D&D 5E The Fighter Extra Feat Fallacy

Tony Vargas said:

The popularity of the fighter proves the fighter is popular. It doesn't disprove any objective qualities of the fighter class 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. IMHO, the most likely causation is neither of those, but simply that the most popular character concepts can only be approached with the fighter class (followed closely by those for which the rogue, wizard, & barbarian are most appropriate or intuitive).

Click to expand...

Or... and you seem to always miss this one when talking about the fighter... the class is actually designed well (where that means it meets the desires of what the majority of users want out of the class). And that in turn leads to popularity.

FrogReaver said:

It would be cool if you could find a poll question to check if players play more ranged or melee fighters.

Click to expand...

Do you play more ranged or melee fighters?

__ more ranged
__ more melee

FrogReaver said:

I can actually see an option to expend Action Surge to give it a use in out of combat situations. Possibly advantage on a single str or dex check?

Anyways just thinking out loud.

Click to expand...

Action surge already has uses out of combat.

I've used it very much like I described earlier, about reaching a child before he's swept over a waterfall.

In my case, it was the party sorcerer getting swept to his demise.

Imaro said:

Or... and you seem to always miss this one when talking about the fighter... the class is actually designed well (where that means it meets the desires of what the majority of users want out of the class). And that in turn leads to popularity.

Click to expand...

That line of thought (and is repeated often) never makes sense to me. I would think Occam's Razor is at play here.

"The fighter sucks and is broken and bad design."
"It's the most popular class and polls well with gamers."
"That just means most gamers are OK with bad design."

bwuh? That's a bit of a leap of an assumption.

More likely, it's not bad design. We already know the fighter has to cover the most archetypes in fantasy literature and media, and thus can't be as narrowly designed as any other class. So the design goals of the class are a bit different than other classes. I've long made the argument that it is a good design because:

Objection 1: "It can't do anything out of combat." Yes it can. That's why you get two EXTRA ASIs/feats over anyone else. Instead of a hard baked non combat ability, they give you the choice to choose which out of combat ability you want to have, and you're still one of the best in combat by using the standard 4 ASIs towards combat + other class abilities
Objection 2: "But if you use those two bonus ASIs/feats for out of combat, you're not the best in combat." Well, if you DID use all 6 feats to combat related things, you most certainly will be. Again, it's your choice. The fighter, supposed to be the best in combat, CAN be the best at combat if you choose. Or be great at combat and also be good in out of combat.
Objection 3: "The paladin and barbarian can be better by smiting and raging." Well, the fighter was never meant to be nova outside of action surge. The fighter is meant to keep hitting hard forever and ever and not have you dependent on recharging after resting to be really good in combat. Extra ASIs and things like 3 attacks are permanent and impact every round of combat, regardless of how many encounters you have in a day. Rage and smite are not.
Objection 4: "Fighter's are boring." No they aren't. Players are boring.
Objection 5: "The fighter doesn't do what I want it to do." There is no rule that every class has to appeal to every player. Luckily there are lots of classes to choose from. I don't like bards. That doesn't mean the bard is a badly designed class.

With the way 5e is designed, the fighter gives me tons of choice, which I love. It eliminates the need to multiclass with how feats and backgrounds are structured. Between champion, battle master, and EK, I can replicate just about every fantasy archetype warrior with the fighter chassis. To me, that is GOOD design, and the team deserves kudos for that. I think it's much more probable that most people agree with me and that's why it's a popular class, than it is that most gamers are OK with bad design.

Satyrn said:

Action surge already has uses out of combat.

Click to expand...

This is probably the number 2 or 3 way to dismiss the fighter's out-of-combat shortcomings. (After the Fabulous Fighter Feat Fallacy the OP debunked, and invoking the warm-body contributions possible under BA, I'd say.)

Strictly speaking, though, Action Surge is an ability you use on your turn, to take an extra action. You do not have turns out of combat, and can take all the actions you want in most non-combat situations, so, by an utterly-inappropriate-to-5e-philosophy close reading of RAW, you both can't use Action Surge out of combat, and it has no effect out of combat.

That said, a DM ruling that you can expend Action Surge to get some benefit out of combat is perfectly reasonable - as is the DM ruling the same about expending any other resource - and virtually all sub-classes have more, more versatile, and more out-of-combat-significant resources than the Champion/BM fighter's action surge.

Imaro said:

Or... and you seem to always miss this one when talking about the fighter... the class is actually designed well (where that means it meets the desires of what the majority of users want out of the class). And that in turn leads to popularity.

Click to expand...

In that form, both popularity and good design are premises. The popularity has been amply demonstrated. The quality of it's design, however, has not been.

