D&D 5E The Charismatic Fighting "Hero" - Which Core Class does it Best?

Elfcrusher said:

Maybe the answer to this question depends on how you define "heroic"...

Click to expand...

When I constantly feel the need to airbrush a gleam coming from your teeth when you smile? Anyone who can give an Ancient Red Dragon the wink and guns routine and be taken seriously? Any character who does something rousing or stirring at least once a game session (but only in sessions rated PG or lower). I could go on...

The poll outcome looks like I would imagine. I also think it is very close to truth. Look up hero in the dictionary and the paladin’s picture is next to it. The bard is great but is closer to the scoundrel type imho.

Man in the Funny Hat said:

Any class can suffice. It ain't what you play - it's how you play it.

Click to expand...

Want to play Orpheus? Have a 3.0 Commoner with a kazoo.

(You've got a funny hat, too, y'might just pull it off.)

MostlyHarmless42 said:

First, it heavily favors the paladin or the bard

Click to expand...

I think it's fair to say the system does that - both have very significant return on CHA, a Bard would conventionally be CHA-primary, a Paladin at worst, CHA secondary.

as the elimination of feats and non-players handbook subclasses *completely* neuters the fighter in pretty much all possible versions of the archetypical "hero".

Click to expand...

To be fair, they are both explicitly optional, and not every table may opt in.

The entire advantage the fighter has here is extra feats,

Click to expand...

Ironically, turning feats on could hurt this concept, for the fighter - Yeah, there's an ideal feat, inspiring leader - that all 3 hypothetical characters can take at 4th, but there's a number of other tempting feats for the fighter, who needs his bonus ASIs to shore up his CHA without sacrficing his basic fighter effectiveness.

simpler class complexity (which allows a focus on roleplaying instead of managing mechanics),

Click to expand...

That's just sad.

and several fighter subclasses (purple dragon knight/banneret, samurai, and the cavalier)

Click to expand...

Sure, but they'd each need their own spot on the poll, since they can't be combined.
And, the PDK, is the obvious candidate, clearly designed for the concept based on its fluff, yet it gets zero mechanical leverage for CHA, if anything, it's Persuasion expertise let's it make up for skimping on CHA. (Thats not actually a bad design, because CHA is a poor investment for any fighter.)

Second, dont underestimate the strength of a mastermind/washbuckler rogue, an order cleric, or celestial blade warlock (all of which with a high charisma) with the proper background or feats.

Click to expand...

Any CHA caster who can cheese up melee adequacy would be a good candidate, mechanically.

Tony Vargas said:

I think it's fair to say the system does that - both have very significant return on CHA, a Bard would conventionally be CHA-primary, a Paladin at worst, CHA secondary.

Click to expand...

Respectfully, ALL characters receive a great benefit from a high charisma. When we are specifically talking about what makes a good party leader and hero who inspires others through words, the most important thing *IS* perficiency in persuasion and a high charisma.

To be fair, they are both explicitly optional, and not every table may opt in.

Ironically, turning feats on could hurt this concept, for the fighter - Yeah, there's an ideal feat, inspiring leader - that all 3 hypothetical characters can take at 4th, but there's a number of other tempting feats for the fighter, who needs his bonus ASIs to shore up his CHA without sacrficing his basic fighter effectiveness.

Click to expand...

Except that the fighter shouldn't *have* a low charisma first place if you are actually rolling a character of the sort we are talking. Charisma should be the second highest stat of not equal to strength or dexterity. His stats should be treated *exactly* like a paladin, which you seem to think is perfectly reasonable to have a high charisma. The difference being that a fighter will end up with two extra feats or ability score increases the paladin *doesn't* have and will have a fighter core class instead of the paladin.

I definitely agree that by base classes alone the fighter falls short of the paladin in terms of being a party leader or party face, but once again, the extra ability score increases mean getting inspiring leader and whatever other feats you need (i.e. shield master, sentinel, great weapon master, etc.) *without* sacrificing increasing your strength/dexterity or charisma from leveling up like the paladin or even bars does. And if you are in a game without feats, they gain bumps to their strength and charisma faster than the paladin OR bard, something which can actually matter when you remember most games dont reach past level 10 anyway.

Even after ALL of that, the fighter has few distinct advantages over the paladin: the subclasses not included in the poll allow the fighter to gain expertise in persuasion (something a hero/face does a lot), and the fighter has an option to be a dexterity based fighter (or used ranged combat) if they so choice. We can debate if dex or strength fighters are "better", but it's a character option paladins dont have, and dexterous heroes do exist in fiction.

