D&D 5E Fixing the Fighter: The Zouave

[Sacrosanct]

I think @Sacrosanct just said it better than I. I like playing fighters, they do exactly what I want from the class. Every class has compromises and shortcomings, fighters are no better or worse than the others.

Then again, I suspect "contributions outside of combat" may mean something different to me. My fighters contributed plenty outside of combat, not all contributions have to be mechanical in nature.

I as well. But I’m not going to deride someone by essentially saying “role play better” (not that you’re doing that, but it’s a common argument). I think people should have the option to have mechanical representations of what they want.
I just don’t think every class should have to be like that, hard coded.

is there a martial option in the PHB that also gives hard coded mechanical out of combat ability? Great! Now let the rest of us be able to choose what we want to do with other feats without being forced to take a hard baked in option. That doesn’t make us newbies, non-serious players, people who secretly admit it’s not good, liars, or whiners (all accusations from people in this thread. Apparently calling other gamers liars and whiners is kosher here, because I know that post was reported and no mod made a comment about it, but I digress)

 

[Tony Vargas]

I think @Sacrosanct just said it better than I. I like playing fighters, they do exactly what I want from the class. Every class has compromises and shortcomings, fighters are no better or worse than the others.

They've generally been 'worse' by a variety of measures - Tier 5 in 3.5, for instance, needing magic item tables weighted to favor items of particular use to them in the classic game, lacking when it came time to do an interaction SC in 4e, and of course, the current issues in 5e.
By other measures you could say they've been better, too. They have that d10 HD, for instance, only matched by Paladin and beaten by Barbarian. OK, they can use all weapons and armor. Which hasn't meant much since 3.0. They get 2 extra ASIs... starting at 6th. And a third attack, a 11th...
OK, not a lotta hard mechanical examples.
But, they can certainly be better at representing many tropes from genre.

Then again, I suspect "contributions outside of combat" may mean something different to me. My fighters contributed plenty outside of combat,

Maybe we should go into what we do mean by contributions outside of combat, since your fighters contribute plenty, you should be able to come up with 10 gripping examples, at least.

not all contributions have to be mechanical in nature.

If they're non-mechanical then they aren't a contribution of the class you picked and the same player could have done the same contribution regardless of the Fighter class having 0 class features or having 100 class features.

I suspect something could be tied to class, but not strictly mechanical. If there's villagers you need to convince of something, for instance, and they're superstitious and suspicious of magic-using characters, then the (non-EK, not dripping with obvious magic items) fighter might be the only member of the party they're willing to listen too.

But, sure, make that 10 examples where a Bard or Paladin or Rogue with the same background (and all but 1 of the same feats, if in use) wouldn't have been able to make the exact same contribution, mechanical or otherwise.

 

[Undrave]

I as well. But I’m not going to deride someone by essentially saying “role play better” (not that you’re doing that, but it’s a common argument). I think people should have the option to have mechanical representations of what they want.
I just don’t think every class should have to be like that, hard coded.

is there a martial option in the PHB that also gives hard coded mechanical out of combat ability? Great! Now let the rest of us be able to choose what we want to do with other feats without being forced to take a hard baked in option. That doesn’t make us newbies, non-serious players, people who secretly admit it’s not good, liars, or whiners (all accusations from people in this thread. Apparently calling other gamers liars and whiners is kosher here, because I know that post was reported and no mod made a comment about it, but I digress)

I doubt that if the Fighter had an extra tool proficiency and a level 2 feature that went "Before you make a STR, DEX or CON attribute check you can spend a Hit Dice to increase the result by 5" (for exemple, not saying it would be ideal) I really REALLY doubt you would enjoy the class less than you do now, but I know I would find it more interesting.

 

[Oofta]

They've generally been 'worse' by a variety of measures - Tier 5 in 3.5, for instance, needing magic item tables weighted to favor items of particular use to them in the classic game, lacking when it came time to do an interaction SC in 4e, and of course, the current issues in 5e.
By other measures you could say they've been better, too. They have that d10 HD, for instance, only matched by Paladin and beaten by Barbarian. OK, they can use all weapons and armor. Which hasn't meant much since 3.0. They get 2 extra ASIs... starting at 6th. And a third attack, a 11th...
OK, not a lotta hard mechanical examples.
But, they can certainly be better at representing many tropes from genre.

Maybe we should go into what we do mean by contributions outside of combat, since your fighters contribute plenty, you should be able to come up with 10 gripping examples, at least.

