D&D 5E The Fighter Extra Feat Fallacy

[Ancalagon]

Ultimately I think most of the concerns about Fighters are for those that in their heart....want to play 5e paladins.

5e paladins are a great class...and very good at a range of things. They have healing, great saves, social skills, big spike damage. They are not as fighty as a fighter, but they are very well rounded.

I think a lot of people playing fighters want that...to which I say...go play a paladin. Paladin don't really have the RP restrictions they used to. You go play a Vengeance paladin, throw off any holy RP, and just go kick butt.

Fighters are great at fighting...and can be built with some decent nudges in other areas. But if that's not enough, the paladin is likely the perfect class for you.

Perhaps this indicates that the real problem is that the paladin is OP?

(jebus, I have been posting the same damn thing to these fighter threads...)

 

[Mistwell]

They already get an even more versatile version of that ability don't they?

Yes, and I am saying I would not have minded if they had ADDED the ability I named. I was not suggesting it be a replacement for something. It's an addition, which would have added a more exploration or social component to the class without removing any of the existing flexibility and combat aspects.

 

[Mistwell]

Of course, a class ability that strictly uses an optional rule is a tad problematic.

Not really. It's a class ability, not an actual feat. It's referencing the text, but it's not an actual feat but instead as if the text of the feat were a class ability. I mean, you could re-write it as "Choose one" and then write out all the text of each of those feats but change it to be named a class ability rather than a feat, but it seems like a needless waste of space. Regardless, I don't really see the problem as it's a class ability which, based on the limitation, does in fact make it less prone to abuse and optimization.

I mean, I have seen one poster here argue Healer is a broken feat with a Rogue (Thief) PC. But given this would have to be around a level 6-9 class ability, it would be a pretty massive investment in Fighter levels to get that Thief combo going. But the rest of the list, I don't recall anyone calling a single one of those other feats broken or abusive or optimized for anything. I think the games been out long enough to know that those feats are not going to result in the unintended consequences that some others have.

 

[Hussar]

/snip
Fighters are great at fighting...and can be built with some decent nudges in other areas. But if that's not enough, the paladin is likely the perfect class for you.

Sorry [MENTION=5889]Stalker0[/MENTION], I'm just spring boarding off your comment, although it's been brought up by more than just you.

No, fighters are not "great at fighting". They aren't. EVERY other fighter type class is better within a given fighting niche than a fighter. Barbarians are much better great weapon fighters. Rangers are much better archers. Paladins are much better defender fighters. Rogues will get far more traction out of two weapon fighting than a fighter ever can.

And that's the issue. Fighters are not good at what they're supposed to be good at. If we're stripping away everything other than combat abilities from a class, then that class SHOULD be best in it's niche. A great weapon wielding fighter should put a barbarian to shame. Robin Hood should be a fighter, not a ranger. But, the fighter isn't coming even close to any of those other characters. Extra attack? That's cute, rangers, monks, barbarians have all had the ability to get 3 attacks per round (and 4 in the case of the monk) since 5th level. Bonus damage? Yeah, I've got Hunter's Mark, Smite and various other goodies.

In the past three campaigns, our group of 6 players have had about 10 fighters. Not one single single classed fighter though. It's the dip class. It's what you take so you can get action surge and self healing. It comes with no flavor of its own and there's pretty much no point in taking more than a couple of levels in it. All the personality and flavor comes from the other class.

I mean, good grief, my current Thule campaign doesn't allow any full casters. None. And still, out of the 5 PC's in the group (we recently lost one of our players) not a single player took a fighter. But, now, they are tipping 6th level and suddenly, everyone's talking about taking that level or two of fighter.

It's a pointless class that, AFAIC, needs a complete reworking.

 

[Lehrbuch]

In the past three campaigns, our group of 6 players have had about 10 fighters. Not one single single classed fighter though...

So, 55% of the PCs (assuming one PC per player, per campaign) have taken Fighter levels. That hardly screams utter failure of game design to me.

 

[Lehrbuch]

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 ...

Except, of course, that in-play many of those other classes are going to find themselves strongly prejudiced against in many (but not all) social situations.

The primitive barbarian savage, demon-worshipping warlock, thieving rogue, meddling wizard, bestial druid, self-righteous paladin, unworldly monk etc., are all facing an uphill battle no matter how great their CHA is.

 

[CapnZapp]

It's a pointless class that, AFAIC, needs a complete reworking.

Sorry Hussar but now I need to be blunt:

Or, perhaps your players need to minmax better.

The Battlemaster and Eldritch Knight are definitely competitive when it comes to killin'.

(This does not mean I deny that the Paladin is probably overpowered, only that I contest that Fighters can't compete when it comes to dealing damage.)

This does assume feats.

 

[CapnZapp]

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

This.

I am having trouble relating to people complaining Fighters are bad at social.

It's not as if the three pillars are given the same amount of attention and weight by the rules, people.

In fact, you don't even need a background or a stat value - you just need to be a charismatic player that dominates social venues. (Of course it helps to pay lip service to your stats, though)

In sharp contrast, the game does not allow you to just talk yourself through a combat. If you can't back up your trashtalk with actual cold hard numbers: to hit, damage, abilities, class features... you simply get nowhere in the combat pillar.

Some of you are talking as if you need to give up X influence in the combat pillar to gain X influence in the social (or exploration) pillar. That simply isn't true, at least if you're reading the same rulebook as I do.

Social simply isn't given even a tenth of the rules attention (or "crunch") as is combat. No, really: the amount of rules concerning social could probably fit on a single page (given a small enough font size . One page, as opposed to the dozens of pages that concern martial and magical combat, survival, damage etc.

It boils down to one simple fact - what is the class called?

Yep, fighter. The fighting man. The class that fights. How on earth can anyone expect it to have actual social abilities? But more importantly, how can anyone expect it to have social abilities on top of the ones every character is getting by default?

It's just like cwbjm says: tell everyone you're rich and influential (you don't actually need to be a noble - every adventurer past the first few levels pass for "rich and influential"), back that up with a positive Charisma modifier, and you're golden in a very minor pillar, as far as this game goes.

 

[Hussar]

So, 55% of the PCs (assuming one PC per player, per campaign) have taken Fighter levels. That hardly screams utter failure of game design to me.

Missing the point. The point is, that while taking fighter levels is certainly common, I've yet to see a single classed fighter. Fighter is the dip class. It's what you take to give your character a bit of oomph. But, it's not what I've seen taken as part of the personality of the character. All that stuff - personality, background, all the actual role playing stuff - comes from the other class. So, we see RANGER/fighters, PALADIN/fighters or whatever.

I've yet to see a FIGHTER.

 

[Ancalagon]

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] - you don't need to be a freaking paladin or ranger to *roleplay* an interesting character. What on earth is this? I'm at a lost here. Play a samurai, a Mongol warrior, a pirate, a Spanish fencer, a cunning mercenary, a world weary veteran... all these can be done perfectly fine with a fighter.

Why? Why do you need to be a paladin or ranger (or barbarian I assume) to roleplay? WHY? "oh I can't roleplay a pirate, I don't have a +2 bonus to damage while on a ship" - is that it!?!? I'm baffled here.