D&D 5E The Fighter Extra Feat Fallacy

[FrogReaver]

Sorry but this assumption on your part is wrong...

Basic Rules pg. 3

3. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers’
actions. Describing the results often leads to another
decision point, which brings the flow of the game right
back to step 1.
This pattern holds whether the adventurers are
cautiously exploring a ruin, talking to a devious prince,
or locked in mortal combat against a mighty dragon.
In certain situations, particularly combat, the action is
more structured and the players (and DM) do take turns
choosing and resolving actions. But most of the time,
play is fluid and flexible, adapting to the circumstances
of the adventure.

Emphasis mine...This right here says that turns are used in combat but are also used in other situations outside of combat...

I was going to make a big fuss about the apparent lack of understanding between actions and actions and of turns and fluid gameplay but I thought better of it.

 

[Imaro]

I gotta got with Tony V on this one.

@Sadras' example is exactly what I mean when I say the fighter isn't bringing anything to the table that another class isn't. Sure, the fighter can swim that extra distance.

Once.

Meanwhile, the rogue is doing it every round, a higher level ranger is doing it every round, a monk has the bonus base speed to make up for it (and can spend Ki for extra speed FAR more often than a fighter can surge), a barbarian has bonus speed and advantage on swim checks if he wants.

So, what is the fighter doing that other classes can't? And can't do far more often than the fighter can?

IOW, what advantage to the group is there to have a fighter and not another class? The thing is, most of these other classes are certainly competitive in combat, they are contributing quite acceptably in combat. No one, I think, is arguing that a rogue, ranger, monk or barbarian is lacking in combat. They might not be the top of the list, but, they're not far behind either. And, while holding their own in combat, they are contributing far more often and far more effectively out of combat than the fighter can.

That's my basic beef in a nutshell. The fighter is fine as far as it goes. IMO, though, it could be a lot better without breaking the game. Giving fighters a bit more oomph out of combat isn't going to radically alter game balance. It's not like anyone is saying they should get massive benefits. Just a bit more. Make having a fighter at the table actually matter that it's a FIGHTER at the table. Every other class has a niche that says, quite clearly and hopefully in every session, "Yes, I am playing a ____." With fighters, nothing the fighter does makes a strong statement at the table.

So... are we talking about the uniqueness of specific abilities again (I thought we addressed that with feats and ASI's?)? Because it's getting hard to keep up, I thought the point of contention was whether Action Surge could be used in a non-combat situation... boy those goal posts are moving so quickly it's hard to keep up.

 

[Imaro]

I was going to make a big fuss about the apparent lack of understanding between actions and actions and of turns and fluid gameplay but I thought better of it.

Since you quoted me I feel like I should reply but honestly... I'm not sure I really understand your point here.

 

[Hussar]

So... are we talking about the uniqueness of specific abilities again (I thought we addressed that with feats and ASI's?)? Because it's getting hard to keep up, I thought the point of contention was whether Action Surge could be used in a non-combat situation... boy those goal posts are moving so quickly it's hard to keep up.

Nope, no goalposts being shifted. Just different people having different opinions.

Look, no one is saying a fighter is bad. It's not. It's perfectly viable. It gets the job done. It's not like the original PHB ranger (particularly beastmaster) which has some pretty large issues. As issues go, the fighter one is much, much smaller. Really, it's simply a preference thing.

I would prefer to see fighters have a bit more to contribute outside of combat. That's the long and short of it. That a fighter can contribute out of combat isn't the issue for me. It's that the fighter, again for me, brings nothing to the table that can't be done, and probably done better, by another class.

 

[Imaro]

'Footrace' was just a shorthand way of saying 'movement where seconds count.' If there's a situation, out of combat, where climbing a cliff in 21 min 47 seconds makes all the difference vs climbing it in 21 min 50 sec, lovely, Action Surge, FTW.

No let's be honest here it was a dismissive comment to try and wave away the fact that you were wrong, and that Action Surge has out of combat uses.

Flack. Yes. Less flack than for being out-fightered by a self-buffing CoDzilla in a white room or 'casting spells,' respectively, though.

So the complaint of one specific edition vs. the complaint that has followed the fighter across virtually all editions... not even sure how you're comparing them but uhm, ok.

But the sheer amount of flack is little more than the flip side of their most-popular-class status. Both are about the number of folks, be it playing fighters or complaining about fighters (they could even be a lot of the same people!), not to the quality of their actual designs.

Wait so you're saying that the majority of people that play D&D enjoy playing a class that is not well designed for their needs when there are a ton of other classes (claimed by some to be arguably designed better) for them to choose from. That's some convoluted logic right there...

