D&D 5E So what's exactly wrong with the fighter?

[FormerlyHemlock]

None of the so called "non combat" feats would have done much for my character. My charisma was too low to make use of actor (and I never had an opportunity to disguise myself as someone else). Traps aren't frequent enough for dungeon delver to be useful. If I took skilled, I still would have been worse at every single skill check than someone else in the party.

It sounds like you want someone who is not just competent at something but the hands-down best at it. Presumably you have a highly-specialized and highly-cohesive party--you say it's a negative to have someone who is better at a skill than you, so I'm guessing this is one of those parties where e.g. only the Face is allowed to talk to NPCs, and if you have a good idea during negotiations ("hey, why don't we offer them half of the treasure in order to join us?") you write it down on a piece of paper and pass it to the Face. Presumably sneaking is only done by the Monk/Rogue with maximized Stealth. I'm not trying to be snarky here, just trying to confirm my guess before offering a suggestion:

In this kind of party, if I wanted to be a "fighter with a shtick," I'd probably pick up the Healer feat. Being the party Medic-with-a-Greataxe gives a lot of excellent RP flavor potential; it offers potentially interesting choices during combat ("do I heal my buddy or unleash another attack"); it transforms you from a one-dimensional character to a two-dimensional character; and it enhances party power by minimizing the amount of Clerical/Druid/Bardic power that has to go into healing wounds, leaving more for stuff like Conjure Animals and Guardian of the Faith.

The other option would be to pick up Lucky, which is kind of like +5 to any skill. You can be the guy who sneaks around successfully in heavy armor, the guy who just happens to know what a Rakshasa's vulnerability is, the guy who successfully climbs the menhir to retrieve the roc's egg (Athletics + high Str + Lucky probably does make you the best at Athetics even if there's a Valor Bard with Athletics Expertise in the party), etc. Also you can be the guy who doesn't get his brain eaten by intellect devourers, which is nice. Given your desire for out-of-combat utility I would have picked Lucky over Resilient (Wisdom).

 

[Ashkelon]

It sounds like you want someone who is not just competent at something but the hands-down best at it. Presumably you have a highly-specialized and highly-cohesive party--you say it's a negative to have someone who is better at a skill than you, so I'm guessing this is one of those parties where e.g. only the Face is allowed to talk to NPCs, and if you have a good idea during negotiations ("hey, why don't we offer them half of the treasure in order to join us?") you write it down on a piece of paper and pass it to the Face. Presumably sneaking is only done by the Monk/Rogue with maximized Stealth. I'm not trying to be snarky here, just trying to confirm my guess before offering a suggestion:

In this kind of party, if I wanted to be a "fighter with a shtick," I'd probably pick up the Healer feat. Being the party Medic-with-a-Greataxe gives a lot of excellent RP flavor potential; it offers potentially interesting choices during combat ("do I heal my buddy or unleash another attack"); it transforms you from a one-dimensional character to a two-dimensional character; and it enhances party power by minimizing the amount of Clerical/Druid/Bardic power that has to go into healing wounds, leaving more for stuff like Conjure Animals and Guardian of the Faith.

The other option would be to pick up Lucky, which is kind of like +5 to any skill. You can be the guy who sneaks around successfully in heavy armor, the guy who just happens to know what a Rakshasa's vulnerability is, the guy who successfully climbs the menhir to retrieve the roc's egg (Athletics + high Str + Lucky probably does make you the best at Athetics even if there's a Valor Bard with Athletics Expertise in the party), etc. Also you can be the guy who doesn't get his brain eaten by intellect devourers, which is nice. Given your desire for out-of-combat utility I would have picked Lucky over Resilient (Wisdom).

I don't want to be the best at everything. It would be nice to be the better than other party members at something though. Right now, that isn't ever really the case. The Druid can shapeshift into stronger creatures than me. The bard has expertise in athletics. The warlock has jump castable at will. And when the going gets really rough, any spellcaster can cast a spell to automatically succeed at a task I normally have a 50% chance or more to FAIL. Expertise in Athletics would be more than enough to ensure that fighters are good at athletics (only being surpassed by spells or rogues with reliable talent).

