D&D 5E Fixing the fighter (I know...)

[5ekyu]

I think you are holding an impossible evidentiary standard. It’s be like ignoring all evidence in a criminal trial unless there’s video evidence of the crime...

Well, that conclusion is hardly surprising from you, since you had already reached it as a general statement when you asked the question.

But as a reminder your question was "What evidence would convince you that a class is extremely underpowered at combat when not taking any combat ASI's or feats?"

So, now, just wanting to point out that it was not about, "underpowered", not about "weaker than the others", not about "in need of a tweak or up-tick" but "extremely underpowered in combat" and the word "extremrly" demands a higher degree of a lot of evidence.

I mean, simply put, if a "class/sub-class combo" was extremely underpowered in any pillar, wouldn't you think it would likely show up in actual play, outside of white rooms and excel spread sheets in the ways I described? Given that different classes enable the player's choices to bring different strengths and degrees of strength to each pillar, an "extremely underpowered" should be observably so in actual play in the ways I described, right? Not just on some bookkeeper's ledger of assumptions, not just at a few tables here and there with some specific table-factors spotlighting it, exacerbating it?

So, for your real world trial evidence metaphor "it would be like..." I would describe it as for a capital crime (vis-a-vis extremely underpowered) I would liken it to insisting on actual evidence someone was dead, something tangible, observed and established by witnesses or forensics or ideally both. Especially for a class which keeps showing up as one of the more often chosen in actual play?

But just to be clear, in your "real world" metaphorical "it would be like..." you are aware, aren't you, that video evidence of a crime in not all that uncommon, maybe at best rare but certainly far from an "impossible evidentiary standard", right? You have heard of that happening, right? With more and more cell phones and cameras, it's more and more common - not an evidentiary impossibility.

Perhaps you define the word "imposdible" or the word "extremely" in a more unique way? But taken as is, your not surprising reply and pre-clusion seem a tad odd.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Plenty, both video games and RPGs.

Offering a choice - even when the choice is clearly sub-optimal - isn't good design. The fighter is designed such that ASIs will be spent on Str/Dex and maybe Con or combat feats, not non-combat ribbon.

Just because it's technically a choice, doesn't mean it's good design. That's a false choice.

Sacrifice your combat ability - i.e. the primary role of the class - to make up for deficiencies in the other 2 pillars.

D&D isn't designed for optimization as the default standard of play. Most people don't play that way. That's your flaw in your entire argument--assuming that's so. and anything not optimized is a bad choice. It's only a false choice if you're playing where optimization must be done. Since most people don't play that way, and it's not the design goal, it is in fact not a false choice.

I would think a game designer would know how to recognize how a game is designed, rather than impose personal preferences and biases over the actual design goals...

 

[FrogReaver]

Plenty, both video games and RPGs.

Offering a choice - even when the choice is clearly sub-optimal - isn't good design. The fighter is designed such that ASIs will be spent on Str/Dex and maybe Con or combat feats, not non-combat ribbon.

Just because it's technically a choice, doesn't mean it's good design. That's a false choice.

Sacrifice your combat ability - i.e. the primary role of the class - to make up for deficiencies in the other 2 pillars.

I think you are saying this a bit incorrectly even though I agree with your main thrust -

False choice occurs because the in combat options are superior to the out of combat options - which I think a large part of the issue - which is mostly an issue because the out of combat options fighter's get in exchange for combat abilities are not unique and no more impressive than the options a few spells give to casters - which are options that don't interfere very much with their combat potential - and rogues get a nice out of combat combination that can also help in combat, with cunning action and expertise.

 

[FrogReaver]

But just to be clear, in your "real world" metaphorical "it would be like..." you are aware, aren't you, that video evidence of a crime in not all that uncommon, maybe at best rare but certainly far from an "impossible evidentiary standard", right? You have heard of that happening, right? With more and more cell phones and cameras, it's more and more common - not an evidentiary impossibility.

Perhaps you define the word "imposdible" or the word "extremely" in a more unique way? But taken as is, your not surprising reply and pre-clusion seem a tad odd.

That some crimes have video evidence is not a defense against requiring video evidence for every crime before you convict.

So yes - even your rebuttal to my metaphor is contorted so far out of shape that your rebuttal to it flops as hard as your insistence on an impossible evidentiary standard before we can conclude a class is underpowered in any given pillar.

 

[5ekyu]

What other class gets the Know Your Enemy ability?



No it's not. They get MORE ASIs than anyone else, which means they have more of an option to choose non-combat feats. You wouldn't even be complaining if those extra feats were instead replaced with those non-combat abilities I suspect, but somehow because they have the option to choose you're acting like it's LESS of an option!

I have it!!!

The solution.

Changes to fighter class core...

Remove the bonus feats at levels 6 and... whatever. Poof, gone, no extra featses for you.