OTOH, it's also been more than amply demonstrated that the fighter has been the most popular class throughout the game's history, even as it's designs have varied radically. That points to the popularity being independent from design considerations, whether that design is at it's most-elegant (3.x), least-imbalanced (4e), most-OP-DPR (2e), or original/definitive (0e). In addition, while the fighter has been the most popular class in every edition, it's design and performance have garnered criticism in ever edition, as well, being tossed in Tier 5 for 3.x, decried as 'casting spells' in the edition war, characterized as 'the weak cousin' in it's own 2e supplement, or whatever.

So I am not missing that possibility, rather I am discounting it as too improbable to merit mention.

Tony Vargas said:

This is probably the number 2 or 3 way to dismiss the fighter's out-of-combat shortcomings. (After the Fabulous Fighter Feat Fallacy the OP debunked, and invoking the warm-body contributions possible under BA, I'd say.)

Strictly speaking, though, Action Surge is an ability you use on your turn, to take an extra action. You do not have turns out of combat, and can take all the actions you want in most non-combat situations, so, by an utterly-inappropriate-to-5e-philosophy close reading of RAW, you both can't use Action Surge out of combat, and it has no effect out of combat.

That said, a DM ruling that you can expend Action Surge to get some benefit out of combat is perfectly reasonable - as is the DM ruling the same about expending any other resource - and virtually all sub-classes have more, more versatile, and more out-of-combat-significant resources than the Champion/BM fighter's action surge.

Click to expand...

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...

So there are times in non-combat situations where action surge is useful, IMO...mainly when distance and time are a factor.

Tony Vargas said:

In that form, both popularity and good design are premises. The popularity has been amply demonstrated. The quality of it's design, however, has not been.

OTOH, it's also been more than amply demonstrated that the fighter has been the most popular class throughout the game's history, even as it's designs have varied radically. That points to the popularity being independent from design considerations, whether that design is at it's most-elegant (3.x), least-imbalanced (4e), most-OP-DPR (2e), or original/definitive (0e). In addition, while the fighter has been the most popular class in every edition, it's design and performance have garnered criticism in ever edition, as well, being tossed in Tier 5 for 3.x, decried as 'casting spells' in the edition war, characterized as 'the weak cousin' in it's own 2e supplement, or whatever.

So I am not missing that possibility, rather I am discounting it as too improbable to merit mention.

Click to expand...

Strangely enough the main complaint about the fighter, even the 4e fighter, has been a lack of versatility... that stated I would assume it's the same subset complaining about this (since it's the same complaint every time) and claiming the class is an example of "bad design"... what that seems to imply is that it's a minority of D&D players and that in general the design of every fighter of every edition has been objectively good enough to be considered played by the majority of players of D&D (popularity) as well as designed well enough as to offset that problem (which IMO would mean the class can't be considered objectively bad in design)... again for the majority of players of D&D. So no, I don't think it's too improbable to merit mention, but moreso you seem to be assuming your own preferences and biases are necessarily in line with what is "good" design wise... when they just may not be.

Imaro said:

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

Click to expand...

It implies that, sure. Do we get any actual rules or examples, or is it just another area where the DM is left plenty of latitude to fill things in?

...and, you'll note, I did lampshade that RAW isn't exactly the best way to interpret 5e...

So there are times in non-combat situations where action surge is useful, IMO...mainly when distance and time are a factor.

Click to expand...

Yep, you might have to win a foot race or something now and then. They're not necessarily at all common, but in those corner cases it could come up. Action Surge is a very potent combat resource to sacrifice, though, and, for instance, the Rogue might pull similar tricks with the extra Dash from Cunning Action - and that's not a limited resource, it's 1/rnd.

Strangely enough the main complaint about the fighter, even the 4e fighter, has been a lack of versatility...

Click to expand...

Certainly one of them. The 3.5 optimization Tiers for instance, were at least as much a ranking by versatility as by power, though the fighter scored low on both, and 'Fighter SUX' threads of the day were more often about how CoDzilla could out-fighter-the-fighter rather than the fighter being unable to meld into stone or whatever. Similarly, the 4e fighter was far more harshly criticized for 'casting spells' or 'controlling minds' than for lacking ritual casting.

But, in this case, increased versatility could directly address the particular topic of this thread, for instance.

I would assume it's the same subset complaining about this (since it's the same complaint every time) and claiming the class is an example of "bad design"... what that seems to imply is that it's a minority of D&D players

Click to expand...

Yes, the folks vocally complaining about a problem are usually a small, well, vocal minority. That doesn't make them wrong, automatically, it's the validity of the complaint that determines that.

... again for the majority of players of D&D.

Click to expand...

... again, argumentum ad populum. You can't argue "the fighter is popular because it's good, and, as proof, observe that it must be good, because it's popular!" Or rather, you can, and have, repeatedly, it's just transparently bad reasoning. If you want to argue the conclusion that the fighter is popular because it's design is good, you'll have to demonstrate that both premises: both 'popular,' and 'good design,' are true, without referencing the one to 'prove' the other.
Popular's easy.