Also I find it amusing that you feel a 3/day reroll is enough to make you competent outside of combat. Clearly haven't played the game very much.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I don't want to be the best at everything. It would be nice to be the better than other party members at something though. Right now, that isn't ever really the case. The Druid can shapeshift into stronger creatures than me. The bard has expertise in athletics. The warlock has jump castable at will. And when the going gets really rough, any spellcaster can cast a spell to automatically succeed at a task I normally have a 50% chance or more to FAIL. Expertise in Athletics would be more than enough to ensure that fighters are good at athletics (only being surpassed by spells or rogues with reliable talent).

Also I find it amusing that you feel a 3/day reroll is enough to make you competent outside of combat. Clearly haven't played the game very much.

Dude. You're not my nemesis. My nemesis... is Captain Hammer.

No, I haven't played PCs as much as I would like because I DM. Because I DM I know the frequency with which players make skill checks, and I know that Lucky would be very useful. Maybe I haven't played your game much, so I don't know how often you actually engage in dialogue with NPCs, but if your criteria is "I only talk to people who have played at my table" why are you on Enworld at all?

If you had taken Lucky, you would be better than the bard at Athletics. (Well, maybe. It depends on frequency of checks and how much the bard has pumped Strength, and what level you guys are at. At level 8 for example, a Str 20 Lucky Fighter has +8, whereas a Str 14 Valor Bard with Expertise has +8, and the fighter can reroll failure so he is clearly superior. A level 12 Str 20 Valor Bard with Athletics expertise and specialized in grappling via the Grappler feat is obviously much harder to top.)

 

[cloa513]

All class groups should have some sort of magic- non-true magic users are more like tricks which have different mechanics to magic users. If bards and rogue can have spell effect then there is plenty of general fantasy reasons for warriors to have spell-like effect. Bards should have only have magic through music or art taking inspiration from Orpheus or Pied Piper. Rogues only through misdirection and sneakiness. Warriors through leadership, controlled power, weapons/armour flexibility and skill.

 

[Minigiant]

There are 18 Skills in 5th edition.

If in a part of 4 PCs, 3 can cover all 18 skills better than the last person... the party has a some other problems.

Even covering all 4 with 4 PCs is hard. That's not counting skills you want multiples of as well like Stealth and Perception.

 

[Ashkelon]

There are 18 Skills in 5th edition.If in a part of 4 PCs, 3 can cover all 18 skills better than the last person... the party has a some other problems.Even covering all 4 with 4 PCs is hard. That's not counting skills you want multiples of as well like Stealth and Perception.

Sure, there are 16 skills, but some skills aren't all that useful. Animal Handling, Performance, and Investigation are rarely used or help very little in exploration or social encounters. These skills seem most useful for RP purposes. These skills really should only be chosen if it fits your characters theme as you won't be rolling them that often. Next up we have History, Religion, and Nature. These skills are sometimes useful, but a party will do just fine without them. They aren't necessary to overcome particular challenges. A party will be just fine without anyone trained in these skills. Then we have Athletics and Acrobatics. I've found that anything athletics can do (climb, jump, swim) a Druid can do better by turning into a creature with a climb speed, a fly speed, or a swim speed. A party will be just fine if nobody in the group has training in Athletics by mid levels when low level spells are readily usable for utility. Acrobatics doesn't really help contribute to overcoming exploration encounters. These skills are useful in combat however.So of the 18 skills in the PHB, only 10 are "necessary" for exploration or interaction encounters and 5 more are nice to have, but ultimately not extremely useful. A group of 4 would be able to cover all 15 of those skills easily, or cover the 10 most useful skills and double up on some important ones like stealth and perception.Next, variant humans get a bonus skill. Elves get proficiency with Perception. Half elves get 2 bonus skills. Bards, get one more trained skills. Rogues get two more trained skills. Warlocks have an invocation to get 2 more trained skills. A few cleric subclasses gain trained skills as well. Druids gain the proficiencies of creatures they turn into.With 2 half elves in the party and 1 elf, we already had 22 skills covered. I think the only skill my human fighter had that someone else in the party didn't have was History, which over the course of the campaign I only rolled a handful of times, succeeded at less, and primarily gained backstory from its use (ie it wasn't necessary to overcome challenges).

