D&D 5E The Fighter Extra Feat Fallacy

[Yama Dai O]

I like the Fighter because of its simplicity. It is one of just two classes that offer beginners and players not interested in complex mechanics a way to easily participate in the game.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

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?

Well, if it have that kind of attitude, and the range of choice of fellowship members that allows picking between multiple variants of the same role, I'd be asking myself: "Do I really need an Archer?"
Maybe tell both archers that their services aren't needed and go peruse the options for occultists who have pledged their souls to morally-disturbing entities with their own agenda. And while I'm at it, boot the cleric out of the fellowship and go find myself a Bard with a smattering of Druid and Cleric instead.

Or, I could go with inviting whichever archer actually stands and pledges their bow to the cause when I appeal for heroes to save the world.

Do you tend to looks at the group as a player, who knows that you're going to have 5 characters whatever happens, and a new character's player can be bullied into optimising with the threat of "letting the group down" if they don't?
Or do you look at it from your character's perspective, where you're happy to have Orator the Archer along helping you because its better than there only being 4 of you trying to save the world?

Besides, she told you she was a good archer and was way more convincing that that socially malajusted hack who flunked the interview, no matter how lucky he got on the butts.

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.

Is that the way your group generally plays? Ours usually has all characters participating in social scenes, and whoever makes the suggestion or poses the question is the one who's skill is rolled.
Likewise if someone tries to climb a tree, or keep their balance in slippery mud, its them who has to make the check.

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.

I believe that the Fighter is expected to spend those ability boosts wherever the player wants to put them. If the player wants their fighter to be better at something, or feels that they are lacking in an area, and that lack is crimping their enjoyment, then they will spend it accordingly.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

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.

It depends a bit on your party size. And if there is a specialist for everything. And then of course if the accurate fighter is dumb as bread and aways gets into avoidable fights, i take the less accurate one any time.

 

[Ancalagon]

I think all you need to do is give the fighter one extra skill pick, and done. It only needs a very modest tweak.

The fighter is now in a much better position than before when it comes to the non combat pillars, due to backgrounds. You definitely can contribute outside of combat.

I have started a few weeks ago in a new pbp game and my "dex" fighter has 14 wisdom, 12 int and 10 cha, and is proficient in deception, stealth and thieves tools. I don't feel limited at all.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using EN World mobile app

 

[Xeviat]

I like the Fighter because of its simplicity. It is one of just two classes that offer beginners and players not interested in complex mechanics a way to easily participate in the game.

These are not mutually exclusive. The Fighter could get a ribbon to make them stand out in other areas of the game than combat. Heck, the Champion could get a buff at 3rd level to make them balanced against Battle Masters. As long as it was an always on ability, it would play simply and make the class/subclass more unique.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Sacrosanct]

NO, it's not a fallacy. What is a fallacy is saying "I don't really count the 2nd feat because no one plays to level 12 anyway" when you're not holding every other class to that same standard. I.e., you never hand wave away the rogue, paladin, or monk class features after level 12 when talking about class function in combat/exploration/interaction pillars

And, as I always mention in these threads but is always ignored whenever someone creates a new thread to hate on the fighter:

If instead of two feats you get to choose what you do with, they put two hard baked in features that helped exploration and/or interaction, no one would be complaining that the fighter can't do anything in those other pillars. E.g., if at level 6 you got a hard baked in feat that replicated ritual caster, or dungeon delver (or any other number of feats), then you couldn't argue that the fighter couldn't do anything in those other pillars. No, the complaints are because you (general you) choose to not use use those feats on interaction or exploration. That's totally on you, not the class design.

And secondly, if you do choose to use those two extra feats on combat related ASIs or feats, then the fighter is pretty much the best at fighting--which is what the class is meant to be, not "just as good" at interaction and/or exploration. If you want your fighter to be good at combat and also good at interaction and exploration, you have that choice.

The bottom line is those two feats are not a fallacy, because unlike every other class that has their abilities all hard baked, the fighter allows you to choose how you want to tailor your character. And isn't more choice to customize a better thing?

 

[The Old Crow]

What kind of bonuses are people expecting for the fighter to be good in the exploration and social pillar?

If the fighter is a class that is supposed to be 100% dedicated to physical combat, then the areas I would expect them to shine in are bravery and physical prowess. Because if 100% of your shtick is mixing it up with sharp pointy things against things that want to kill you, then I can't see the fighter class not getting good at what it is doing 100% of the time, which is being brave and being athletic.

Let’s take a stab at the three subclasses in the PHB. Maybe I’ll look at the name and expand upon them a little bit better:

Champion
What does champion mean? They’re the best. What’s something champions share? Their people like them. Whether they’re athletes or war heroes or whatever, the common people love a champion. As a ribbon, give them some type of social advantage with common folk. Yes, this overlaps a bit with Folk Hero, but the two would stack. Your town loves you, your enemies fear you. Combined with their half proficiency on physical checks (which should stack with proficiency), they’d have an edge in exploration too.