There's this thing called logic that people who are willing to can apply to determine validity.

For instance, the complaint 'all fighters cast spells' is invalid when leveled at 5e: demonstrably, only EKs cast spells via their fighter class abilities. Other fighters might via a feat (if permitted) or background or even item, (Book of Infinite spells made it into 5e, I believe) perhaps, but there are plenty of possible 5e fighters entirely free of spellcasting abilities.

How does answering whether they cast spells or not speak to how well the class is designed? The only thing you did logically is answer that specific question, I've yet to see you lay down the objective criteria for what a well designed class is, even though you're now claiming it's just a matter of applying logic (which because human beings are not vulcans I'm going to disagree with). I've stated what I believe a well designed class is... one that meets (or exceeds since we are being pendantic now) the expectations of the majority of it's users... so how about you tell me how we measure well designed in an objective manner using logic to determine validity of design.

Not if their expectations were that it's design would suck. Exceeding expectations is something businesses shoot for, that might still not require good design in a technical sense. Trendy design might do it, for instance. Or traditional design, even were it demonstrably strictly inferior to more current designs in every measurable way, both quantitative & qualitative. Indeed, a traditional design will likely meet expectations, because it was long experience with it that set those expectations.

Lol... okay now your reasoning is that users of the fighter class have expectations that the class sucks... really? New players (and yes by most yardsticks D&D 5e is bringing in alot of new players) expect the fighter class to suck without having any previous edition experience to draw from. That's your argument here, that D&D players choose to play a class they expect to suck. C'mon man talk about too improbable to merit mention...

There are many possible measures. Some qualitative, like 'elegance.' Others quantitative, like choice points. Some subjective, like 'fun,' others objective, like 'balance.' Many less easily characterized as entirely one or another - balance, depth, playability, etc, etc...

Look it's all well and good that you value those things in a class but that may not be what the majority feel is important and thus when judging if a class is designed well for them it isn't an objectively good trait for a class to be well designed... in fact it may not matter at all to them.

The complexity of the exercise does not render resorting to fallacious reasoning an equally-valid alternative.

You're missing the point... it's not something you can categorize objectively. It's not that it's complex , it's that you can't even quantify it. It's all well and good to claim popularity =/= good design... but when you can't articulate what does well it kind of makes your argument pointless since popularity is the only tangible metric we have to measure at that point.

"10,000 people can't be wrong?" A time-honored advertising slogan. And a time-worn fallacy.

And yet here we are after 3 or 4 posts where you disparage the assumption that the fighter is popular and thus well designed for it's users but have offered nothing concrete in how to determine whether a class is well designed or not. So I'll ask directly... what are the objective measurements of a well designed class? If you can't answer that well then the popularity the class has with D&D users seems to be evidence enough it's been designed well for their purposes.

 

[Imaro]

Nope, no goalposts being shifted. Just different people having different opinions.

Well when you say you're with Tony... It's hard not to assume that you are agreeing with his opinions... which were that action surge can't be used in combat and popularity doesn't mean the fighter is well designed...

Look, no one is saying a fighter is bad. It's not. It's perfectly viable. It gets the job done. It's not like the original PHB ranger (particularly beastmaster) which has some pretty large issues. As issues go, the fighter one is much, much smaller. Really, it's simply a preference thing.

Maybe not outright saying it but it sure is being implied by some when they claim...at best the fighters popularity proves player are above the considerations of good design and DM's compensate for it's bad design....

At worst, it might prove that players like bad designs and enjoy playing strictly inferior characters. ;P At best, it might prove that many players are above such considerations and many DMs well-able to compensate for such issues in play.

I would prefer to see fighters have a bit more to contribute outside of combat. That's the long and short of it. That a fighter can contribute out of combat isn't the issue for me. It's that the fighter, again for me, brings nothing to the table that can't be done, and probably done better, by another class.

And I have no problem with a personal preference around the fighter. It's only when we get to talking about what is or isn't objectively good or bad that it rubs me (and I believe other posters the wrong way).

Look... I've had two players play a fighter (as well as having played one myself in our other DM's campaign) to higher levels (and another one that has asked to switch his cleric to a fighter in our game that just started last week), They never felt that they couldn't contribute to the non-combat pillar, This may be because when I run games I rarely have a challenge that one player has to or can accomplish themselves. The thing is we asked earlier... what does a warlock bring to non-combat that a Bard or Sorcerer can't do as well? And it was never addressed. There's overlap between large swaths of classes so the... have a unique thing... just doesn't seem all that important to me, only that you have resources that can be brought to bear to influence the non-combat pillars.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Yeah, I'm liking my Apple iPod example more and more.

