D&D 5E Fixing the Fighter: The Zouave

[Undrave]

I disagree. It gives the fighter (and other classes) a lot of flexibility without needing dozens of subclasses.

It, along with backgrounds, is one of the reasons I like 5E.

Not saying it doesn't give the Fighter flexibility, just that some of those feel like they should have been baked in. Those feats do a lot of 'Cool Tricks', regardless of their mechanical advantage, but to do 'Cool Tricks' you need to forego investing in the other pillars... and sometimes you don't know if the campaign is gonna last long enough for you to get another shot at the 'Cool Tricks' feat or not.

As an aside, it's a bit odd there's no Feat that grants an extra Fighting Style... (and Martial Adept is strictly inferior to Magic Initiate but that's another discussion).

 

[Sacrosanct]

Basically, it boils down to this: Other classes get handed non-combat class features, the Fighter has to trade his combat class features to do it.

no, those two extra feats aren’t necessarily combat features. Where in the books does it say they are?

if you use them for combat, that’s your choice. That’s the point I’m making in my post above. If they were hard baked in, you couldn’t complain, but because you’re given a choice, and more player agency, you’re acting like that is a bad thing. Which needless to say, I find odd. Isn’t player agency a good thing?

 

[Oofta]

Not saying it doesn't give the Fighter flexibility, just that some of those feel like they should have been baked in. Those feats do a lot of 'Cool Tricks', regardless of their mechanical advantage, but to do 'Cool Tricks' you need to forego investing in the other pillars... and sometimes you don't know if the campaign is gonna last long enough for you to get another shot at the 'Cool Tricks' feat or not.

As an aside, it's a bit odd there's no Feat that grants an extra Fighting Style... (and Martial Adept is strictly inferior to Magic Initiate but that's another discussion).

Except that if you "bake them in" then you have to have different sub-classes for different builds. Doing an archer, reach weapon guy, two-weapon or two-handed? They all just add on to the existing chassis.

I will agree that some feats are pretty forgettable. But you don't need a single combat related feat to be an effective fighter. If you choose to go that route fine, but don't then turn around and blame the system because of what you chose to prioritize.

 

[Undrave]

no, those two extra feats aren’t necessarily combat features. Where in the books does it say they are?

if you use them for combat, that’s your choice. That’s the point I’m making in my post above. If they were hard baked in, you couldn’t complain, but because you’re given a choice, and more player agency, you’re acting like that is a bad thing. Which needless to say, I find odd. Isn’t player agency a good thing?

Is there another class feature out there that makes you choose which pillar of play to invest in? Maybe Spells do, but those are immensely more versatile.

Let's say you reach lv 6 in the middle of a dungeon where zippy and mobile enemies have been pummelling your casters like crazy while you chase them. Thus, you decide to pick Sentinel to protect your allies from them.

Then, a session or two later you get out and spend three sessions or more in the middle of a city in some dense social stuff. Your shiny new Sentinel feat sits on the wayside catching dust while the full caster change their load out after a goods night sleep and everybody else gets to lean on their class features to make effective contributions, you are reduced to the skill equivalent of 'I swing my sword'.

Plus, if you do pick non-combat you're just paying a rare ressource to reach the same baseline as everybody else (except the Barbarian I guess).

 

[Undrave]

Except that if you "bake them in" then you have to have different sub-classes for different builds. Doing an archer, reach weapon guy, two-weapon or two-handed? They all just add on to the existing chassis.

You don't need a subclass for each, you just need a base class feature with a choice, just like the Fighting style class feature.

 

[Blue]

Hmm... just a few posts before yours...

Okay. Not sure of your point.

Were you agreeing because multiple people said it? Were you trying to admonish me one of those points had been alluded to by someone else, by removing the context I was providing of three different points in 5e it could be mechanically supported? Or was it something else?

I'm unsure what are you adding to the conversation.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Is there another class feature out there that makes you choose which pillar of play to invest in? Maybe Spells do, but those are immensely more versatile.

Let's say you reach lv 6 in the middle of a dungeon where zippy and mobile enemies have been pummelling your casters like crazy while you chase them. Thus, you decide to pick Sentinel to protect your allies from them.

Then, a session or two later you get out and spend three sessions or more in the middle of a city in some dense social stuff. Your shiny new Sentinel feat sits on the wayside catching dust while the full caster change their load out after a goods night sleep and everybody else gets to lean on their class features to make effective contributions, you are reduced to the skill equivalent of 'I swing my sword'.

Plus, if you do pick non-combat you're just paying a rare ressource to reach the same baseline as everybody else (except the Barbarian I guess).

None of this means the class doesn’t have it, or can’t do it (out of combat ability)

You’re arguing that since you can’t trust your own choices, it should be made for you. I have no idea how instead of having the choice, being forced to take an ability (that might not be useful in any of the above scenarios I might add) is better.

 

[Undrave]

Those extra feats might feel a bit nicer if we were getting new Feats in books as often as we get new Spells... just sayin'...

Okay. Not sure of your point.

Were you agreeing because multiple people said it? Were you trying to admonish me one of those points had been alluded to by someone else, by removing the context I was providing of three different points in 5e it could be mechanically supported? Or was it something else?

I'm unsure what are you adding to the conversation.

I was using you as an exemple of people saying that the fighter is (though in your case it's 'sometime') "the blacksmith apprentice who picks up a sword"or other similar permutation of 'commoner with a pointy stick'.

Which I personally disagree with (and so does the class description mind you), but that is beside the point I was making: that this image is still a very commonly held perception in the player base and colour's people perception of what a Fighter 'should' be able to do or not.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Your argument also isn’t limited to fighters and feat choices, but is applicable to every class. Just about every ability is going to be useful in some scenarios, and not others. A caster who prepped spells not useful in a scenario, or is out of spells will face the same dilemma as what you gave in your scenarios.
So have the goal posts shifted from “the fighter needs to have an out of combat ability” to “the fighter needs to have an out of combat ability useful in all scenarios?”

 

[Oofta]

Is there another class feature out there that makes you choose which pillar of play to invest in? Maybe Spells do, but those are immensely more versatile.

Let's say you reach lv 6 in the middle of a dungeon where zippy and mobile enemies have been pummelling your casters like crazy while you chase them. Thus, you decide to pick Sentinel to protect your allies from them.

Then, a session or two later you get out and spend three sessions or more in the middle of a city in some dense social stuff. Your shiny new Sentinel feat sits on the wayside catching dust while the full caster change their load out after a goods night sleep and everybody else gets to lean on their class features to make effective contributions, you are reduced to the skill equivalent of 'I swing my sword'.

Plus, if you do pick non-combat you're just paying a rare ressource to reach the same baseline as everybody else (except the Barbarian I guess).

Or several of the rogue options. Or any of the classes that need to prep spells ahead of time and need to choose options that are only useful for out of combat. Especially if they aren't ritual casters. Or the sorcerer, wizard or other classes that only have a limited number of spells available and need to decide if they want to take any utility spells. Can a wizard buy scrolls? Maybe, maybe not. A fighter might also be able to spend down time learning new skill proficiencies.

Give me a break. All class builds need to make decisions on what to focus on. The rogue that focused on stealth/sleight of hand/diplomacy may be useless in an encounter that requires survival. No class is good at everything OOC, if you want to make a fighter that's better at OOC than most it's possible.