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

[tetrasodium]

Does this really happens all that much?

I think its one of those theoric problem seen on the internet and not much at the table, and even when it does happen at the table, it is quickly dealt with with a mature discussion.

and if the table is actually ok with sacrificing followers left and right because they can and the DM does not mind, more power to them.

Depends on your table, but I ran AL 1-2x/week precovid in addition to my regular campaign & saw it extremely often including many cases where multiple players urged the rogue not to scout because of Bob's owl/Alice's imp
You keep talking about sacrificing followers like there is a real sacrifice to losing your familiar. They aren't going without alertness,a skill bonus, or whatever like past editions. They are going without a disposable parrot drone until they spend one hour and the utterly meaningless sum of 10gp in 5e.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

That's the problem. It's too good at scouting to the point where it's basically a silent parrot drone that has no meaningful cost if you lose it & in many ways this disposable thing is better at scouting than stealth classes with a lot of their identity wrapped up in being stealthy for the reasons you cite. as to your last point no that is not in any way a reasonable design "yea this ability doesn't really do what fits it thematically & there's really only one valid choice with all other familiars being pretty identical but the gm will make up rules that steer this trainwreck of a feature back on course" is not a reasonable way to design a system the gm pays for

But we are talking about human, martial followers for the fighter. The all-powerful owl familiar is a little off-topic here. The 3 retainers + 1 fighting companion from the feature I wrote in previous post wont ignore a whole pillar or replace a whole class! We are talking about having (supposedly) intelligent humans with a modicum of common sense be the ''pet'' the high level fighter gains.

But I you want to go on that tangent: do you feel the same way about the druid changing into an owl or a spider to scout? Or the invisible imp of the warlock?

 

[DND_Reborn]

Does this really happens all that much?

I think its one of those theoric problem seen on the internet and not much at the table, and even when it does happen at the table, it is quickly dealt with with a mature discussion.

and if the table is actually ok with sacrificing followers left and right because they can and the DM does not mind, more power to them.

Well, completely off-topic, but IME no, but I hear about it in other groups. People use familiars in combat for their help action, send them forward to trigger ambushes, etc. as fodder. Why? Because for 10 gp and 10 minutes, you get the familiar back. Easy-peasy lemon squeezy.

Also, we added it but that is also because having a familiar gives the PC temporary HP equal to their character level after a long rest. We added it because we wanted to more represent the spell from 1E where it granted HP and you lost something if they died.

 

[TheSword]

That's the problem. It's too good at scouting to the point where it's basically a silent parrot drone that has no meaningful cost if you lose it & in many ways this disposable thing is better at scouting than stealth classes with a lot of their identity wrapped up in being stealthy for the reasons you cite. as to your last point no that is not in any way a reasonable design "yea this ability doesn't really do what fits it thematically & there's really only one valid choice with all other familiars being pretty identical but the gm will make up rules that steer this trainwreck of a feature back on course" is not a reasonable way to design a system the gm pays for

A flying familiar is basically a birds eye scouting view. I have no problem with that (see Assassins creed odyssey) I do have a problem with it perching are every window to have a nosey inside. Then it’s gonna get shot.

 

[Neonchameleon]

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.

At the cost of a permanent two stat points in a key stat or a significant amount of combat potential you can get a fighter character who has one single skill that will scale as well as a bard will if the Bard doesn't really care about that skill (remember that Bards get expertise as a class feature). And if the bard doesn't choose to focus on persuasion they still cancel out your first two proficiency increases with spending their first two ability boosts on CHA, which they are going to do anyway. Meaning in the skill you have chosen to give up significant combat potential for you are either equal to or behind a not particularly interested bard until level 13.

But the Bard doesn't just get skills. They get spells that support what they do. Cantrips like Minor Image, Message, and Prestidigitation help. So do first level spells like Disguise Self, Charm Person, Comprehend Languages and Illusionary Servant. So do second level spells like Detect Thoughts, Suggestion, and Zone of Truth. And no, a Bard isn't going to have all of those. But they can have some - and because combat is a simple process you don't need many combat spells. And on a day by day basis the Bard gets to decide where to spend their spell slots while the fighter's feat is permanently gone.

And I'm not sure what makes you think that your fighter can explore really well. They are in general good at climbing things - but not very good at spotting them, are frequently slow and not good at stealth, and don't have any real abilities to help. The Barbarian, for example, is significantly better in every way here.

All of which means your fighter isn't so much good at the social pillar as not entirely incompetent. But well behind a bard who isn't even trying to be an expert at persuading.

