D&D 5E Fixing the Fighter: The Zouave

[Paul Farquhar]

Feats are optional and classes that are specialists in skills get expertise.

I think there was a thread around here somewhere where these things got pointed out but I can't quite recall which one.

Feats may be optional, but Fighters are gimped without them. So yeah, if you play without feats and complain Fighters are gimps, you are right and the solution is obvious.

As for expertise, fighters don't get it by default, and rogues don't get a Combat Style by default. So yeah, rogues can fight but fighters fight better, fighters can use skills but rogues can use skills better. The difference being that fighters can use the extra flexibility inherent in having extra feats to become as good with skills as a rogue.

 

[Don Durito]

As for expertise, fighters don't get it by default, and rogues don't get a Combat Style by default. So yeah, rogues can fight but fighters fight better, fighters can use skills but rogues can use skills better. The difference being that fighters can use the extra flexibility inherent in having extra feats to become as good with skills as a rogue.

Look I already responded to this point earlier in the thread. I'm not going to do so again just because you want to take the whole argument around in circles.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Look I already responded to this point earlier in the thread. I'm not going to do so again just because you want to take the whole argument around in circles.

And there wouldn't be any point - repeating your bogus points wouldn't make them any less bogus.

 

[Don Durito]

Edit: Nevermind. This is what ignore lists are for. It's not as if I'm liking to be missing any fresh perspectives that might prompt me to look at things in a different way.

 

[Ancalagon]

@OP

It is probably also the fact that everybody can fight somehow, but the fighter is somehow special at it.

So everyone is an adept at the fighters specialty but the fighter is absolutely unknowledgeable in the specialty of the other classes.

Yes that's the crux of the problem. I've been working on a 5e subclass based on the Zouave, but it's a busy week and it's more work than I expected - I mean I could just rush it but I'm trying to get it right.

Interestingly in the GLOG everyone is sort of equal at fighting, save the few "specialized at fighting" classes such as the fighter, which are clearly superior. They stepped away from "the wizard has no hp and a dagger" trope. (Also, daggers are really good in the GLOG, but that's besides the point).

 

[Tony Vargas]

To my thinking skills do not answer the disparity unless they can certainly and actualy keep up with caster capability ... not really convinced they do in 5e.

Nod. The Rogue has Expertise, which means his skills stand out from other skills, not that they stay equal to spells in any sense. And, of course, the Rogue shares Expertise with the Bard, a full caster in its own right.

Credit where credit is due, MM did, based on the loudest playtest feedback, pound down a 'proud nail' skill-obviating classic spell, here or there. "Knock" with it's comically-loud knocking sound, for instance.

Ironically, his 5e design also ended up largely abandoning that kind of niche protection.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Feats may be optional, but Fighters are gimped without them. So yeah, if you play without feats and complain Fighters are gimps, you are right and the solution is obvious.

Yes: Fix the fighter so it's balanced with or without feats.

(Or, alternately, I suppose, allow feats only with Bonus ASIs - which, IIRC, only the Fighter and Rogue get.)

As for expertise, fighters don't get it by default, and rogues don't get a Combat Style by default. So yeah, rogues can fight but fighters fight better, fighters can use skills but rogues can use skills better.

Rogues also don't get extra attack, and do get Sneak Attack; and have, on average get 1 less hp per level due to a d8 HD but also get Cunning Action. So Rogues and Fighter fight differently but are both quite effective in combat (as are all 5e classes, really, one way or another)/

 

[Garthanos]

Ironically, his 5e design also ended up largely abandoning that kind of niche protection.

With anyone can learn fighter maneuvers with a feat being part of that I suppose.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Yes: Fix the fighter so it's balanced with or without feats.

(Or, alternately, I suppose, allow feats only with Bonus ASIs - which, IIRC, only the Fighter and Rogue get.)

Both of those are viable, but seem unnecessary. For an "optional" rule, an awful lot of space in the PHB is given over to feats...

I suspect the only reason an "optional" flag was stuck on feats is quite a lot of people companied about feats during the development period, having ODed on them in 3rd edition/Pathfinder.

 

[Undrave]

I suspect the only reason an "optional" flag was stuck on feats is quite a lot of people companied about feats during the development period, having ODed on them in 3rd edition/Pathfinder.

Augh, probably.

I don't think the game would have gotten THAT crazy complicated with like a feat at Lv 1 for everyone...