'Good design?' Good luck. I'd rather defend the 3.x fighter on that one, subjective as 'elegance' can be as a design virtue....

Tony Vargas said:

It implies that, sure. Do we get any actual rules or examples, or is it just another area where the DM is left plenty of latitude to fill things in?

...and, you'll note, I did lampshade that RAW isn't exactly the best way to interpret 5e...

Click to expand...

There's no implication... it states it.

Tony Vargas said:

Yep, you might have to win a foot race or something now and then. They're not necessarily at all common, but in those corner cases it could come up. Action Surge is a very potent combat resource to sacrifice, though, and, for instance, the Rogue might pull similar tricks with the extra Dash from Cunning Action - and that's not a limited resource, it's 1/rnd.

Click to expand...

And here I thought climbing, swimming, and running were pretty much go to's when it came to exploration (in the game and in the genre of fantasy) and all are based around time and movement... but yeah if all you got is footraces I could see how you'd thing Action Surge didn't have non-combat uses... not sure if that's an issue with the game though

Tony Vargas said:

Certainly one of them. The 3.5 optimization Tiers for instance, were at least as much a ranking by versatility as by power, though the fighter scored low on both, and 'Fighter SUX' threads of the day were more often about how CoDzilla could out-fighter-the-fighter rather than the fighter being unable to meld into stone or whatever. Similarly, the 4e fighter was far more harshly criticized for 'casting spells' or 'controlling minds' than for lacking ritual casting.

Click to expand...

That's funny I remember the 3e and 4e fighter taking a lot of slack for both being one of the classes to get the lowest number of skills/skill points in both editions...

Tony Vargas said:

But, in this case, increased versatility could directly address the particular topic of this thread, for instance.

Click to expand...

As well as issues voiced about the 3e & 4e fighters... funny that, huh?

Tony Vargas said:

Yes, the folks vocally complaining about a problem are usually a small, well, vocal minority. That doesn't make them wrong, automatically, it's the validity of the complaint that determines that.

Click to expand...

Too bad there's no neutral arbiter to determine if a complaint is valid or not...

Tony Vargas said:

... again, argumentum ad populum. You can't argue "the fighter is popular because it's good, and, as proof, observe that it must be good, because it's popular!" Or rather, you can, and have, repeatedly, it's just transparently bad reasoning. If you want to argue the conclusion that the fighter is popular because it's design is good, you'll have to demonstrate that both premises: both 'popular,' and 'good design,' are true, without referencing the one to 'prove' the other.

Click to expand...

Wouldn't good design for a game mean it meets the expectations of the majority of it's users? Wouldn't the way to test that be to see if the majority of users are happy with it? That's the problem with you claiming popularity doesn't equate to good design... for a game it kind of goes hand in hand. I'm not sure how else you measure "good design" when it comes to a game. Certainly a game whose design leads to it disappointing the majority of it's user base can't be considered good design, can it... as it failed at it's main goal, mainly getting people to play and enjoy said game regardless of it's elegance, transparency or whatever other buzzword we want to use to describe it...

Tony Vargas said:

Popular's easy.

Click to expand...

If you say so... I know a ton of people who'd love to make money off this easy formula... could you share it?

Tony Vargas said:

'Good design?' Good luck. I'd rather defend the 3.x fighter on that one, subjective as 'elegance' can be as a design virtue....

Click to expand...

Never said good design was easy but you keep claiming the merits of good design don't rely on popularity when with a game they kind of do. the ultimate goal of a game is to be played... the more it facilitates and gets people to play, the better it's design (at least in an objective sense). You or I may not like an individual games design but that doesn't speak to it's design being good or bad, only that it's not to our liking... however if 10 people claim something in a game is badly designed and 10,000 people are having a great time with it... I'm going to go with it generally being objectively good design.

Imaro said:

And here I thought climbing, swimming, and running were pretty much go to's when it came to exploration... but yeah if all you got is footraces

Click to expand...

'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.

That's funny I remember the 3e and 4e fighter taking a lot of slack for both being one of the classes to get the lowest number of skills/skill points in both editions...

Click to expand...

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

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.

Too bad there's no neutral arbiter to determine if a complaint is valid or not...

Click to expand...

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.

Wouldn't good design for a game mean it meets the expectations of the majority of it's users?

Click to expand...

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.

I'm not sure how else you measure "good design" when it comes to a game.

Click to expand...

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...

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

You or I may not like an individual games design but that doesn't speak to it's design being good or bad, only that it's not to our liking... however if 10 people claim something in a game is badly designed and 10,000 people are having a great time with it... I'm going to go with it generally being objectively good design.

Click to expand...

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

I gotta got with Tony V on this one.
[MENTION=6688277]Sadras[/MENTION]' 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.