D&D 5E Fixing the Fighter: The Zouave

[Arnwolf666]

So what you are saying is, if you take EVERYTHING a character can do in consideration then the difference between a Rogue and a Fighter is minimal?

I agree, when the two characters are in the same party, their net contributions will be somewhat similar. But I still think the Rogue pulls ahead. The Fighter is not THAT much better in the Combat pillar than the Rogue compared to HOW MUCH better the Rogue is outside of combat.

You still need to pair down to the bare class in the context of picking your class.

It also occurred to me that there is no generic feat that grants expertise... feels like something that would make the Extra Feat a bit more palatable.

To me imho giving expertise to other classes was a mistake Except under very specialized cases like arcana for wizards and religion for clerics and musical instruments and history for bards and wilderness skills for rangers. A blanket expertise for all classes is just a mistake.

 

[5ekyu]

The point is, if you believe a class is superior, then you should play that class. It doesn't mean what you believe is true. As pointed out previously, if there was a consensus that there was a problem with fighters they wouldn't be commonly played.


As already pointed out, combat is the only pillar in which what it says on a character sheet matters much. Out of combat is mostly discussion and role playing, and all players contribute irrespective of what the character sheet says.

While I get the time spent argument, I dont agree with this general but it will heavily vary by campaign so its understandable. In game I run, for sure, there are plenty of routine tasks that font require scores or checks but for any tier there are plenty of cases where scores on the sheet matter a lot.

As i describe it, in cases where it matters, it's the character stats that matter a lot - as the character is the "car and driver" while the player is the navigator. If a GM tends to setup and resolve exploration and social tier play do that it's mostly decided without the chsracter mattering, that is their choice making those values out of whack compared to combat, not a system default.

 

[Garthanos]

As pointed out previously, if there was a consensus that there was a problem with fighters they wouldn't be commonly played.

Only if class selection is based on high quality implementation and not based on how common it is among heroic archetypes ie subjective appeal factors interfere .

 

[Oofta]

There is prodigy which hits humans and halfs. So you have three very strong fighter friendly races that can dial in a skill, tool and expertise *if * that is something you choose to do.

To me, the fighter's greater strength over the rogue is durability, and sustain driven by the HD, AC and second wind etc. The rogue can often match the damage output due to sneak but when sneak is countered, it's gone. The fighter as a martial pretty much just works. The rogue is balanced around sneak but fails miserably when that gets denied and it's just not that hard to do.

I love rogues and find them just fine, but they dont play as reliably in my ecperience as the fighters do. Fortunately both have a good assortment of subs too.

BTW I think the latest YA pack might have some gighter uses HD stuff or somesuch.

Speaking from experience with AL, playing a game sometime with no martial classes other than rogues is painful. Nobody in the front line, so no sneak attack much of the time (other than swashbucklers of course). If you do try to have frontline rogues they'll be significantly less durable than the fighter.

I've never seen so much "Aaarrgghh!! Get off me! Run awaaaayy!!"

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Mattering much isn't always about time spent.

I can only speak from my experience, but in my experience no one cares if they throw the dice or someone else does.

 

[Oofta]

I can only speak from my experience, but in my experience no one cares if they throw the dice or someone else does.

Which has been my experience as well. You only need one person in the group that can open locks or cast detect magic. Contributing to the team has little to do with implementation of the plan.

EDIT: In addition I've been in games where we didn't have a rogue. Other PCs just stepped in to fill the roles a rogue normally fills using backgrounds. So yes, the fighter was the one that disarmed the traps and opened the locks. Not quite as skillfully as a rogue would have been, but good enough.

 

[Garthanos]

I can only speak from my experience, but in my experience no one cares if they throw the dice or someone else does.

I didnt mention dice once its about whose characters abilities are contributing to party success.
Looks AGAIN at noncombat problems solved by spells unilaterally throughout the history of D&D (occasionally even in 4e via rituals which are not always costed perfectly)... and raises an eyebrow? really? color me skeptical

 

[Sacrosanct]

EDIT: In addition I've been in games where we didn't have a rogue. Other PCs just stepped in to fill the roles a rogue normally fills using backgrounds. So yes, the fighter was the one that disarmed the traps and opened the locks. Not quite as skillfully as a rogue would have been, but good enough.

That’s my experience as well. In fact, it’s one of the best things about 5e in my opinion. I’ve frequently told the story about how I converted my F/T from 1e into a fighter with the urchin background and played the exact same role as before without the need to multiclass.
The campaign I just started, there is no rogue but I’m playing a gloom stalker ranger with the criminal background who does the same thing.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I didnt mention dice once its about whose characters abilities are contributing to party success.
Looks AGAIN at noncombat problems solved by spells unilaterally throughout the history of D&D (occasionally even in 4e via rituals which are not always costed perfectly)... and raises an eyebrow? really? color me skeptical

Never played 4e. Used to having one skill monkey who does most of the rolling in 1st, 2nd and 3rd edition. Never had anyone have a problem with it.

So long as the party succeeds, no one cares whose character had the particular ability. Indeed even if they fail they still have fun so it doesn't really matter.

 

[5ekyu]

Never played 4e. Used to having one skill monkey who does most of the rolling in 1st, 2nd and 3rd edition. Never had anyone have a problem with it.

So long as the party succeeds, no one cares whose character had the particular ability. Indeed even if they fail they still have fun so it doesn't really matter.

In my experience this is true to a degree but players seem to have more fun when they get that chance for their charscter to be the key guy in areas they worked at. So, it's not important for the 9 charisma lizard folk to be the one who charms and swet talks but it is that other places he gets the pony. Playing the other guy or "and thexrest" all the time or way much more than the others seems to not get as fun as more evdn splits fo.

And yeah, both success and fail are fine. Both can be fun as all get out.