I suspect something could be tied to class, but not strictly mechanical. If there's villagers you need to convince of something, for instance, and they're superstitious and suspicious of magic-using characters, then the (non-EK, not dripping with obvious magic items) fighter might be the only member of the party they're willing to listen too.

But, sure, make that 10 examples where a Bard or Paladin or Rogue with the same background (and all but 1 of the same feats, if in use) wouldn't have been able to make the exact same contribution, mechanical or otherwise.

Ummm ... so in order for a fighter to be useful outside of combat they have to be better at it than every other class? The fact that they can make the same contribution doesn't count?

Because that's an impossible standard, and not one I would want to attempt.

I think any class could be modified and improved to fit a particular person's "best version" of a class. I just think that what classes in 5E in general lack in specific pre-built options they make up for in flexibility. Fighter has extra feats, hence greater flexibility.

In general I view a basic fighter that focuses on combat as that spec-ops marine. Is he going to be the best spy ever? No, that's not his role. But if I wanted to make a fighter that was also a spy I could make a decent version*. Is it going to be the best spy ever? Probably not, but the rogue isn't going to make the best spec-ops marine either.

*It might require some magic items at some point depending on several factors.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Ummm ... so in order for a fighter to be useful outside of combat they have to be better at it than every other class?

Not better, not even unique, just different.

For instance, either a Bard or a Rogue could use Expertise on a skill to shine in some exploration or social task. That there's /one/ other class can shine in a similar way doesn't invalidate it. OTOH, shining because of a feat or background, well, any/every other class could do that, in exactly the same way.

The fact that they can make the same contribution doesn't count?

Not if it's a fungible contribution, no. The fighter who's a Folk Hero trading on that so the old farmer will hide the party in his barn, is not a fighter doing something, it's a Folk Hero doing something. It's not relevant to the class, but to the Background.

Because that's an impossible standard, and not one I would want to attempt.

It's impossible to show that the fighter has anything going for it, as a class, out of combat?

Case closed.

Now, wouldn't it be nice if it did?

I think any class could be modified and improved to fit a particular person's "best version" of a class. I just think that what classes in 5E in general lack in specific pre-built options they make up for in flexibility.

There is a lot of innate flexibility in most classes, though it obviously peaks in the neo-Vancian casters, who change up their supernatural powers every morning.

Fighter has extra feats, hence greater flexibility.

Feats are optional. The fighter has extra ASIs. Two of them, that lock in when you choose them, at 6th and 14th, respectively. That - two choice over 20 levels - is a tiny, tiny amount of flexibility.

In general I view a basic fighter that focuses on combat as that spec-ops marine. Is he going to be the best spy ever? No, that's not his role. But if I wanted to make a fighter that was also a spy I could make a decent version*. Is it going to be the best spy ever? Probably not, but the rogue isn't going to make the best spec-ops marine either.

I'd expect spec-ops guy does a lot of sneaking around, spotting the enemy, and one-shot killing them. A Rogue(Assassin) sounds perfect.

Bards, perhaps not ironically considering the Harpers in FR, would likely make the best D&D spies.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I always find it odd that the people who say they love the most options, abilities, and powers and therefore argue every class should have more of them are the same ones to say feats are optional. If I were a betting man, people who want the most options are probably playing with feats for obvious reasons, so I find that excuse a bit disingenuous.

also, spec ops is nothing like spying. Marine recon is spec ops. A spy is Valarie Plame.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I always find it odd that the people who say they love the most options, abilities, and powers and therefore argue every class should have more of them are the same ones to say feats are optional

You find it odd that they tell the truth?
That's pretty harsh.

 

[Oofta]

You find it odd that they tell the truth share my opinion?
That's pretty harsh. That's fine.

Fixed that for you.

 

[Oofta]

I had a longer response typed up, but it doesn't really matter. Some people won't be happy until fighters have something unique that only they have that no other class has an option to obtain that makes them better than other classes out of combat. They will always be compared to the standard of classes that are designed to be weaker at combat while better outside of combat*.

Sorry, I don't see a need for that. They already have the best combat options, they don't also need to be the best out of combat baked in to the class. Fighters don't need to be the Mary Sues of classes to be useful outside of combat.

*Other than casting spells, fighters can get really close by using their two bonus feats. Even then most spells I see cast out of combat are also rituals, which there's a feat for.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I find it odd that said person would use that as an excuse when it doesn’t apply to their own games. But of course Tony knew what I meant.