D&D 5E Fixing the Fighter: The Zouave

[Tony Vargas]

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...

It really is optional. I don't understand the need to deny that. Sure, if you loved 3e & 4e with all their feats (or in spite of all their feats, but you got used to them), you might opt-into feats, as a DM. Conversely, if you skipped those editions, you might not care to deal with them and decline to do so.

It's the DM's decision, and the fighter is presented as an equally-weighted choice of class (and it's sub-classes, likewise), regardless, so it should be an equal choice whether the DM opts into feats or not.

If it weren't intended to be so, it should have been presented in the section with feats, as an equally-optional class that opened up with the inclusion of feats.

(If I were cynical - yeah, the 'if' is rhetorical - I might speculate that the fighter's dependence on feats for viability is further evidence that it was intentionally designed as a "Timmeh Card," a trap choice meant to appeal to players - be they, new or casual, or experienced/system-savvy but concept-driven, or indulging in real-roleplayer angst - based on the concept it represents, but deliver sub-par performance in actual play. In a game with Feats, at certain levels, when days run 6-8 encounters, the fighter may be balanced, without that optional rule, or at the levels that don't provide a net benefit via it, or on shorter days, it under-performs. (Now, (and I feel like I need a new parenthetical here, (it's silly I know (I just really don't get to program in LISP anymore, I guess (and I miss it)))) you could argue that feats being opted-in is the more typical mode of play (and you'd probably right (gah! I did it again)), but, by the same token you could argue that the typical mode of play is far fewer than 6-8 encounters per day!)

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.

Or having never used them, being TSR-era aficionados - a lot of whom were becoming active in the community again, at the time, with the rise of OSR gaming.

 

[Quickleaf]

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).

I dug up an old project I was working on these very boards – The Warrior – in case it can offer you inspiration or ideas to borrow. I ended up putting it on pause because of the amount of work and playtesting that I felt it needed, and also because by and large folks seem to enjoy the 5e fighter class as it is (judging by past polls and DnDBeyond data). Not to discourage your own tinkering!

The challenging thing is to find design space for interfacing with exploration and interaction rules. And it's doubly challenging because you also need to keep the fighter's identity (however you choose to define that) in mind when interfacing with that narrow design space. For instance, you can easily start interfacing with a bunch of exploration rules, only to realize that you're recreating a version of the ranger's Natural Explorer.

That's why subclass design is much easier. Because you're working in your own little niche of identity that's self-contained. And Mike Mearls even commented that his regret with the 5e fighter was using the PHB martial archetypes as vehicles for a choice of complexity vs. simplicity, rather than putting that choice in the core class and using the martial archetypes as vehicles for identity / flavor / story.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

It's the DM's decision, and the fighter is presented as an equally-weighted choice of class (and it's sub-classes, likewise), regardless, so it should be an equal choice whether the DM opts into feats or not.

What should be the case is a pointless philosophical debate. My opinion is that feats should never have been labelled optional - I see no point in it apart from 3rd edition feat fatigue.

But you have to deal with the game as is, not as we think is should be. And in the game as is Fighters are perfectly fine (and can be made skilly if you want) if feats are allowed, and all the reported problems mentioned in this thread are only problems if feats are disallowed.

It goes back to the first principle of the fighter - a default farm boy hero with no special training at the start of the story. Feats allow for the flexibility to develop that "classless" hero in a wide range of different directions.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

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.

I believe that the first part of this statement is misleading, and the second part is incorrect.

With Sneak Attack, Uncanny Dodge, and suchlike, the Rogue class is almost even with the Fighter class in combat. However I do not think its an exaggeration to say that the Rogue class is about twice as good as the Fighter class at using skills.
If you wanted the difference in combat between Rogues and Fighters to reflect the difference in skill use, you should probably remove Sneak Attack.

Secondly, Fighters cannot become as good with skills as an on-par Rogue. A Fighter needs to spend both of their bonus feats (level 12) on prodigy just to match a 2nd level Rogue. A Rogue at the same level as that Fighter would still be much better at using skills, by having more expertise and Reliable Talent.

 

[Undrave]

It goes back to the first principle of the fighter - a default farm boy hero with no special training at the start of the story. Feats allow for the flexibility to develop that "classless" hero in a wide range of different directions.

That's not the first principle of the Fighter, at least not in 5e! Me and Blue had a debate about it and I even quoted the class description!

Questing knights, conquering overlords, royal champions, elite foot soldiers, hardened mercenaries, and bandit kings—as fighters, they all share an unparalleled mastery with weapons and armor, and a thorough knowledge of the skills of combat. And they are well acquainted with death, both meting it out and staring it defiantly in the face.