As for "the tradeoff is I get to be ace in combat" feats are valuable. You gave up a significant amount of being ace in combat when you chose to permanently burn an entire feat to be able to play in another field at all. The tradeoff for the fighter getting to be vaguely competent at social skills rather than being the worst is that you cease to be actually ace in combat. This is a cost not paid by spellcasters.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Well, completely off-topic, but IME no, but I hear about it in other groups. People use familiars in combat for their help action, send them forward to trigger ambushes, etc. as fodder.

They dont cost much because they dont do much. They dont bring the same advantage as in 3.X.

At best what? You reconned a zone you will visit anyway in advance? You avoided an ambush, which with the way 5e handles Surprise (aka, it sucks) is really no big deal and not guaranteed even if the enemies were hidden or invisible? Can wade into battle with its 1 hp to give advantage, which in 5e is really easy to come by anyway, being easy prey for readied action and ranged attacks? It took one hit that would've been directed to an ally? It can cast the wizard's touch spells? There's like 3 of them in the game!

Yes, the damn bird can fly and has the flyby and darkvision feature, but so what? darkvision is still disadvantage (canceling their advantage) to perception with a meager +3 to their skill roll, cant still see creature that are, like, inside or have full covers from the canopy. They wont spot traps that are hidden, with their -4 investigation or wont be able to recognize them as trap.

I think part of the problem is that the DM let them be too powerful, navigating corridors like its open air, ignoring the disadvantage for perception, forgetting readied action exists for enemies or have Perception be the be-all-end-all to scout.

 

[TheSword]

At the cost of a permanent two stat points in a key stat or a significant amount of combat potential you can get a fighter character who has one single skill that will scale as well as a bard will if the Bard doesn't really care about that skill (remember that Bards get expertise as a class feature). And if the bard doesn't choose to focus on persuasion they still cancel out your first two proficiency increases with spending their first two ability boosts on CHA, which they are going to do anyway. Meaning in the skill you have chosen to give up significant combat potential for you are either equal to or behind a not particularly interested bard until level 13.

But the Bard doesn't just get skills. They get spells that support what they do. Cantrips like Minor Image, Message, and Prestidigitation help. So do first level spells like Disguise Self, Charm Person, Comprehend Languages and Illusionary Servant. So do second level spells like Detect Thoughts, Suggestion, and Zone of Truth. And no, a Bard isn't going to have all of those. But they can have some - and because combat is a simple process you don't need many combat spells. And on a day by day basis the Bard gets to decide where to spend their spell slots while the fighter's feat is permanently gone.

And I'm not sure what makes you think that your fighter can explore really well. They are in general good at climbing things - but not very good at spotting them, are frequently slow and not good at stealth, and don't have any real abilities to help. The Barbarian, for example, is significantly better in every way here.

All of which means your fighter isn't so much good at the social pillar as not entirely incompetent. But well behind a bard who isn't even trying to be an expert at persuading.

As for "the tradeoff is I get to be ace in combat" feats are valuable. You gave up a significant amount of being ace in combat when you chose to permanently burn an entire feat to be able to play in another field at all. The tradeoff for the fighter getting to be vaguely competent at social skills rather than being the worst is that you cease to be actually ace in combat. This is a cost not paid by spellcasters.

Not so. For a few reasons. Firstly Bards get very limited spell choices... they can’t be good at everything. While the fighter gets more feats than the other classes. There are several ways a fighter character can get Minor image or friends - sun elf for instance, at very little cost to their fighting ability. Background also requires little cost to fighting ability.

The measure of contributing to exploration or roleplay is not to be ‘better than a bard’, it is to be able to meaningfully contribute. A bard player would be justifiably upset if a fighter was upstaging their role. The point I made is that a fighter character can influence people in the absence of a bard. My example was merely to suggest a first level fighter could be as good a face as a bard at first level - a point which I stand by.

We can argue over whether x class is better at y. But if you fundamentally deny that a fighter character can achieve a reasonable results in the exploration and influencing pillars then Im not sure you’re playing the same game.

 

[tetrasodium]

But we are talking about human, martial followers for the fighter. The all-powerful owl familiar is a little off-topic here. The 3 retainers + 1 fighting companion from the feature I wrote in previous post wont ignore a whole pillar or replace a whole class! We are talking about having (supposedly) intelligent humans with a modicum of common sense be the ''pet'' the high level fighter gains.

But I you want to go on that tangent: do you feel the same way about the druid changing into an owl or a spider to scout? Or the invisible imp of the warlock?

