D&D 5E The Fighter Extra Feat Fallacy

[Satyrn]

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.

This doesn't describe me at all.

I like the mechanics of the battlemaster I played. I had to make decisions every round in combat. Do I want to disarm this guy, push this other guy away from the wizard, or terrify that other guy menacing the cleric?

I never found it mostly fine. It's awesome.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

I can't imagine playing with someone who would risk letting the failure of the entire group fall on their own conscious decision to play a character who was obviously less competent where it counts - in life-or-death situations.

There are levels of optimization, and the most basic level is just putting your good score in your attack stat. That's the minimum level of competence which is implied by the unspoken social contract.

I think every group draws that line a little differently. I'd suggest that adjusting your own group's "your character must be this optimised to play with us" bar into a spoken social contract so new players know about it would be an improvement though.

If a player isn't even willing to do that - if I would be put into the position of convincing them to fulfill this minor obligation to the group endeavor - then I already know they aren't a team player, and I probably don't want to play with them. Group activities require the participation of everyone involved, and if they aren't even going to play in good faith, then I don't want them ruining the game for everyone else.

I've found that "team players" and people "playing in good faith" will generally be able to find something supportive to do every round.
Likewise someone can be a non-team player and actively ruin the game for the others even with a heavily-optimised character. In fact other than heavy overoptimisation, I've found that ruining the game for everyone else is more a function of player or character behaviour rather than character-building.

If you're having issues with another player's character build, I'd suggest asking them about it, rather than labelling them as not a team player. Their character may well be designed to perform effectively even without you telling the other player how they should build their character.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I would not have minded if the Fighter, at some point in early-mid levels, added this ability: "You may choose one of the following feats for free as a class ability: Actor, Alert, Dungeon Delver, Healer, Keen Mind, Linguist, Observant, Skilled, Skulker."

Of course, a class ability that strictly uses an optional rule is a tad problematic. Thus the whole bonus ASI thing. It does sound like a good idea, though: narrower selection of bonus feats does have the advantage of being less prone to abuse/optimization - it can't just be diverted to getting a 20 DEX & CE/SS, asap, for instance.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I'm a fighter fan. I'm not suffering from that. I consider it a feature.

My gnome criminal battlemaster contributed fully and satisfyingly to all pillars of the game.

One of my favorite PCs of all time was my 1e halfling fighter/thief. When 5e came out, I converted him over as a fighter class only, with a criminal background and skulker feat. I played him the same as I did a fighter/thief in 1e. I.e., I was just as active in the exploration (and interaction, because we role play all of that anyway) pillars of the game. As a straight up champion fighter. In fact, the only difference was that if I got found out doing all my sneaking, I was more robust when things came to fist-a-cuffs than compared to 1e. Daresay I enjoy playing the 5e version better than the 1e version.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I think every group draws that line a little differently. I'd suggest that adjusting your own group's "your character must be this optimised to play with us" bar into a spoken social contract so new players know about it would be an improvement though.

I've found that "team players" and people "playing in good faith" will generally be able to find something supportive to do every round.
Likewise someone can be a non-team player and actively ruin the game for the others even with a heavily-optimised character. In fact other than heavy overoptimisation, I've found that ruining the game for everyone else is more a function of player or character behaviour rather than character-building.

If you're having issues with another player's character build, I'd suggest asking them about it, rather than labelling them as not a team player. Their character may well be designed to perform effectively even without you telling the other player how they should build their character.

I have a real issue with people who tell others that if they aren't optimized, then they aren't a team player. I think the person saying that is the one who really isn't the team player. If you're telling someone else to do something they don't want to do (taking away their fun) in order for you to have fun, then that's you being selfish, not them. "Play my preference or you're a bad person" is a horrible attitude.

 

[Satyrn]

Nice. My gnome actually felt like a sort of ranger/thief what with proficiency in Animal Handling and Survival and the gnomish animalspeak thing going on.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I think every group draws that line a little differently. I'd suggest that adjusting your own group's "your character must be this optimised to play with us" bar into a spoken social contract so new players know about it would be an improvement though.

Fair enough, but I still insist that it's not an unreasonable assumption for players to build their characters in such a manner; and that it is unreasonable to make players choose between such very basic optimization and being able to contribute outside of combat.

 

[cbwjm]

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.

I don't have to be better than others with the noble background and 14 charisma. I don't have to have a maxed charisma or spells and other class abilities that directly apply to that pillar. I just have to be good at that pillar and my 14 charisma fighter with his noble background is good at the social pillar.

 

[Lehrbuch]

And if you used those same tools on a class with other abilities baked into the chassis, they contribute more.

Do they?

a) In-play, (for most people) there are usually only 3-6 other PCs present. So, the fact that some infinite variety of other PCs could be better than your PC at something is utterly irrelevant unless they are there, right now, in the party. Chances are, that if you make a character that is "good" at something, then your PC will be useful when the party needs to do that thing (as long as the player makes herself the opportunity to be useful). Especially, if the group of players made up the party of PCs together and had some sort of discussion about roles (which is sometimes a good idea).

b) In-play, even if you are not the "best" at something, it doesn't mean you can't often contribute to that thing, if you are nonetheless "good" at it. In play, there are numerous circumstances that can mean the "best" PC is unavailable. For example, they can be somewhere else, incapacitated, or simply doing something else.

c) In-play, even if you are the "worst" at something in the party, it doesn't stop you contributing. If you want your PC to try doing something you can. Why not?

 

[Tony Vargas]

I don't have to be better than others with the noble background and 14 charisma.

You just need to be good enough to be relevant in the context of the campaign, really. That /is/ relative, though, in spite of BA making skill checks random enough that anyone who can make a chack can be relevant, once in a while.

So, if you try to make a character 'good at the social pillar,' and make noble background, as much CHA as the build can spare, maybe make even a specific race part of that, then swap in each of the various classes and what they bring to that pillar, you might, in a very well-balanced-in-that-pillar game, find that though each class is different, they each bring something equally valuable to the character. What you'd find in D&D is that of the dozen resultant builds, the one that swapped in fighter would be the worst at that social pillar - strictly so, I'd think in most cases (the Barbarian might give him a run for the bottom spot, it's pretty sad, too, that way). That's an imbalance. It's just a there in the mechanics of the game, nothing to do with who might be playing each of the resultant builds or what campaign they might be in....

...now, the beauty of DM Empowerment and spotlight balance is that the DM has tremendous latitude to compensate for an imbalance like that, if it even becomes an issue. (And it very easily might not. If only one player makes any attempt to engage with the social pillar, it won't matter how his 'build' competes with hypothetically optimal ones, only with the 8-CHA anti-social misfits he works with. 'Land of the blind...' and all.) That doesn't mean they don't exist, just that there's ways of coping with them other than mechanical fixes.