D&D 5E The Fighter Extra Feat Fallacy

[Tony Vargas]

We're not talking about prior editions.

We are talking the validity of arguing popularity implies no impetus for improvement. Past popularity having clearly been no shield against revision argues against that. The fighter has always been a very popular class. It has been subjected to many attempts to improve upon it, in spite of that popularity. It has been heartily criticized in spite of that popularity.

Neither of those things have changed with 5e. The fighter is still very popular, it's still subject to criticism.
I expect neither to change going forward.

And, no, I don't expect WotC to officially revise the 5e fighter (though I expect the 6e fighter might not look too much like it, if there ever is one). I've never really expected much in the way of errata from 5e, it's contrary to the way it's presented. It's a starting point. Why move the starting point after people have already started?

I'm frankly surprised the Ranger has received as much UA tinkering as it has, but even it hasn't been officially re-written. It wouldn't make a lot of sense, when they're trying to stabilize the brand image, to have different versions of the PH floating around with radically different versions of the class. It would sow confusion. Rather like Essentials, really.

 

[Mistwell]

We are talking the validity of arguing popularity implies no impetus for improvement. Past popularity having clearly been no shield against revision argues against that. The fighter has always been a very popular class. It has been subjected to many attempts to improve upon it, in spite of that popularity. It has been heartily criticized in spite of that popularity.

Neither of those things have changed with 5e. The fighter is still very popular, it's still subject to criticism.
I expect neither to change going forward.

The part of my post you cut made it clear I was saying it was a combination of two things. You cutting it is yet another misrepresentation of what I am saying. I know you're not this thick so I assume it's intentional. I will say it in a way you cannot pretend to ignore it.

POPULARITY + LACK OF A LOT OF CRITICISM = NO REASON FOR WOTC TO PRIORITIZE A CHANGE.

Get it now? I am not arguing that it's just popular. I am saying WOTC has said it's both popular AND THEY ARE NOT GETTING A LOT OF CRITICISM OF IT. It's that later part you keep avoiding and assume this issue is like prior editions. It's not. It was popular BUT got lots of criticism in prior editions - it's lacking that part for this edition.

Ranger, on the other hand, is popular but HAS received a lot of criticism. Hence it's being revised.

That's my argument.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Get it now? I am not arguing that it's just popular. I am saying WOTC has said it's both popular and they are not getting a lot of criticism...

This is a thread criticizing the fighter. Not, I think, in an unduly negative way, but we are delving into it's shortcomings. It's hardly the first or the only such thread.

While I certainly agree that the fighter is still the most popular class, it's also a class that has always received a lot of criticism. Nothing's changed in that regard. The criticism is perhaps less vicious and invalid than it was last time around, which is a plus, of course, and speaks to 5e's goal of inclusiveness towards fans of past editions.
...particularly long-past editions.

 

[Imaro]

This is a thread criticizing the fighter. Not, I think, in an unduly negative way, but we are delving into it's shortcomings. It's hardly the first or the only such thread.

While I certainly agree that the fighter is still the most popular class, it's also a class that has always received a lot of criticism. Nothing's changed in that regard. The criticism is perhaps less vicious and invalid than it was last time around, which is a plus, of course, and speaks to 5e's goal of inclusiveness towards fans of past editions.
...particularly long-past editions.

Define "a lot"??

Edit: My impression is that the vast majority of D&D players don't frequent or post to forum boards...and probably don't spend time criticizing the fighter, but I admit I could be way off here... so when you say a lot, is that meant to imply that it's a majority of players doing it?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Define "a lot"?

noun
1.
a particular group, collection, or set of people or things.
2.
an article or set of articles for sale at an auction.
3.
a fixed charge that does not vary with the exact quantity ordered.

;P


Seriously, though, the fighter has long attracted criticism. Think back the Gleemax boards and the Fighter SUX threads. Look at the classes targeted by claims of 'dissociative mechanics.'