WELL ROUNDED SPECIALISTS

Fighters learn the basics of all combat styles. Every fighter can swing an axe, fence with a rapier, wield a longsword or a greatsword, use a bow, and even trap foes in a net with some degree of skill. Likewise, a fighter is adept with shields and every form of armor. Beyond that basic degree of familiarity, each fighter specializes in a certain style of combat. Some concentrate on archery, some on fighting with two weapons at once, and some on augmenting their martial skills with magic. This combination of broad general ability and extensive specialization makes fighters superior combatants on battlefields and in dungeons alike.

TRAINED FOR DANGER

Not every member of the city watch, the village militia, or the queen’s army is a fighter. Most of these troops are relatively untrained soldiers with only the most basic combat knowledge. Veteran soldiers, military officers, trained bodyguards, dedicated knights, and similar figures are fighters.

Some fighters feel drawn to use their training as adventurers. The dungeon delving, monster slaying, and other dangerous work common among adventurers is second nature for a fighter, not all that different from the life he or she left behind. There are greater risks, perhaps, but also much greater rewards—few fighters in the city watch have the opportunity to discover a magic flame tongue sword, for example.

NONE of this tells me the Farm Boy has 'no special training'. they can be a farm boy but they have been trained to fight and are probably really good at it. The image of the 'Default Farm Boy Hero' is just a negative stereotype that people use to hold back the fighter from having more interesting class features and I don't think it's fair.

You can't be a Level 1 Fighter without special training. The same way you can't be a level 1 Wizard without any.

Level 1 should mean the same level of competency for all classes, even if the nature of their special training is different.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

You can't be a Level 1 Fighter without special training. The same way you can't be a level 1 Wizard without any.

You can, and it is ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL to the genre that you can. If a farm boy can't be a hero, it isn't heroic fantasy.

NB, in Xanathar's Guide p61-67 there is the backstory of a wizard with no wizard training.

 

[Undrave]

You can, and it is ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL to the genre that you can. If a farm boy can't be a hero, it isn't heroic fantasy.

NB, in Xanathar's Guide p61-67 there is the backstory of a wizard with no wizard training.

Yeah you can play it if you want. That's not the default fluff presented in the PHB though, and thus not the basis on which the mechanics of the Fighter were built. You can't condemn the Fighter to sucking just because you prefer to play Sword Boy as opposed to Fighting Man.

 

[Undrave]

You can, and it is ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL to the genre that you can. If a farm boy can't be a hero, it isn't heroic fantasy.

NB, in Xanathar's Guide p61-67 there is the backstory of a wizard with no wizard training.

Do you think it would be useful to spin this into its own thread? I feel like there's interesting discussion there about the nature of a level 1 PC, and what people envision as a level 1 Fighter. I'd like to hear more opinions on the subject.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

That's not the default fluff presented in the PHB though

None of the class fluff in the PHB tells you how the character starts out. It only tells you what they can become.

"A human in clanging plate armor holds her shield before her as she runs towards the massed goblins" - This is clearly not a description of a 1st level fighter, since 1st level fighters don't normally have full plate and wouldn't stand a chance against massed goblins.

Backgrounds tell you how the character starts out: "You have spent your life in the service of a temple..."

You can't condemn the Fighter to sucking

Fighters don't suck, they are my favorate class.

Of course, I don't play at a table that disallows feats (and I really can't understand why anyone would choose to).

 

[Undrave]

None of the class fluff in the PHB tells you how the character starts out. It only tells you what they can become.

Backgrounds tell you how the character starts out.

If that were true, you wouldn't have a class at level 1, only a background.

Here is what it says about Backgrounds:

Every story has a beginning. Your character’s background reveals where you came from, how you became an adventurer, and your place in the world. Your fighter might have been a courageous knight or a grizzled soldier. Your wizard could have been a sage or an artisan. Your rogue might have gotten by as a guild thief or commanded audiences as a jester.

Choosing a background provides you with important story cues about your character’s identity. The most important question to ask about your background is what changed? Why did you stop doing whatever your background describes and start adventuring? Where did you get the money to purchase your starting gear, or, if you come from a wealthy background, why don’t you have more money? How did you learn the skills of your class? What sets you apart from ordinary people who share your background?

Emphasis mine. Level 1 characters already have 'the skills of your class'. I think I'll start a thread on the subject later. Please drop in and give your opinion!

Fighters don't suck, they are my favorate class.

Of course, I don't play at a table that disallows feats (and I really can't understand why anyone would choose to).

Okay so 'suck' is a strong word... More like "limit the Fighter to mundanity".

I've said it before, in 5e it's impossible for a Fighter to even match the current world record for the standing long jump. According to the rules you'd need a strength of 24 to match it. Putting aside the idea of doing it in full gear (because the rules aren't simulationist enough to include penalty for gear in jumping distance), just a naked Fighter at level 20, where they should exceed peak physical prowess, can't do it. Even the Barbarian who can go up to 22 Strength can't.