Battle Master
What is the Battle Master? Their artisans tool proficiency makes me think of a literal artist, an artist of war, a martial artist. Their level 7 size up their opponents ability is really good and flavorful. Give it some more oomph. Let it be used a little faster. Make them especially intimidating to other warriors. Expand upon the maneuvers and have some that can work out of combat (bonus to intimidate, bonus to athletics or acrobatics).

Eldritch Knight
Yeah, they have spells, but I doubt they’ll be using them out of combat. I’m really at a loss here. Maybe give them free Arcana proficiency (because it’s really weird they don’t have it). Just a bone of a ribbon.

I like those. Nice side effect of giving the subclass more flavor.

 

[BookBarbarian]

There's already examples of UA fighter subclasses that get more proficiencies and other ways to interact with the non-combat pillars of the game in the Scout, and Monster Hunter.

I think they are great subclasses.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The extra feat fallacy?

Fighter Feat Fallacy alliterates, though. I think that's a little cooler.

Fair Friends Fear the Foolish Fighter-Feat Fallacy!
Forsooth!

My Non AC defences are bad - Use your extra feats
etc.

"Saving Throws," not "non-AC defenses." Just because they're not AC, and they're used defensively, is no reason to go calling 'em that. ;P And they're bonus ASIs, they're usable for feats only if that optional rule is in use

Now the first issue is obvious, you only get 2 extra feats.......well sort of. WoTC numbers showed that most games go up to 12th level meaning you get 1 extra feat half way and the second right at the end where it does not impact as much as it should.

The second bonus ASI is at 14th, so you wouldn't get it at all in a campaign that went to 12th. APs often go to 15th, so not only would you get to enjoy your 5th-priority use of an ASI for a whole level, there'd be no level 16 ASI for others to play catch-up with.

The second issue is that the Fighter sacrifices ability in the Exploration and Social Pillars to be "The Best" in Combat, so it should be ahead in combat by default not by spending it's limited resource. This is of course if feats are allowed in your game, feats being optional and all.

The D&D-Next-Playtest claim was that the fighter would be "Best at Fighting (with weapons, before magic)," not THE Best at Combat. Combat is much broader than fighting (with weapons). The fighter can be best at fighting with weapons, leaving room for the Monk to be best at fighting without weapons and for the Warlock, Wizard, Land Druid &c to duke it out for Best at Combat Using Spells.

Not only that, but 'best at' something doesn't mean better than everyone else by an appreciable margin, it just means no can claim to be better than you. So the Ranger can be about as good an Archer as the fighter, and the Paladin about as good an S&B 'protector' as the fighter, and the Fighter can still claim his best-at-fighting(with-weapons) laurels.

I am interested to hear the thoughts of others on this.

Aside from the above, yes, it's true that the fighter falls short in more than two areas, and that a mere two bonus ASIs are offered as a solution in each case. While two ASIs may be considered adequate to make up a shortcoming in one area (arguably, in some, even devoting both to it wouldn't be a enough), they clearly can't be used on all of them at once.

Like, if I take the noble background (history, persuasion skills) and throw a 14 in Charisma, how am I not good at the social pillar? Do I need to have something to charm someone or automatically adjust their reaction to me from hostile to friendly?

You're as good as anyone else with the Noble Background and a 14 CHA, but you're not nearly as good as someone with Noble Background, a 16-20 CHA (CHA is a top-priority stat for several classes), and spells and other class abilities that directly apply in that pillar.

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.

Nod. And when comparing classes, you needn't compare character, just the actual classes. A simple ceteris paribus assumption.

I would argue the fallacy is that the fighter (or any class) should be good at all those things.

Most classes are. Spells can generally be put to good use in all three pillars, and most classes get spells, and most spell lists have a reasonable variety. A tightly restricted spell list is rare - the best example is probably that sub-class that's initially restricted to only Evocation and Abjuration spells, the EK.

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.

Yeah, but would people who "just don't care about mechanics" care enough to agitate to have a class included just for them, or would they, y'know, not care?

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.

Ars Magica was cool in a lot of ways. The magic system was innovative for it's day, and the honesty about playing a 'custos' was refreshing...

 

[Gardens & Goblins]

How a fight participates during the Social pillar:

- talk to people. Use the social skills if needs. You don't need proficiency.
- threaten to fight people if they don't listen/comply.
- offer to fight people / offer to fight for people

I mean, it's not like a fighter can't work the game to their strengths. And offering to help, through fighting very well, is a good way to contribute to a conversation. And if they game has gone all Kings & Courtesans, then heck.. ..they can still talk to people, make moves, get involved. They don't have to be Silky Tongued Tony to make an impression when they're the D&D equivalent of a Challenger Tank.

As for the exploration side? I... how can they not explore? Sure, they might get lost, but then how many folks do we need keeping track of where the party is going and have gone? Navigating perilous terrain might be a swine but again, they're a bag of hit points and should have Athletics at the very least, so climbing, swimming and running are all on the menu. And if they didn't cop out and dump Str, they might even be really good at it.

All of this can be yours, Mr. Fighter! You don't even need to pick up anything outside of your base classes proficiencies.