 

[Minigiant]

Sure, there are 16 skills, but some skills aren't all that useful. Animal Handling, Performance, and Investigation are rarely used or help very little in exploration or social encounters. These skills seem most useful for RP purposes. These skills really should only be chosen if it fits your characters theme as you won't be rolling them that often. Next up we have History, Religion, and Nature. These skills are sometimes useful, but a party will do just fine without them. They aren't necessary to overcome particular challenges. A party will be just fine without anyone trained in these skills. Then we have Athletics and Acrobatics. I've found that anything athletics can do (climb, jump, swim) a Druid can do better by turning into a creature with a climb speed, a fly speed, or a swim speed. A party will be just fine if nobody in the group has training in Athletics by mid levels when low level spells are readily usable for utility. Acrobatics doesn't really help contribute to overcoming exploration encounters. These skills are useful in combat however.So of the 18 skills in the PHB, only 10 are "necessary" for exploration or interaction encounters and 5 more are nice to have, but ultimately not extremely useful. A group of 4 would be able to cover all 15 of those skills easily, or cover the 10 most useful skills and double up on some important ones like stealth and perception.Next, variant humans get a bonus skill. Elves get proficiency with Perception. Half elves get 2 bonus skills. Bards, get one more trained skills. Rogues get two more trained skills. Warlocks have an invocation to get 2 more trained skills. A few cleric subclasses gain trained skills as well. Druids gain the proficiencies of creatures they turn into.With 2 half elves in the party and 1 elf, we already had 22 skills covered. I think the only skill my human fighter had that someone else in the party didn't have was History, which over the course of the campaign I only rolled a handful of times, succeeded at less, and primarily gained backstory from its use (ie it wasn't necessary to overcome challenges).

Well I fault some DMs for this problem

Athletics and Acrobatics are not the same. Outside of combat action, they cover completely different thing.

There are tool proficiencies as well.

Lore skills aren't rarely used unless the DM rarely calls for them or creates situations for them.

This is a MAJOR problem I have with some DMs. They don't actively put situations for these skills in their games and allow for some PCs to never have exploration and social roles. A DM should make every skill the PCs have be important.

If the party fighter never talk but has the only proficiency in History, add an important scene or NPC where that skill grants a powerful boon on success or allows a comeback after failure.

A cold icy noble woman could be a secret history buff and give money to her new war nerd friend. A fey allows a shortcut to someone who can answer a riddle about nature. A magic bomb could have an arcane defusing mechanism which bypasses the need to carry it away.

If a DM is going to make or allow a skill to be useless or rare, it is unfair not to state this at PC creation.

 

[Ashkelon]

Dude. You're not my nemesis. My nemesis... is Captain Hammer.

No, I haven't played PCs as much as I would like because I DM. Because I DM I know the frequency with which players make skill checks, and I know that Lucky would be very useful. Maybe I haven't played your game much, so I don't know how often you actually engage in dialogue with NPCs, but if your criteria is "I only talk to people who have played at my table" why are you on Enworld at all?

If you had taken Lucky, you would be better than the bard at Athletics. (Well, maybe. It depends on frequency of checks and how much the bard has pumped Strength, and what level you guys are at. At level 8 for example, a Str 20 Lucky Fighter has +8, whereas a Str 14 Valor Bard with Expertise has +8, and the fighter can reroll failure so he is clearly superior. A level 12 Str 20 Valor Bard with Athletics expertise and specialized in grappling via the Grappler feat is obviously much harder to top.)