That's just sad.

Click to expand...

No. It isn't. The question of what is "best" for d&d is subjective and entirely dependent what someone finds appealing and fun, and even minmaxing can have different goals in mind. To argue otherwise reeks of "One True Fun". The other options, bard and paladin, both come with either being a full caster with less health/lower ac, and being one of the most complex character classes in the game alongside (mostly due to previous editions) religious baggage and oaths that must be followed in character. You might not balk at complex character builds, but some players actually prefer a simpler character with less fiddly bits to keep track up (it's why stuff like the champion and warlock exist and for them the word "best" doesn't mean suffering from decision paralysis or having to look up spells mid fight), or their concept might not work well with being forced to be a spellcaster or in service of a God in order to play a brave leader.

Sure, but they'd each need their own spot on the poll, since they can't be combined.
And, the PDK, is the obvious candidate, clearly designed for the concept based on its fluff, yet it gets zero mechanical leverage for CHA, if anything, it's Persuasion expertise let's it make up for skimping on CHA. (Thats not actually a bad design, because CHA is a poor investment for any

Click to expand...

I would not discount the cavalier or samurai as both subclasses get persuasion and for some being a "hero" could be protecting their allies (cavalier) or surviving great odds (samurai). Yes, they would require their own spot, and perhaps they should be on the poll. Or perhaps, maybe they are all under one class, what was it called again? Oh yeah! Fighter. And this is not even being up college of glamour bard being a FAR better leader than Valor...also in xanathar's.

You also seem to be under the misconception that charisma is useless to fighters, despite like 75% of being a party face is merely rolling charisma (persuasion) checks and having a high charisma being *literally the point* of the character builds you are debating.

My point is that by not allowing feats and those subclasses you are neutering the fighter unfairly and underestimating what it is capable of. Feats are one thing as they are a varient rule, but the poll should at the very least be changed to allow all official material or all Adventures League legal material.

Tony Vargas said:

Sam sure seemed like he had a high Loyalty Base.
A protagonist in fantasy/myth/legend, that is a) a warrior, and b) not exclusively on a solo quest the whole time, is probably a Charismatic Fighting Hero. He may grow into the charismatic part, especially in more modern fantasy offerings which often have coming-of-age elements, or he may have only occasional, temporary allies rather than a band of loyal companions like Robin Hood, but protagonists in heroic fantasy are rarely lacking the CHA departement.

Click to expand...

Frodo has a small group of loyal friends, and doesn't do too badly negotiating with neutrals. He critically fails his charisma check with Gollum though. Give him a charisma in the 12-14 range and proficiency in Persuade. No reason to suppose he belongs to a class that gains mechanical advantage from a high charisma.

As for the others, you are casting your net very wide. It basically includes any hero with a charisma over 10 and/or proficiency in Persuade. The idea that they should either be a battlemaster, a bard or a paladin is silly. Conan is a barbarian. Jon Snow is a ranger.

As for Errol Flynn/Robin, Indiana Jones, D'Artagan, Zorro:

Swashbuckler, Swashbuckler, Swashbuckler, Swashbuckler...

Paul Farquhar said:

As for the others, you are casting your net very wide.

Click to expand...

Charismatic Warrior Hero is a pretty broad archetype. There are /many/ examples.

It basically includes any hero with a charisma over 10 and/or proficiency in Persuade. The idea that they should either be a battlemaster, a bard or a paladin is silly. Conan is a barbarian. Jon Snow is a ranger.

Click to expand...

You're presuming a conclusion.
Archetypes and characters from fiction don't have D&D CHA, and aren't a D&D class - they are what they are - D&D can be used to try to model them by choosing stats, race, class and so forth.
And it can often model them poorly, or inefficiently.

MostlyHarmless42 said:

Respectfully, ALL characters receive a great benefit from a high charisma.

Click to expand...

Which means those universal benefits, have no bearing on weather a given class is a good choice for a 'Charismatic' concept.

When we are specifically talking about what makes a good party leader and hero who inspires others through words, the most important thing *IS* perficiency in persuasion and a high charisma.

Click to expand...

Exactly what does that do to inspire his party? PCs aren't mind-controlled by persuasion, so how are you leading, exactly? How does that compare to doing the same things with CHA & Persuasion /and/ giving them a nice bonus to saving throws?

