---Quote (Originally by Tony Vargas)---
But, a character with no bonus can also do as well or beat a character with maxed stat bonus and proficiency at +11, because (again) 5e met the Bounded Accuracy design goal. A d20 can overwhelm a +11. Mr. +11 rolls a 3, scores a 14, and fails a DC 15. Mr. +0 rolls a 16 and succeeds. Mr. 0 has saved the day, where Mr. 11 has failed. Que spotlight.
That's the basis for the idea that most characters can participate or even contribute in most out of combat checks, most of the time. And that, in turn, is the basis for the Fighter being able to do much of anything out of combat, at all. That even though other characters may have proficiency or other stacking bonuses, those bonuses can be overwhelmed by a bit of d20 luck.
---End Quote---
What you are stating here is not the same as this...
---Quote (Originally by AbdulAlhazred)---
The critical problem here in the 5e setup is the small growth in bonuses means you can't differentiate between heroes and ordinary people in terms of abilities and skills. The game simply cannot do it. No amount of picking different DCs will change that unless you start picking them purely on fictional grounds and ignoring mechanics.
---End Quote---
True enough, AFAICT, since I can't read Abdul's mind to be certain what he meant.
Not relevant, but true. It doesn't exactly contradict it, though. In both cases, it's a matter of Bounded Accuracy. In my case, a feature - non-specialist characters can remain somewhat relevant when making checks. In his a perceived bug - characters aren't numerically superior enough to ordinary folk to be 'heroic.'
or this...
---Quote (Originally by Tony Vargas)---
You can build a fighter who is really not that bad in the other two pillars, *because any warm body (straight 10 stats, no proficiencies) is, thanks to Bounded Accuracy, really not that bad at any check, and checks apply in all pillars. In fact, you can't avoid doing that with any class, it's the base-line.* Backgrounds will make you competent at another couple skills and maybe the perk will come up once in a while. But, again, that's just part of the base-line, every PC has their Background.
---End Quote---
In this case, though, I do know what I was talking about.
Being able to perform as well as good-stat, proficient character anywhere from a quarter, to perhaps as little as a 10th of the time, is I think, "really not that bad." You might as well try any reasonable task, unless there's a severe enough penalty for failure, or it can only be done by one person at a time.
Now, if you want to disagree, I'd understand. "Really not that bad" is really not that precise.
Right, and the issue is, to be clear, not that the fighter is in some way inferior, it is that the fighter is in no way unique.
I'd say general out-of-combat inferiority is part of it.
There isn't anything that fighters get in terms of an actual capability to do something in the narrative fiction, that every other class cannot possibly do also. A wizard can climb, hide, jump, escape, and even swing a sword. There is in fact not one single general thing that a fighter can do that entirely transcends what a wizard can try to do. He may be poor at some of these things (maybe not too), and he might not be able to try exactly the same mechanical thing in every detail (he can't make multiple attacks, but he can surely swing a sword).
Yet, fictionally, the wizard is far beyond the fighter. He can do things that the fighter, assuming he doesn't become an EK, simply cannot even try. MANY of those things, many spells, can allow him without any sort of check to do things a fighter cannot try at all, like fly or walk invisibly through a crowded room.
Sounds kinda inferior.
I don't know that there's ultimately a 'fix' for this, except to get some spell casting if you want, but the argument is that at least one edition
Not the part of the argument I'd prefer to get into. But, as to a 'fix,' there's all sorts of possibilities.
From the player side, very simply, don't play a fighter if it doesn't do enough to keep you entertained.
From the DM side, the possibilities are endless: You could re-write the fighter class, or the skill system.
You could also just arbitrarily rule the fighter succeeds much of the time.
You could hammer the limits faced by casters - for instance, by forcing 'long' adventuring days.
You could (and, generally, IMHO, should) keep challenges highly varied - it keeps the game 'fresh,' makes it harder for prepped casters to anticipate the best spells for the day, and forces players to mix up their tactics.
He was like the Motorcycle Bandit vs the Pixie Summoner instead of BMX Bandit vs Angel Summoner. I thought it worked out a little better overall.
Pixie summoning is still, like, totally broken. Little buggers have no ethical restraints, y'know.
That being said, you do have the choice in 5e to be an EK or MC into wizard, or whatever. I do sometimes wish there was some more 'fightery' magic though.
You can take your fighter EK for arcane magic, or play a Paladin for a divine-magic-using knightly fighter, or a ranger for a nature-magic woodsy one. There's no Fighter-Sorcerer or Fighter-Warlock (Hexblade!), but there's always MCing if your DM uses it. I think bringing in magic as the solution to magic being too good is certainly a viable option.
I do sometimes wish there was some more 'fightery' magic though.
I'm afraid to ask, but what would that be? Up until the 5e EK (the 3.5 EK was a PrC, the 4e EK was a Theme), the fighter class, itself, never cast spells. What would 'fightery magic' be that isn't covered by the EK?