Let's use math!!!

Ok we are level 8, and I have 18 STR (can't have 20 and Lucky at 8 sadly) and I am trained in athletics. The Bard has 16 strength but has expertise in Athletics. The challenge we are faced with is a 50 foot wall with a DC of only 15. To get passed this wall, you need to succeed at 4 athletics checks (half move per check is 15 feet per success). If you fail by 5 or more, you fall.

The fighter has +7 to Athletics checks. The bard has +9. The fighter has a 15% chance to fall per roll, the bard has a 5% chance to fall per roll. The bard has a 81% chance to climb to the top without falling. The fighter has a 52% chance to climb to the top without falling before using luck dice. Each time a lick die is used, it would only have a 70% chance of actually helping the fighter as well, meaning the fighter could quite easily use multiple luck dice to attempt to climb this single wall. This isn't even taking into account the other exploration challenges the group may find itself facing. If the fighters moment to shine is against 1wall per day, then you can hardly say he is "good" at physical related tasks.

Oh, and since using shield master to knock people prone is kind of the Bards "thing", he usually has Bears strength cast upon himself (1 hour long buff that doubles his carrying capacity and gives advantage to Strength checks), making him significantly better than the fighter at Athletic related challenges. Of course, the Druid could have flown to the top of the wall and let down a rope, the warlock could have used at-will levitation to get past the wall, both without needing to roll.

 

[Celtavian]

Well I fault some DMs for this problem

Athletics and Acrobatics are not the same. Outside of combat action, they cover completely different thing.

There are tool proficiencies as well.

Lore skills aren't rarely used unless the DM rarely calls for them or creates situations for them.

This is a MAJOR problem I have with some DMs. They don't actively put situations for these skills in their games and allow for some PCs to never have exploration and social roles. A DM should make every skill the PCs have be important.

If the party fighter never talk but has the only proficiency in History, add an important scene or NPC where that skill grants a powerful boon on success or allows a comeback after failure.

A cold icy noble woman could be a secret history buff and give money to her new war nerd friend. A fey allows a shortcut to someone who can answer a riddle about nature. A magic bomb could have an arcane defusing mechanism which bypasses the need to carry it away.

If a DM is going to make or allow a skill to be useless or rare, it is unfair not to state this at PC creation.

You have to put such situations into the game. Though I almost wish they had left lore, history, and such up to the character background.

 

[the Jester]

Sure, there are 16 skills, but some skills aren't all that useful. Animal Handling, Performance, and Investigation are rarely used or help very little in exploration or social encounters.

This alone demonstrates that you play a very different style of game than many of us, or that your idea of a social encounter is very different from mine. Performance and Investigation are very often useful in social and exploration encounters in my experience.

These skills seem most useful for RP purposes. These skills really should only be chosen if it fits your characters theme as you won't be rolling them that often.

...at your table, maybe. I don't think a session has gone by without at least one Investigation check in my campaign, and Performance comes up a lot, too.

Next up we have History, Religion, and Nature. These skills are sometimes useful, but a party will do just fine without them. They aren't necessary to overcome particular challenges.

....at your table. At mine, those three skills help the pcs uncover clues, figure out puzzles, etc. They aren't always necessary, but they are damned helpful.

Then we have Athletics and Acrobatics. I've found that anything athletics can do (climb, jump, swim) a Druid can do better by turning into a creature with a climb speed, a fly speed, or a swim speed. A party will be just fine if nobody in the group has training in Athletics by mid levels when low level spells are readily usable for utility.

...at your table, assuming that you have a druid of high enough level to use her wildshape to turn into a flyer or climber. And that doesn't help the other pcs. And those low-level utility spells are only available if your party has the right characters and those characters are down with burning their slots for other pcs' utility needs.

My point is, your experience is not universally true. Different tables make a huge difference as to how useful (most) skills are.