D&D 5E The Fighter Extra Feat Fallacy

[Tony Vargas]

I think that a simple caster could gain a lot of traction.

I've seen a few players have a good time with the elemental sorcerer, even at very high level when characters like that tend to pall a bit...

 

[FrogReaver]

Part of the problem with these comparisons is that other classes (the Rogue was provided as an example) can contribute meaningfully to combat, even if it may be less than the Fighter does.

But very often with social or exploration challenges, it’s not a case of the whole party contributing. It’s one character...whoever is the best at what the situation calls for. Persuasion? Get the Bard over here...what? A high CHA Fighter with the Actor feat? Go secure the area while the Bard takes care of this, sport.

The only way to “contribute meaningfully” to those encounters is to be the star of the show.

To me that’s more about a flaw in encounters design or in running the game than it is about one class. In that scenario, the Bard is the ONLY one who contributes. Everyone else is sitting on the sidelines next to the Fighter.

So the question seems to be, is there an example of a non-combat challenge at which the Fighter will excel over the other classes? And the answer is no. Mostly, this is because there’s no non-combat encounter for which only one class will be the clear leader...it doesn’t really exist.

But what the Fighter does bring is the ability through the additional ASI/Feats to excel at an area the party might need. I think more than other classes the Fighter has the ability to shore up a shortcoming present in the party. They have more ASI/Feats to spare, so they can indeed take a non-combat feat or improve a non-combat stat without hampering their combat ability.

I agree, a very common way to play D&D is as a group of "experts". We have our investigation guy, our stealth guy, our athletic guy, our perception guy, our tracking guy, our persuasion guy, etc. Generally everyone stands around while the expert does something unless a player is just bored and wants to do something or cause some tom fudgery. If the expert fails then the other players will often see if they can try.

I think a more fun way to play that will encourage a little more well rounded characters is non-specialist get targeted for out of combat tasks. The King finds the the low charisma Barbarian interesting and specifically asks his opinion on a matter. Anyone interrupting is instantly told to mind their manners. Make a persuasion check to see if you made a strong enough case for the king to agree with your suggested course of action. Only the guy in the rear has a chance of noticing if something is tailing the party. Etc.

Basically it's the DM's job to bring more than one player into a particular kind of challenge whenever he can while still allowing experts to be experts in enough situations as well.

The only thing I disagree with is that a fighter's extra level 6 feat somehow makes him good at out of combat activities. I don't think it does at all. Many of those out of combat feats just enable skills to be used in a few unique ways. Almost everything you would want to do is still going to require a high skill check in the relevant skill to make good use of those feats. Skulker for example isn't that great if your stealth and perception isn't already higher. Actor isn't that great if you don't have a pretty good deception and performance. Observant doesn't do a lot if you don't already have a good perception or investigation. Linguist doesn't help nearly as much if you don't have good charisma or insight skills to back it up. That's really about all the out of combat feats listed. The only feat that may be useful for characters even without an associated skill is keen mind. But the point is that these feats still require skill checks. They just help and supplement and make those checks easier or possible in some sitautions they weren't before.

 

[Imaro]

The only thing I disagree with is that a fighter's extra level 6 feat somehow makes him good at out of combat activities. I don't think it does at all. Many of those out of combat feats just enable skills to be used in a few unique ways. Almost everything you would want to do is still going to require a high skill check in the relevant skill to make good use of those feats. Skulker for example isn't that great if your stealth and perception isn't already higher. Actor isn't that great if you don't have a pretty good deception and performance. Observant doesn't do a lot if you don't already have a good perception or investigation. Linguist doesn't help nearly as much if you don't have good charisma or insight skills to back it up. That's really about all the out of combat feats listed. The only feat that may be useful for characters even without an associated skill is keen mind. But the point is that these feats still require skill checks. They just help and supplement and make those checks easier or possible in some sitautions they weren't before.

I feel like this is looking at 5e through previous edition glasses. In other words with bounded accuracy you don't have to have the highest score to meaningfully contribute and I'm not sure how the features of many of the feats you listed aren't useful in the exploration or social pillar unless your corresponding attribute is high. A fighter using the standard array putting his best scores in either Str or Dex and 2nd in Con still has 13 12, 10 or 8. So let's say a 13 in his tertiary stat (still leaving a 12 for the secondary attack stat)...