"The iPod is poorly designed. The only reason it's successful is that it's pretty and people are sheep and Apple spends a ton of marketing to them."

"The Fighter is poorly designed. The only reason it's popular...." etc.

 

[Sacrosanct]

So, what is the fighter doing that other classes can't? And can't do far more often than the fighter can? .

Well, this has been pointed out to you in every fighter thread, and at least a couple times here. They get two extra feats no one else gets that either a: give you the choice to do a ton of other things other classes can't via feats, or b: give you higher chances of succeeding on ability checks, attack rolls, and saving throws via ASIs if you don't use feats in the game. In both cases, these are bonuses that can be used over and over without needing rests to recharge for the most part. So not only is this something the fighter gets no one else does, but the other classes can't "do it far more often than the fighter can."


No one else gets two extra ASIs
You can choose to use them on things that greatly increase contribution outside of combat without sacrificing anything because you still have 4 ASIs to bolster primary class features.

Why do you keep ignoring this like it's not a thing? Do you have severe reading comprehension issues? Are you being intentionally dishonest in your argument? I honestly don't know, but can only come to some assumptions because your argument has been debunked over and over and over just in this thread alone and you continue to say it. This is not a different opinion. These are objective facts because we can point to the book where it says they get these things. The fighter does have an out of combat identity. It's call choice. I.e., rather than have a hard baked in unique out of combat feature, you have the choice in what feature you want to use. That does not mean it doesn't exist. If they don't, it only means you chose not to use it that way.

It's like you're arguing that AWD versions of the Ford Fusion don't exist because it's not a base feature of the model. They give you that option when you choose the car. If you choose not to get that option, doesn't mean it's not a feature of the model. And personally, I'd rather have the option of choosing rather than have every model have AWD if I don't need or want it.

 

[FrogReaver]

Yeah, I'm liking my Apple iPod example more and more.

"The iPod is poorly designed. The only reason it's successful is that it's pretty and people are sheep and Apple spends a ton of marketing to them."

"The Fighter is poorly designed. The only reason it's popular...." etc.

God not another apple fanboy

 

[Tony Vargas]

Well when you say you're with Tony... It's hard not to assume that you are agreeing... which were that action surge can't be used in combat

technically, can only be used when initiative has been rolled and play is progressing in turns. That and it has very little potential use out of combat, while being a very limited resource that's very potent in combat. Hussar gave you very clear examples of how other classes can wildly out-perform the tiny, infrequent edge Action Surge might theoretically give the fighter in some corner cases.

and popularity doesn't mean the fighter is well designed...

That's just logic. Popularity can turn on a great many things, some of them wildly irrational. To make the case that the fighter's popularity stems from it being well-designed, you'd have to actually demonstrate the quality of the design, which is tough row to hoe, since you're resorting to the ad populum fallacy in the first place, for want of strong enough evidence to counter the observations that the fighter is inadequate out of combat.

And I have no problem with a personal preference around the fighter. It's only when we get to talking about what is or isn't objectively good or bad that it rubs me the wrong way

Popularity is just personal preference over a larger population. :shrug: You can ignore 'good' or 'bad' and stick to the realities of the design, reserving judgement.

The fighter dukes it out with the barbarian for last place when it comes to out of combat contributions. That can be considered 'good design' if you consider making players sit out much of the play centered around 2 out of 3 pillars based upon the concept they chose to play, to be desirable in the context of D&D. While you might not care to put it that way, it's how D&D has been for a very long time, so it's an understandable expectation, and even preference, for being so long-accustomed. OTOH, it could also be judged 'bad design' if the ideal held up is 'balance' and more-nearly-equal participation from players throughout the game and it's 'pillars.'

(Hmm... a related thought: there may not really have been much point to articulating the pillars, if there wasn't going to be a design intent to make some classes specialized in only one pillar. So that also points to it being intentional, or even 'good' if judged by success in delivering on that intent.)

There's overlap between large swaths of classes so the... have a unique thing... just doesn't seem all that important to me, only that you have resources that can be brought to bear to influence the non-combat pillars.

Agreed. 5e does not seem to have much gone in for 'niche protection' this time around. Any class can poach a bit of some other classes' traditional niche. Anyone can take the criminal background and go about picking locks on chests. The Rogue's Expertise is a major way it shines out of combat, but it's not unique, the Bard also gets it.

In Hussar's example, above, of the Rogue out-doing the fighter's 1/rest Action Surge with an at-will feature of it's own, it's not the lack of uniqueness that's a problem, but the stark inferiority. The fighter doesn't need /unique/ ways to contribute out of combat, so much as concept-appropriate and effective ways - and more versatile - ways. Expertise, for instance, would not be out of place in a fighter sub-class.