Certainly, around here, the Ranger has gotten more criticism than the Fighter, and the Sorcerer is clearly right up there, too. Of course, the Sorcerer was subjected to "a lot" of criticism (and relegated to Tier 2) in 3e, as well.

Heck, even Mearls seems to regret some of the design decisions he made with the fighter, and the newest sub-classes reflect a little tweak in direction, towards less generic design.

 

[Imaro]

Seriously, though, the fighter has long attracted criticism. Think back the Gleemax boards and the Fighter SUX threads. Look at the classes targeted by claims of 'dissociative mechanics.'

Every class attracts criticism from someone... I've never disputed that some people have an issue or issues with the fighter, that's self evident from this thread (and the fact that you seem to be trying to make this both my argument and Mistwell's does seem to strengthen his assertion that you may be creating an argument for posters as opposed to addressing what they are actually stating)... however this turn of the discussion is centered around whether there was/is enough criticism of the 5e fighter to warrant a re-design of the 5e fighter...

Certainly, around here, the Ranger has gotten more criticism than the Fighter, and the Sorcerer is clearly right up there, too. Of course, the Sorcerer was subjected to "a lot" of criticism (and relegated to Tier 2) in 3e, as well.

Well the ranger also got consistently negative feedback and criticism in WotC's own surveys. The sorcerer, again here but I'm not sure it got as much negative feedback in the surveys... but if you have a link showing otherwise I'd be interested in checking it out... Anyway, there is apparently a level at which WotC feels a class should be fixed... The ranger hit that level, sorcerer hasn't and fighter hasn't so far.

Heck, even Mearls seems to regret some of the design decisions he made with the fighter, and the newest sub-classes reflect a little tweak in direction, towards less generic design.

Creators often feel they could have done better... it's part of the process of creating something.

 

[Alexemplar]

Every class attracts criticism from someone... I've never disputed that some people have an issue or issues with the fighter, that's self evident from this thread (and the fact that you seem to be trying to make this both my argument and Mistwell's does seem to strengthen his assertion that you may be creating an argument for posters as opposed to addressing what they are actually stating)... however this turn of the discussion is centered around whether there was/is enough criticism of the 5e fighter to warrant a re-design of the 5e fighter...

It was turned in that direction as a red herring: suggest that the only reason for criticizing of the Fighter's design /must/ be with the end goal of convincing WotC to redesign the Fighter soon, and since WotC has no plans to redesign the Fighter soon, that discussing the Fighter's design absolutely is pointless.

But "get WotC to redesign the Fighter soon" was never the goal of this thread.

 

[Tony Vargas]

... so when you say a lot, is that meant to imply that it's a majority of players doing it?

Oh, heavens no! The most persistent virulent and universal-seeming of criticisms can come from a tiny minority, it's more a measure of determination than numbers..

.
Creators often feel they could have done better... it's part of the process of creating something.

There's always room for improvement...

.
But "get WotC to redesign the Fighter soon" was never the goal of this thread.

An official non-supernatural class in addition to an unchanged fighter would be nice, though...

... But, yeah, not the thread for it. This one's more just refuting the reflexive apologists...

 

[Lehrbuch]

...Well the ranger also got consistently negative feedback and criticism in WotC's own surveys..Anyway, there is apparently a level at which WotC feels a class should be fixed... The ranger hit that level, sorcerer hasn't and fighter hasn't so far.

I doubt that there is anything particularly objective or "level seeking" about WotC's response here.

Probably as much to do with a combination of some of the design team more or less agreeing with the criticism and someone on the design team having A Good Idea for a solution.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Everything the fighter needs can be fixed by improved subclasses.
Same for the ranger and the sorcerer.
Downtime activities for retraining or extra training would do the rest.
A ranger should be able to "attune" to extra terrains. A fighter should be able to retrain his fighting style. A paladin should be able to swear a different oath. And actually jeremy crawford just tweeted, that he just allowed the latter for story reasons.