D&D 5E The Fighter Extra Feat Fallacy

[Jefe Bergenstein]

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.

And if you used those same tools on a class with other abilities baked into the chassis, they contribute more. The fighter really gives up too much for a non-existent advantage in combat. A paladin has those same non-class tools, spells, and gets to use his social stat to pump his party's defense. The champion in particular is just egregiously boring and not even particularly good as compensation. They could have at least let remarkable athlete stack with proficiency bonus, scaled second wind, tossed them an extra skill, etc.

I think Xeviat hit the nail on the head. It's for people who just don't care about mechanics or if other classes get more. And because so many just don't care, it will remain the "kid brother button masher" class. It's "mostly fine" and that's good enough for them, so they'll continue to shout down anyone else who dares ask for more. Hell, probably a good number are basically run on autopilot as a second PC to someone's caster. That's what we did in 1st/2nd edition. Fighters/thieves were henchmen, your "real" character was the mage. At least Ars Magica formalized it and gave everyone a magi and a bunch of grogs.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

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.

This isn't even remotely true. Players are heavily encouraged to max out their attack stat and Constitution before any other stats. You can't roleplay a dead character, after all.

The fact that spellcasters get automatic bonuses to useful skills for free, while fighter types would have to sacrifice their ability to keep themselves and the party alive if they wanted to improve their skills, is a massive flaw in the system. No game should force a player to choose between being effective in combat, where failure means death, and being able to play the character they want outside of combat. That's why they separated Backgrounds out from Classes in the first place!

 

[CapnZapp]

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".

Personally I meet these concerns with "There's nothing wrong with the fighter and it doesn't need extra feats".

Specifically:

The Champion. It's an entry-level option. As such, it's fine. There's no need to make it meet the demands of the more experienced or sophisticated gamer - just choose a different subclass.

The Battlemaster. There are legitimate issues (mainly that it occupies so much design space it makes it hard to add more subclasses), but underpoweredness is not one of them.

The Eldritch Knight. While spending all your spell slots on Shield might be considered boring, it definitely shows the subclass needs no buffing.

All this assumes feats. If you play a feat-less game and feel the fighter is lacking, add feats to your game.

Furthermore, the fighter chassi is a robust foundation for many multiclass concepts. Both role-playing and min-maxing. So if you absolutely must boost the class, please do so only after the first six levels or so (i.e require seven class levels to gain any improvements).

Thank you



Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[UngeheuerLich]

This isn't even remotely true. Players are heavily encouraged to max out their attack stat and Constitution before any other stats. You can't roleplay a dead character, after all.

The fact that spellcasters get automatic bonuses to useful skills for free, while fighter types would have to sacrifice their ability to keep themselves and the party alive if they wanted to improve their skills, is a massive flaw in the system. No game should force a player to choose between being effective in combat, where failure means death, and being able to play the character they want outside of combat. That's why they separated Backgrounds out from Classes in the first place!

That is not remotely true.
It is only true in games where an arms race happened.
Combat too easy for DMs tastes -> stronger monsters. Players rest more and max out theor combat stats more.
The only flaw in the system is the standard xp awarding method by killing monsters.
If circumventing fights gives the same xp you'd see a lot more roleplaying by default.

Maxing out your combat score with ability score increases is not the worst idea. Using point buy to get max stats from the beginning not so. A fighter with 15 15 15 8 8 8 won't be significantly better in combat than the fighter with 15, 8, 14, 10, 12, 13. He is slower to act and worse at ranged combat, but as a melee char, it is often better that your wizard may throw the fireball before you charge into battle ir if the enemy approaches you. And if you use a shield, most ranged weapons are out anyway.

 

[Sadras]

This isn't even remotely true. Players are heavily encouraged to max out their attack stat and Constitution before any other stats. You can't roleplay a dead character, after all.

(snip)

No game should force a player to choose between being effective in combat, where failure means death, and being able to play the character they want outside of combat.

Perhaps I have misunderstood, but I 100% disagree with the above statements. It may also just be that we have differing playstyles at the table. I do not follow the mantra that you need to be the best you need to be as a fighter (20's in STR/DEX and CON) in order to survive. That feels like an extreme outlook to have.

 

[cbwjm]

Maxing your attack stats isn't wrong, but I feel that that would be more for specific types of games which have a primary focus on combat. The game I joined this weekend went the entire session without combat. It was just social encounters, might see some combat next game but having a high Str, Dex, or Con would have had absolutely no bearing on that session at all, whereas people with good Int, Wis, and Cha got more out of the game.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Perhaps I have misunderstood, but I 100% disagree with the above statements. It may also just be that we have differing playstyles at the table. I do not follow the mantra that you need to be the best you need to be as a fighter (20's in STR/DEX and CON) in order to survive. That feels like an extreme outlook to have.

Ask yourself this question, from the perspective of your character:

If you have a choice between recruiting a competent archer who is also a skilled orator and diplomat, or a better archer who may be a bit rough around the edges but is significantly more accurate, and you already have a skilled and talented diplomat in the party who can talk circles around the first guy, then which of the two do you invite into your Fellowship when the fate of the world rests on your success?

Somebody upthread asked where you draw the line between a character being useful, or not, in any given area. How much of a bonus do you really need before the Fighter feels like they're contributing? The answer is that they need to be better than anyone else in the party, because generally speaking, only one person gets to try first at any important task (and failure often precludes anyone else from trying). Even though the Sorcerer might only have +5 to social checks over the trained-but-not-talented Fighter, and even though a moderately-talented Fighter might shrink that margin to +3 or even +2, neither of them will be called to make those checks while the Sorcerer is around.

One of the balance issues with the game is that the Fighter is expected to spend those extra ability boosts on picking up some exploration or social slack, but due to the way the d20 system works and given how small the bonus is when you just increase a stat, it's rarely worth doing so. A bonus of +3 to social checks, for a Fighter who throws a significant amount of resources into being Charismatic, will only ever matter three times in twenty.

 

[CapnZapp]

One of the balance issues with the game is that the Fighter is expected to spend those extra ability boosts on picking up some exploration or social slack

No, he's not.


Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[Henry]

Yeah, I can't get behind the "fighter needs fixing" argument, either. I've played one at the table through level 6, and I've seen one played through level 8 (both games allowed feats) and both times the fighter performed like a Beast on the field, and still had plenty to give in the other two pillars. They weren't the best diplomat, nor the best skill monkey, but design-wise there should not be expectation for this to be so. However, my battlemaster still had a +4 persuasion at first level, enough to hold his own in most challenges faced, and yet kicked butt on the battlefield (his high point was driving off a sea creature with an arrow to the eye and a menacing attack long enough for us to get to safety ) playing a fighter i've never felt the need to multi-class or switch characters, which is enough to tell me I don't think it needs improvement.

 

[Shiroiken]

Fighters are fine.Would it have been better if they had used more evocative sub-classes? Yes, but the playtest showed that the majority of playtesters wanted a simple option and a complex option (eldritch knight is a bonus). Since the game is designed to appeal to the broadest base possible, that is what WotC went with.