Actor: Fighter w/Cha 13
+1 to Cha so 14
Advantage on Cha checks when trying to pass yourself off as a different person (roughly effective to +5)
Mimic the speech of another person (Contested Wis (Insight) to your Cha (Deception)... but remember you have advantage so roughly +7.
NOTE: This is with no training in the skill, if you dedicate a background to gain Deception it's a +3 on top of that at 6th level, so roughly +10

Observant: Fighter w/Wis 13
+1 to Wis or Int (Go Wis) so 14
Can read lips as long as you can see a creature's mouth and understand it's language
+5 to passive perception & 14 for +2 = +7 to pass. perception
NOTE: Again if the fighter actually trains perception he has a +10 at 6th level to passive perception

Linguist: Fighter x/Int 13
+1 to Int so Int = 14
Learn 3 languages
Cyphers with DC = Int Score (14) + Prof bonus (doesn't require training in a skill so at level 6 it's +3) so 17

I'm not seeing how you need exceptionally high scores for any of these to benefit the fighter greatly. In fact they seem to shore up a fighter's weakness with the +1 and also grant auto powers/high chance of success powers at the same time.

 

[Hussar]

The part you're ignoring here [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION], is that the fighter is SIXTH level before he gets any of those feats. After all, for the first five levels, he's no different than any other PC. Sure, he could take one of those feats at 4th, but, then, so could any other character.

So, your Actor/Observant/Linguist option has to compare with what other characters get at 6th level. So, compare that with the Rogue getting his second Expertise. The Ranger is getting his second favored enemy - +4 to damage to both enemy types is a pretty big bonus, plus resistances to favored enemy abilities. A Way of the Hand monk is now healing himself and the other types are getting spells and teleportation.

IOW, pretty much every class is getting something at 6th level and many of the classes are getting something that is going to contribute much more broadly outside of combat than being able write cyphers or read lips. I mean, seriously, has reading lips EVER come up in your game?

 

[Sacrosanct]

You know what I find a bit disingenuous about this whole thing? (and a nod to Hawkeyefan because his/her post totally made me think of it).

I've noticed many of the people complaining about how the fighter can't contribute anything out of combat are the same people who have said only the best PC should ever attempt something out of combat (like persuasion rolls, stealth, history, etc). Why do I think that's disingenuous? Because you're saying every other PC should just sit on the sidelines and do nothing in out of combat scenarios because only the best PC should be attempting them while saying here that the fighter is horrible because he can't do anything out of combat when you'd have him sit and do nothing anyway.

And double disingenuous when someone says feats can't really make a difference and listing every feat while ignoring feats like magic initiate and ritual caster. Those are feats too, you know.

 

[hawkeyefan]

In a party that includes every class...something I’ve never seen but which these discussions always seem to assume...sure, the Fighter won’t really ever surpass other classes at most non-combat encounters.

But in actual parties that have 3 to 6 members, the chances that they can fill a role not necessarily filled by another character are higher. For example, a party in my campaign consists of an Abjurer Wizard, a Rogue/Ranger, a Dwarven Life Cleric, and a Champion Fighter with the Noble background.

The Fighter is the party’s “Face”. His 14 CHA combined with Persuasion proficiency makes him the best at the social pillar. And he didn’t sacrifice anything combat wise in order to do so.

Yes, there are other classes that may excel at this more than this particular Fighter...but so what? Those guys aren’t in this particular party.

In my experience, Fighters have no problem contributing to actual parties in actual games as opposed to contributing to idealized parties that have no flaws or shortcomings that exist only in online discussion.

 

[Imaro]

The part you're ignoring here [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION], is that the fighter is SIXTH level before he gets any of those feats. After all, for the first five levels, he's no different than any other PC. Sure, he could take one of those feats at 4th, but, then, so could any other character.

I didn't ignore it at all... I make reference to it because it affects the proficiency bonus and it seems that to some on this board spending the fourth level feat to do something non-combat wise is akin to heresy. Of course with the requirements for level 1,2 & even 3 being easily and quickly attained, 6th level isn't really as far off as some are trying to make it out to be.

So, your Actor/Observant/Linguist option has to compare with what other characters get at 6th level. So, compare that with the Rogue getting his second Expertise.