The owl is germane to those followers who exist to guard or be a ten foot pole until they die & because they don't do anything else nobody cares when they die. The reason the owl is relative is because it's also a disposable ten foot pole but better. In past editions followers & familiars both did something tangible & mechanical for the PC. Followers in 5e wound up being too powerful & the ones you are trying to anoint with a crown are so weak their only point is really to stand guard or be an improved 10foot pole till they lemming off. These things need to have a mechanical benefit to the player that goes away the moment they die for them to be anything else

 

[tetrasodium]

Not so. For a few reasons. Firstly Bards get very limited spell choices... they can’t be good at everything. While the fighter gets more feats than the other classes. There are several ways a fighter character can get Minor image or friends - sun elf for instance, at very little cost to their fighting ability. Background also requires little cost to fighting ability.

The measure of contributing to exploration or roleplay is not to be ‘better than a bard’, it is to be able to meaningfully contribute. A bard player would be justifiably upset if a fighter was upstaging their role. The point I made is that a fighter character can influence people in the absence of a bard. My example was merely to suggest a first level fighter could be as good a face as a bard at first level - a point which I stand by.

We can argue over whether x class is better at y. But if you fundamentally deny that a fighter character can achieve a reasonable results in the exploration and influencing pillars then Im not sure you’re playing the same game.

Indeed. The "problem" with fighters in social situations isn't so much that they "can't" contribute so much as they need to contribute as a fighter rather than a face character with lots of charisma wotc buried that under an anemic selection of half finished skills. For all the page space wasted on ability checks rather than skill checks on phb174 & elsewere, they screw the pooch & highlight that it's still actually just skill checks on the next page by saying that they were just kidding because it's really still just skill checks & each skill has the ability preset unless you use a Variant rule

Take the A-Team as an example, there were plenty of examples where the face character known as Hannibal was trying to convince a bunch of bad guys who weren't buying it & it's obvious he's going to fail hard. BA Baracus doesn't jump in trying to charm the bad guys, he uses strength(intimidate) to drop an engine on one of the ring leaders... Maybe Murdock uses int(arcana) to trigger the alarm so it calls the police or forces the badguys to back off ior he's going to drop this broken lamp in the barrel of jet fuel there in the garage.

Don't just try to copy the bard, own the fact that your a fighter & be a big scary brute, Brianne of Tarth doesn't (successfully plead with charm because that's not her thing)... she lays out that giant intimidating sword & explains how easy it would be to appeal to force by asking her floundering bard how many bones she can break if this keeps up.

Trying to shove players out of that reinforced steel box of skill checks where each skill has a specific defined set of uses & associated ability rather than doing things that make sense with each ability & adding the proficiency bonus if the gm agrees it makes sense in the situation is and extremely difficult uphill struggle & that "variant" inclusion on skills with different ability scores makes it needlessly so.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

The owl is germane to those followers who exist to guard or be a ten foot pole until they die & because they don't do anything else nobody cares when they die. The reason the owl is relative is because it's also a disposable ten foot pole but better. In past editions followers & familiars both did something tangible & mechanical for the PC. Followers in 5e wound up being too powerful & the ones you are trying to anoint with a crown are so weak their only point is really to stand guard or be an improved 10foot pole till they lemming off. These things need to have a mechanical benefit to the player that goes away the moment they die for them to be anything else

Sorry but I disagree.

In the feature I wrote in previous posts, the 1 hp followers are just on camp duties, they wont follow in dungeons or perform dangerous tasks. The features also grant a combat-able follower based on the steel defender from the battle smith. It scales just fine to be a valuable asset without stealing anyone spotlight.

A follower with Con + you CHA + 5 times your level HP, with its own action allotment and special actions =/= a stupid owl with no actions but to scout and die. Equating both of them is plain wrong.

If the PC treat human creatures with such disdain AND the DM let them act stupidly, then there could be a problem. But I refuse to even acknowledge that these are such a common occurrence that having a retainer system is just asking for problems.

I dont even know what you are talking about here: " Followers in 5e wound up being too powerful & the ones you are trying to anoint with a crown are so weak their only point is really to stand guard or be an improved 10foot pole till they lemming off''

There are no follower as of now in D&D and the one from my features have built-in reason to no lemming themselves.
Just to repeat myself:

• The weak, ''roleplay'' retainers, wont accept to be used a 10 ft pole.
• The stronger companion is not weak and can do much more than guard the tent (and wont accept to be a landmine detector)

And the mechanical penalty for losing them? How about that: You just lost a level-worth of class feature until you can take a long rest in a settlement. That's the same penalty the beastmaster has for using its beast in stupid ways.

How the spell was handled in previous edition is of no relevance: that edition also had racial penalties, non-favored class penalty, stat drained, burning XP for creating items etc. They were removed because penalties for using your features that arent OP are not fun.