Add at those same levels Flexible - a new and unique class feature which reads as follows:
At these levels you may chose to raise ability scores by up to 2 points total (+2 on one score or +1 on two different scores but these are limited to the less weapon combat related stats of Int, Wis or Cha.)
Alternatively, you may choose a feat instead but this choice cannot choose any feats that raise strength, dexterity or con; give bonuses, rerolls or advantage to damage or attack rolls: grant extra attacks or bonus action attacks.

See, now, instead of "having to spend feats and ASI" fighter get this unique feature at a couple times to expand their non-combat direct impact stuff in ways they can choose.

Now the fighter can make all the other choices combat choices and still be able to expand into other areas with this unique feature.

 

[FrogReaver]

There was nothing impossible about his standard. Indeed he went right for the issue I was thinking of - you don't seem to talk much about actual play experience, which is where this issue is really at. Do you just not play very often these days? Because a lot of what you seem to be saying is theory-only.

1. What does an anecdote of my play experiences actually prove - especially one that is fully based on ones subjective feeling of effectiveness - especially in a game where a few d20 rolls one way or another could drastically change that subject perception?

2. It seems to me that player's which deem a class as sufficiently underpowered tend to play it less often than they otherwise would. Of course this isn't a universal truth as some people like to take something other people find weak in a game but it seems those that would just play something else far outnumber those that would play it for the challenge. The problem is, we can't know what the baseline would be for a non-underpowered class. So this eliminates popularity statistics as being a meaningful measurement.

3. So what do you propose would be the kind of evidence that would be convincing? If you have no legitimate recommendations - then aren't my damage comparisons the best objective measure we have?

 

[FrogReaver]

Better response to what I was asking earlier. Thanks except it looks to me like you have a character tracking spells slots and this extra thing called invocations.. is this actually simple or just simple for a caster.

Personally I find the battlemaster simple. So I find warlocks simple too

But for the sake of this discussion I consider champion or beserker barbarian simple to be what simple means.

 

[5ekyu]

Plenty of things get non-combat Riboon abilities at 6th level.

• Storm Sorcerer's get a non-combat Ribbon at 6th level, Storm Guide. They can control the wind and rain...
• Storm Herald Barbarian's get a Path ability that is mostly Ribbon
• Totem Barbarian's Path at 6th level is non-combat
• College of Lore Bard gets Extra Magical secrets, which can be combat but very much doesn't have to be.
• College of Whispers gets to take on someone's persona at 6th level and know their information. Not very combat even if someone has to die to capture their spirit
• Knowledge Clerics get to use Detect thoughts at 6th level, that's pretty non-combat
• Circle of Dreams Druids get an explicitly rest oriented Ribbon feature at 6th level
• Rangers gain a new favored enemy (not combat) and favored terrain at 6th level
• Rogues gain Expertise in two skills - pretty ribbon

"College of Whispers gets to take on someone's persona at 6th level and know their information. Not very combat even if someone has to die to capture their spirit"

Totally off topic but these things get me off on tangents sometimes... now gotta go look up and see how many class features start with the trigger of "when somebody dies..." or its half-cousin "reduced to zero hp"?

I know it's more than a few but I gotta think how hacky a build it might take yo get as many of those as possible on one character- death master. Like that old build meme of finding every "reroll, replace, add-on the fly" die roll feature into one PC with lucky halfling, bard, diviner, etc etc...

 

[5ekyu]

That some crimes have video evidence is not a defense against requiring video evidence for every crime before you convict.

So yes - even your rebuttal to my metaphor is contorted so far out of shape that your rebuttal to it flops as hard as your insistence on an impossible evidentiary standard before we can conclude a class is underpowered in any given pillar.

Uhh.. you seem confused... the video reference bring actually used was about your claim it was an impossible evidentiary standard. It was targeting your choice to use impossible to define your position. It said nothing about requiring it in every crime before convicting. Perhaps you read some other post? Or just made that bit up?

And, again, you seem confused on the latter point. You asked about extremely underpowered not just underpowered.

Of course, these were perhaps made a smidge more clear in some of the bits of my post you somehow edited out in your quote, completely by accident I am sure.

 

[FrogReaver]

Uhh.. you seem confused... the video reference bring actually used was about your claim it was an impossible evidentiary standard. It was targeting your choice to use impossible to define your position. It said nothing about requiring it in every crime before convicting. Perhaps you read some other post? Or just made that bit up?

My definition of evidentiary standard was defined as the evidence you would require to convict someone in a criminal trial - which is an impossible evidentiary standard because not all crimes have video evidence. That is in the general case it's not reasonable to expect video evidence of a crime before you convict - because video evidence might not exist.

Just like in this case it's not reasonable to expect me to provide the evidence you claimed you would need - because that evidence just doesn't exist.

Sounds like you were the one confused.