Yep he's the skill monkey and honestly isn't as good as the fighter in combat so... not sure what your point is.

The Ranger is getting his second favored enemy - +4 to damage to both enemy types is a pretty big bonus, plus resistances to favored enemy abilities.

Yes a very narrow totally DM/campaign dependent ability that's combat focused (because the ranger kinda needs it)... Seems to line up with the feats I listed... again not seeing your point.

A Way of the Hand monk is now healing himself...

The fighter already has Second Wind...

and the other types are getting spells and teleportation.

If you want magic take EK... ritual caster or magic initiate... or even a combination... all of these are options for the fighter

IOW, pretty much every class is getting something at 6th level and many of the classes are getting something that is going to contribute much more broadly outside of combat than being able write cyphers or read lips. I mean, seriously, has reading lips EVER come up in your game?

It depends on the type of campaign (I would assume by 6th level the fighter has a grasp on what is and what isn't going to come up in the campaign). If they are playing medieval-esque spies, court intrigue or a few types of other games I would say it'd be pretty valuable. In a dungeon delving camapign not so much. And talk about pedantry... so now we are going to try and pick apart the value of specific feats with no context whatsoever...

 

[Imaro]

You know what I find a bit disingenuous about this whole thing? (and a nod to Hawkeyefan because his/her post totally made me think of it).

I've noticed many of the people complaining about how the fighter can't contribute anything out of combat are the same people who have said only the best PC should ever attempt something out of combat (like persuasion rolls, stealth, history, etc). Why do I think that's disingenuous? Because you're saying every other PC should just sit on the sidelines and do nothing in out of combat scenarios because only the best PC should be attempting them while saying here that the fighter is horrible because he can't do anything out of combat when you'd have him sit and do nothing anyway.

And double disingenuous when someone says feats can't really make a difference and listing every feat while ignoring feats like magic initiate and ritual caster. Those are feats too, you know.

I'd also say it's disingenuous because it's not always an option (and if it is I'd say that has more to do with bad encounter design). Have to cross a fast flowing river...everyone needs to roll, Climb a cliff again everyone needs to roll. Impress the court... group roll. Move through enemy territory...everyone needs to roll.

 

[Ovinomancer]

You know what I find a bit disingenuous about this whole thing? (and a nod to Hawkeyefan because his/her post totally made me think of it).

I've noticed many of the people complaining about how the fighter can't contribute anything out of combat are the same people who have said only the best PC should ever attempt something out of combat (like persuasion rolls, stealth, history, etc). Why do I think that's disingenuous? Because you're saying every other PC should just sit on the sidelines and do nothing in out of combat scenarios because only the best PC should be attempting them while saying here that the fighter is horrible because he can't do anything out of combat when you'd have him sit and do nothing anyway.

And double disingenuous when someone says feats can't really make a difference and listing every feat while ignoring feats like magic initiate and ritual caster. Those are feats too, you know.

And your broad brush is completely wrong. Thers a lesson in there: mainly stint attribute malice to a difference of opinion.

I like fighters. I don't think optimization is required or even desirable. I see the argument that the fighter offers many fewer options outside of the combat pillar. Even the best counterargument -- use your extra feats to branch out -- requires an optional rule. So, thers a valid argument about the fighter even if you don't care about optimization.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I'd also say it's disingenuous because it's not always an option (and if it is I'd say that has more to do with bad encounter design). Have to cross a fast flowing river...everyone needs to roll, Climb a cliff again everyone needs to roll. Impress the court... group roll. Move through enemy territory...everyone needs to roll.

Yeah, that’s a big part of it. Sometimes, one PC needs to convince/bully/trick one NPC into allowing the party to pass or whatever. But very often, each party member will need to make a check in order to succeed at a non-combat encounter. Or at least, that should happen from time to time with a halfway decent DM.

I mean, the exploration pillar alone...has no one ever had a Fighter that climbs the cliff (DC 15 STR/Athletics check, let’s say) and then lowers the rope in order to make the rest of the party’s climb easier (DC 8 STR/Athletics check)? Or jumps across the pit trap to lower the bridge?

Again, sure a Barbarian may be able to do this just as well....but so what? A Sorcerer might be just as charming as a Bard.