Level Up (A5E) What is the vision of the high level fighter?

[Minigiant]

no one said the ranger or barbarian or paladin out of combat stuff wasnt a problem. Not sure why you would compare a fighter with out if combat problems to other classes that have them too, albeit to a slightly lesser degree.

I'm not comparing fighters to other classes, exactly.

It's actually an attack on the skill and tool system.

Skills and Tools that would be seen as fighterish don't exist in 5e.

Architecture
Geography
Nobility
Streetwise
Trade
Military

All missing. All there are are smith's tools and leatherworker's tools.

 

[FrogReaver]

I'm not comparing fighters to other classes, exactly.

It's actually an attack on the skill and tool system.

Skills and Tools that would be seen as fighterish don't exist in 5e.

Architecture
Geography
Nobility
Streetwise
Trade
Military

All missing

Not that I agree but even if they were there.... still doesn't help.

 

[Horwath]

no one said the ranger or barbarian or paladin out of combat stuff wasnt a problem. Not sure why you would compare a fighter with out if combat problems to other classes that have them too, albeit to a slightly lesser degree.

skills could be a way to sort out martials OOC usage, and make fighter universal in skill usage and have other classes have fewer bonus skills but with expertise.

I.E. have fighter have 7 OOC skills extra: athletics, acrobatics, insight, history, perception, survival, intimidation.

barbarian: skills+expertise: athletics, survival, intimidation
monk: skills+expertise: athletics, acrobatics, stealth
ranger: skills+expertise: nature, perception, survival
rogue: skills+expertise: stealth, perception, deception
paladin: skills+expertise: religion, insight, intimidation

that way fighter is general in OOC skills, while other classes are are more focused into their special area.

 

[Minigiant]

Not that I agree but even if they were there.... still doesn't help.

It could though..

A fighter could roll Nobility to get a more direct benefit in a meeting with a lord that a rural sorcerer relying on Charisma (Deception) or a thief using Persuasion expertise.
A fighter could use Architecture or Military to fortify a castle in the path of a demon horde.
A fighter could use Geography to deduce the most likely places for a cultist hideout, dragon nest, or a magic circle.

 

[TheSword]

On the other hand a cleric, a paladin, a barbarian, or even a captive high level monster can substitute for the fighter. A cleric or warlock can sometimes substitute for a wizard. Also if you've two wizards you might be able to have one planeshift and the other dragon-transform. If you have two fighters you're not even DOA - because you can't even start the journey.

Being good at combat is not a role - everyone contributes in combat. The fighter, pretty much alone, is not much use anywhere else.

I think the problem with this argument and therefore the thread is that while the Fighter is unashamedly tooled for combat as a class, the nature of 5e means this doesn’t really matter.

Looking at the fighter class in isolation means yes there is a lack of specific class abilities to influence social interactions. Or to aid with exploration. However 5e doesn’t operate in isolation.

The fighter class is tooled for combat but a fighter character can be tooled for exploration or interactions. With 12 Charisma and the prodigy feat I can get +5 persuasion which is the same as that Charisma 16 Bard (except my proficiency will scale faster). I could do the same to gain proficiency with thieves tools and stealth, or survival etc etc. Backgrounds let you be great at whatever you like really and bounded accuracy means you don’t need to devote a whole character to an idea to be successful at it.

You may say that the fighter has to give up resources from background or feat to do this. I say who cares, you have to spend those resources somewhere. The trade off is I get to be ace in combat.

So because I can make a Fighter character who can interact and explore really well I don’t really care that the class doesn’t have those elements baked in.

 

[Derren]

The fighter class is tooled for combat but a fighter character can be tooled for exploration or interactions.

Since 3E all classes are tooled for combat, robbing the fighter of its niche.

 

[TheSword]

Since 3E all classes are tooled for combat, robbing the fighter of its niche.

Classes are better tooled for combat than they were in 5e but action economy and limited attacks limit this. Say what you like about fighters (and you have) they kick ass when it comes to combat encounters when all the white room stuff is taken out like 5 minute days and ideal slot choice. They’ll never beat abominations like the sorcadin but neither should they try to. You can’t design a class to beat corner cases.

Putting your head in the sand and saying Fighters don’t kick ass in combat undermines any other arguments you make about the fighter not performing.

 

[glass]

Does not matter spells slots from earlier editions were being expressly talked about

You have been able to use high-level slots for low-level spells since at least 3e.

How did Pathfinder 2 do it? I constantly hear that wizards are underpowered there and that martial classes rule...

A lot of people say that, but IMNSHO that is mostly a product of their being weak compared with PF1 Wizards (who are of course godlike), rather than actually being underpowered.

_
glass.

 

[CapnZapp]

I think the problem with this argument and therefore the thread is that while the Fighter is unashamedly tooled for combat as a class, the nature of 5e means this doesn’t really matter.

Looking at the fighter class in isolation means yes there is a lack of specific class abilities to influence social interactions. Or to aid with exploration. However 5e doesn’t operate in isolation.

The fighter class is tooled for combat but a fighter character can be tooled for exploration or interactions. With 12 Charisma and the prodigy feat I can get +5 persuasion which is the same as that Charisma 16 Bard (except my proficiency will scale faster). I could do the same to gain proficiency with thieves tools and stealth, or survival etc etc. Backgrounds let you be great at whatever you like really and bounded accuracy means you don’t need to devote a whole character to an idea to be successful at it.

You may say that the fighter has to give up resources from background or feat to do this. I say who cares, you have to spend those resources somewhere. The trade off is I get to be ace in combat.

So because I can make a Fighter character who can interact and explore really well I don’t really care that the class doesn’t have those elements baked in.

Well said.

 

[CapnZapp]

Since 3E all classes are tooled for combat, robbing the fighter of its niche.

Only if they do it better.

Which simply isn't the case in 5E. (And in PF2 the Fighter is arguably a top tier class)

So yes, in 3E it was a huge problem that other classes stole the Fighter's thunder. Aka the "linear fighter, quadratic wizard" problem.

But now? It's all good.

Every martial character I've seen has either been jealous of Action Surge or multiclassed to get it.