D&D 5E Fixing the Fighter: The Zouave

[Sacrosanct]

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.

Im a fan of niche protection. I view the party like a sports team, where everyone has a role. I understand how some people want every PC to be as good as every other PC for every scenario, but that’s not my preference. So no one at my table has ever been upset that PC 1 is making all the skill rolls because they know they will have their moment to shine later on.

 

[Garthanos]

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.

I didnt much like playing the 10th level Wizards (AD&D 9th level fighter) side kick who didnt really contribute... it was worse for the thief of course whose ability to shine was completely non-existent.

There is also Climatic Shine that is different People remember that teleport that saved everyones bacon a long time where as steady Freddy not so much.

 

[Garthanos]

I understand how some people want every PC to be as good as every other PC for every scenario

How about the grandeur of being about the same in 1 and in 2 out 3 all being worse?

 

[Garthanos]

. I view the party like a sports team

If the blocker isnt blocking the QB cannot throw and the receiver cannot catch... that is like actual team work where each of the skills contribute to a success.

This seems to have been accomplished in combat... (better perhaps in 4e but still)

 

[Tony Vargas]

The point is, if you believe a class is superior, then you should play that class.

Nah, least interesting reason to choose a class - but the worse the game is balanced, and the better you understand that, the more compelling, but no more interesting, that choice becomes.

If there was a consensus that there was a problem with fighters they wouldn't be commonly played.

The fighter stayed the most popular class when it was Tier 5 in 3.5, and when it came the closest it ever did to balancing with casters in 4e.



It's popularity has nothing to do with how it stacks up to other classes.

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 all players contribute irrespective of what the character sheet says.

So, really, you're saying a player who doesn't have a character, just kibitzs from the peanut gallery, is contributing out of combat as much as if he were playing a fighter...

 

[Undrave]

So, really, you're saying a player who doesn't have a character, just kibitzs from the peanut gallery, is contributing out of combat as much as if he were playing a fighter...

I think he'S saying we have too much stuff on our character sheet. I mean who needs all these skills and languages and proficiency stuff? Or non-combat spells? Anything that doesn't do modify HP or buff/debuff is superfluous.

You just need to role-play really well.

 

[Oofta]

I think he'S saying we have too much stuff on our character sheet. I mean who needs all these skills and languages and proficiency stuff? Or non-combat spells? Anything that doesn't do modify HP or buff/debuff is superfluous.

You just need to role-play really well.

Right. Because fighters have no skills whatsoever. The only skill they can be good at is athletics, might as well ignore all the rest. Oh, and there's no way to get more skills or to double your proficiency bonus if you aren't a rogue. Not to mention that unless a fighter can cast spells they're worthless and they're obviously barred from taking the Ritual Caster feat.

Nobody uses feats, and if you're talking about house rules to fix the "issue" and don't allow feats you are not allowed to make an exception for fighters for one or two feats.

Fighters need to be spellcasters with expertise in order to contribute.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Fighters need to be spellcasters with expertise in order to contribute.

They quite specifically shouldn't need to resort to acquiring spellcasting to contribute. D&D, in general, particularly early on, when the Ranger was given casting because Aragorn, like, knew some herbalism or something, has leaned too heavily on leveraging spell mechanics to cover abilities beyond basic wargaming hit-it-with-a-stick abstract combat resolution.

It was look'n up there, for a while, with skills & all, but it seems, perhaps in part as a side effect of BA, we're back to it.

I think he'S saying we have too much stuff on our character sheet. I mean who needs all these skills and languages and proficiency stuff? Or non-combat spells? Anything that doesn't do modify HP or buff/debuff is superfluous.
You just need to role-play really well.

Not what I took away from it, at all. The emphasis was being in on the discussion since that's most of the table time. So, like, if you're in an intrigue scenario, and a vital ally of yours is poisoned at a state dinner, it's not the cleric who prepared Neutralize Poison that morning that's important, it's the party discussing whether he should cast it.

 

[Garthanos]

The fighter stayed the most popular class when it was Tier 5 in 3.5, and when it came the closest it ever did to balancing with casters in 4e.

It's popularity has nothing to do with how it stacks up to other classes.

You see if you take popularity as being everything ... that above means stacking up with other classes must mean nothing. And that is the goal in question you see creating an excuse.

 

[Undrave]

Right. Because fighters have no skills whatsoever. The only skill they can be good at is athletics, might as well ignore all the rest. Oh, and there's no way to get more skills or to double your proficiency bonus if you aren't a rogue. Not to mention that unless a fighter can cast spells they're worthless and they're obviously barred from taking the Ritual Caster feat.

Nobody uses feats, and if you're talking about house rules to fix the "issue" and don't allow feats you are not allowed to make an exception for fighters for one or two feats.

Fighters need to be spellcasters with expertise in order to contribute.

No no, I mean that EVERYBODY shouldn't have skills period. Then we can just role-play well to do the stuff that doesn't involve combat! Everybody gets to improvise equally now without all those pesky mechanics getting in the way.

Not what I took away from it, at all. The emphasis was being in on the discussion since that's most of the table time. So, like, if you're in an intrigue scenario, and a vital ally of yours is poisoned at a state dinner, it's not the cleric who prepared Neutralize Poison that morning that's important, it's the party discussing whether he should cast it.

Ah so the Fighter can say "Hey, Cleric should cast Neutralize Poison!" first and feel like they contributed meaningfully to the success of the team?