 5e games. It's not a factor of counter-optimizing, it's often that none of us really cares much about optimization as a concept.

Then why on earth are you reading/commenting in an optimization thread??!?!?! See, I'm a gamist. So I don't pay any attention to threads like "I need a character concept (ASAP!) based on being captured by female Brigands," or "Thespian Background?" No sense riling up people there by detailing the stats of my tricked out Opti-Pally lol. Or telling them that in my campaign their silly character would be smashed. They don't care about my optimization campaign. And I don't care about your non-optimization campaign. There's really no value in you story time peeps doing that in every optimization thread.

 

[shoak1]

This isn't a thread about optimisation it's a thread about how a player or DnD thinks that the extra feats or a fighter isn't enough to compensate them in the exploration or social pillar.

Isn't comparing stats, classes, feats, and abilities to isolate the best and worst called....... "optimization?"

And if you aren't playing DnD to have fun then why are you playing it.

Yes, we play to have fun through meaningful mental challenges such as optimization. Story time isn't fun for us, sorry.

If all I care about in a game are the numbers then I'll play a board game.

LOL yes, and if you don't care about the numbers then why play D and D at all? Just go LARP. Pretend to be a sickly wizard and work on your craggy voice. Make a cool wand out of sustainable materials or something. I dunno, there's gotta be something more suited to your playstyle.

 

[James Gasik]

Just remember the D&D Mantra. There is no one true way. Everyone can have fun in different ways- for some people, building a character from distinct mechanical bits is just as much fun as playing with LEGOs. And for me, building the backstory that explains such a character in a lore-friendly manner is even more fun.

I understand the mindset of people who create a story and concept, and don't worry about the rules. However, a thing to keep in mind is that you need to figure out how to allow your cool character concept actually do the things they are supposed to do. If your character is an exiled prince, forced to survive as a confidence man and trickster, some knowledge of etiquette and proficiency in charisma-based skills is probably important. Figuring out how to get those things on the character isn't difficult, but it does take a little thought. That's the essence of optimization, really. To build a character that is effective at whatever tasks you want/need them to be.

There is nothing wrong with this, nor does the methodology of optimization do anything to damage the game- if taken in moderation. Some people do fall into the trap of "taking a concept and beating it to death with a rock"...threads about things like "highest possible X" come to mind. And there are some people who are very competitive, and will optimize to be as powerful as possible. But that's more a problem with a lack of communication between the players and DM about what their expectations for the game are- it's sometimes hard for people to know how good is good enough.

Ok yes, there are some people who are jerks and just want to demolish every challenge in their path. But the ability to optimize didn't make them jerks, it's just a tool they abuse.

 

[Pauln6]

You can either roll randomly and hope for high Charisma, or you can't play those things under the D&D ruleset. Not if they want to be taken seriously, at least. The rules tell us that those characters are not viable upon the battlefield, and are likely to die.
A plucky stable hand is not a professional warrior, which is the reality that the fighter class is intended to represent, and it is disingenuous to model them as such. You're describing an NPC commoner or, at best, a rogue.

He is skilled with the longbow and has spent his spare time learning to read, and has amassed much knowledge as he can about history, nature, and religion. He WILL be a knight!

It seems to me that your myopic approach to character building is more of a throwback to 4e, where your stats were more important to your survival because of the treadmill. You can breathe out and relax a bit more in 5e. The most likely person to die in our group is the Warlock-rogue who can't resist grandstanding in melee rather than the the fighter with a high Charisma.

I think I have to take issue with you over insisting that my stable hand should be played as a rogue. The 5e PHB proposes Tika Waylan, a barmaid, as a fighter with the cutpurse background (S14, D16, C13, I9, W12, C14. Would you feel that she could not be played in your campaign because she is not a professional warrior? She BECAME a professional warrior out of necessity. Prior to that, she just took out drunks with a frying pan.

She's one of the sample PCs in the rule book. It seems strange to argue that she is unplayable as a character.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I think I have to take issue with you over insisting that my stable hand should be played as a rogue. The 5e PHB proposes Tika Waylan, a barmaid, as a fighter with the cutpurse background (S14, D16, C13, I9, W12, C14. Would you feel that she could not be played in your campaign because she is not a professional warrior? She BECAME a professional warrior out of necessity. Prior to that, she just took out drunks with a frying pan.

Not every member of the city watch, the village militia, or the queen’s army is a fighter. Most of these troops are relatively untrained soldiers with only the most basic combat knowledge. Veteran soldiers, military officers, trained bodyguards, dedicated knights, and similar figures are fighters.

Sorry, but your example from the book does not jive with the description of the class that's in the book. A barmaid wielding a frying pan is simply not a "similar figure" to a veteran soldier or dedicated knight. Where did she get her formal training?

It looks like this is a case of inconsistency across the text, where each side has enough supporting evidence to not change their mind. If there's one thing this book is good about, it's not providing answers.

 

[Pauln6]

Sorry, but your example from the book does not jive with the description of the class that's in the book. A barmaid wielding a frying pan is simply not a "similar figure" to a veteran soldier or dedicated knight. Where did she get her formal training?

It looks like this is a case of inconsistency across the text, where each side has enough supporting evidence to not change their mind. If there's one thing this book is good about, it's not providing answers.

That's your interpretation but it's a very weak argument to say the example in the rule book is wrong because it's inconsistent. This is more of what James Gassik said above. We're both right for our play styles. We only butt heads if one of us says I'm right and you're wrong instead of we're both right but I prefer my play style because 'reasons'. Story is as important as optimisation in my campaign. Players can plug holes in builds as they level up if there is a need but it's silly to assume a certain build is unplayable or just wrong because it's different. Different can be fun.

I'm very tempted to build 5E dragonlance PCs to see how they turn out with their original stats. Why don't you have a go and see how you get on!