Except that the fighter shouldn't *have* a low charisma first place if you are actually rolling a character of the sort we are talking.

Click to expand...

The question is should you be rolling a fighter, at all if that's the sort of character you want to play?

The fluff of Battlemaster and PDK certainly imply it, but the mechanical support is slim compared to the Paladin or Bard.

I definitely agree that by base classes alone the fighter falls short of the paladin in terms of being a party leader or party face, but once again, the extra ability score increases mean getting inspiring leader and whatever other feats you need

Click to expand...

Actually, it's more like getting you second feat 2 levels early. But, the OP maximized the impact of the fighters bonus ASI by specifying filling the concept /at 6th level/.

No. It isn't. The question of what is "best" for d&d is subjective and entirely dependent what someone finds appealing and fun, and even minmaxing can have different goals in mind.

Click to expand...

Its really pretty straightforward. Any class can max CHA and take persuasion, the, question is, what are the consequences and perks of doing so /for that class/.

A wizard prioritizing INT over CHA is a worse wizard, and gets nothing in return, a Bard, Sorc, or Warlock doing so is the best caster they can be.

So it's just a practical look at mechanics.

The other options, bard and paladin, both come with either being a full caster with less health/lower ac,

Click to expand...

And that is a strike against them, as the archetype rarely evinces supernatural powers, let alone casts spells.

You also seem to be under the misconception that charisma is useless to fighters, .

Click to expand...

I am not, I pointed out that the BM's Rally Manuever leverages CHA. It's just a really small amount of leverage. If you bring in feats, and thus Inspiring Leader, it becomes almost trivial by comparison.

The thing is, characters in stories don't point-buy their attributes. They can have a high charisma without having to lower other stats.

Paul Farquhar said:

The thing is, characters in stories don't point-buy their attributes. They can have a high charisma without having to lower other stats.

Click to expand...

They don't random-roll them, either.
They don't have numeric stats, at all. It's numeric stats (and classes &c) in the game that are /trying/ (often unsuccessfully) to model them.

When you're trying to model an archetype with a character class, though, everything that class choice touches comes up. What benefits you get from which stat, and the trade-offs that creates becomes very relevant. So if you're trying to model a concept that's pretty good in melee, and "inspiring" to a significant degree, a class that gives lots of benefits for STR or DEX, but virtually none for CHA wouldn't be great. While one that gives benefits for STR/DEX /and/ CHA - though still not able to 'afford' maxing both, at least faces a more practicable trade-off when balancing the two.

I considered the wider issue a while back, and the answer was surprisingly simple. Firstly, I fell back on, 'You only roll if the result is in doubt'. So, if the PC is being heroic, she automatically succeeds and you don't roll. You have to apply this to the whole party, of course. Secondly, if you do require a roll, you can allow stat substitution, given reason. A fighter-type might flex his muscles (Str or Con) or a mage might make an impressive argument (Int).

I voted Other, because None of the Above wasn't an option. Battlemaster Fighter fails step 2 (it has no direct mechanical benefit from Charisma). Paladin struggles with step 3, as apart from (purely magical...) healing, it's not actually very good at Leading or Inspiring. Bard fails at Step 1; even a Valor Bard is not a warrior, it's primarily a caster, a sage that just includes a small amount of fighting ability.

None of these classes actually models the requested thing: at-core Warrior nature, Charisma as a core mechanical focus, and mechanical ability to Lead or Inspire, all without feats or variant rules.

If I was forced to pick one of the three, though, it would have to be Paladin. It comes closest to accomplishing the goal. I just don't believe it does accomplish the goal.

Edit:
To clarify, one might argue that Aura of Protection is Inspiring or Leadership since it provides a saving bonus to allies, but I don't see that as either. It's a powerful and supportive ability, without question. But it's an Aura of Magic Awesome, not "wow, I'm so INSPIRED by him, I'm going to move faster and dodge this fireball!" It may seem an overly subtle distinction to some, but it's a big one for me. That is, a Paladin's aura affects allies regardless of their mental or physical status. An unconscious ally still benefits. An animal companion still benefits. If the Wizard summons a slime or some other mindless creature, it still benefits. It's not leadership or inspiration, it's divine power simply suffusing any living thing that fights next to the Paladin. Great, powerful, but not inspiring. Leastwise, assuming we're still committed to this "natural language" thing so many people get all aflutter over.