D&D 5E The Fighter Extra Feat Fallacy

[Hillsy7]

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.

Actually, it doesn't matter in this case. Specific Beats General: it's mentioned specifically that Tika is a Fighter (as is Artemis), and therefore is exempt from 'requirements' alluded to in the "General" fighter class.

Extrapolating from that - any character which could be designed with commensurate pressures, experiences, character traits as Tika can just as viably be a Fighter without conforming to the general guide of the Fighter Class blurb.

 

[Lehrbuch]

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?

Yes, but the PHB is not so foolish as to be as limiting as this. The authors wisely want to include player concepts not exclude them. So, it explicitly doesn't exclude self-taught warriors: "Or you [a fighter] might be self-taught --- unpolished but well tested" (PHB, page 73).

So, a barmaid that "trained" by bashing drunks, and perhaps by learning something from her customers, is a perfectly viable explanation of a level 1 fighter. After that, her training is explained as a product of an adventuring life.

Questions like how a PC was "trained" where her weaponry and armour came from only need to be answered to the satisfaction of the DM/players.

 

[Azzy]

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?

Who said she had formal training? The fact of the matter is, regardless of how you interpret 5e, the character Tika was first given class levels in 1984 (in DL2: Dragons of Flame) where she is presented as a dual-class (formerly) 3rd-level thief/4th-level fighter NPC.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Optimization is a matter of degree, you can be disinterested in the internet extremes, but you can't long plead ignorance or indifference to 6 stats and what they do.

You know, Tony, some people look at D&D not as a game they want to win, but as a game they want to play.

 

[Sadras]

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.

I'm not a huge fan of your playstyle, but your jokes are fun.

 

[shoak1]

View attachment 89543

 

[Pauln6]

Who said she had formal training? The fact of the matter is, regardless of how you interpret 5e, the character Tika was first given class levels in 1984 (in DL2: Dragons of Flame) where she is presented as a dual-class (formerly) 3rd-level thief/4th-level fighter NPC.

In the books I don't recall her using any thieves skills at all so she is ideal to build as a fighter with cutpurse background. The 1e version used a shortsword and leather but in the books she's given a suit of Elven chain. Tavern brawler? Twf with a frying pan and short sword? Lots of fun to be had.

I think Saelorn would benefit from converting them with the caveat that they should be the same class (no converting Sturm to a paladin or Tanis to a ranger) and that their starting stats should not be boosted beyond those in the books.

 

[Mistwell]

Then why on earth are you reading/commenting in an optimization thread??!?!?!

Because I enjoy reading and talking about optimization and as I said earlier, it's not that I have anything against it. I myself have optimized before, though mostly in 3e. That most of my players (and I play as a player in a different game that I don't DM as well) don't isn't really important to what I feel about it. I think you mistook my comments for not liking optimization (despite my making it clear I have no issues with it). But there is a reason I was the guy who brought over all the build guilds to this board when the WOTC boards were shutting down.

You know, gamists and casual players and story players can all play together and enjoy the game together. You don't all have to be the same to enjoy a game of D&D, as long as there is enough for everyone.

It's only the "there is only one way to play the game, and if you claim you play different than the one way then you're either a bad person or you just don't understand you are playing it this one way," attitude that gets to me. Which, in different ways, Saelorn and Tony Vargas each did. The first by claiming a fighter who raises his charisma is actively a bad player, and the later by claiming everyone optimizes. There is nothing wrong with being gamist, but not everyone is gamist, and not everyone must be gamist to be a "good" player at D&D.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

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.

That's a little . . . odd. Those characters seem solid, realistic, and well-grounded in the world. Personally I'd probably take them a lot more seriously than a character basing their entire fighting prowess on a squirrel-shooter.

The rules tell us that those characters are not viable upon the battlefield, and are likely to die.

Where?
I can see where it could be inferred from the rules that these characters are less-optimal in single combat on the battlefield than a fully minmaxed character. (And more optimal in avoiding combat in the first place probably.)
But what I don't see is anything to support your claim that they aren't viable.

The battlefields of D&D aren't populated solely by people with an 18+ in Str or Dex.
Having more friends willing to come along and fight alongside you is generally a greater advantage than being a little more graceful or athletic than your opposition. Outnumbering your enemy is almost always a 'viable' strategy.

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.

Professional warriors do not spring fully-formed from the brows of their parents. They generally have to start off as pretty amateur, apprentice fighters first and work their way up to veterans.

I am running a game where the social pillar is of such incredible value that the fighter dare not interfere, because failure is likely to get the entire party killed. You may have missed that part. This is a very long thread.

What does the Fighter player, (and presumably all the other players who aren't playing the party face) do when the party are engaging in social activities?
What happens when the party face just plain rolls low once in a while?

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?

From a veteran soldier. (i.e relatively high level fighter) giving her personal training IIRC.
Yes, she started as an apprentice with little formal training (1st level) but training and experience made her into a full-fledged (level 3+ fighter.)