D&D General The Crab Bucket Fallacy

[Mort]

Really? Your claim is that, out of combat, a fighter is not much better than:

Commoner

Club. Melee Weapon Attack: [rollable]+2;{'diceNotation':'1d20+2','rollType':'to hit','rollAction':'Club'}[/rollable] to hit, reach 5 ft.,...

www.dndbeyond.com

Hmmm.

The only difference is the higher level fighter will have a better proficiency bonus in some skills.

Fighters, unless they get VERY lucky in rolling generally can't afford a good int, wis or Cha - and rolling isn't the norm anymore regardless.

Yes a fighter could devote some resources and get prodigy or some other skill boosting feat - but that's generally at the cost of combat prowess. IMO an unfair trade.

Well, leaving hyperbole land behind, fighters are the most customizable class, by design, leaving the choice of how to tailor them to your specific desire in the hands of the player. You want a dex-based, super stealthy fighter, you can make it. You can make a fighter who is pretty good at exploration, or, as you point out yourself, roll an Echo Knight and be among the best in the game at it. And so on.

That's one (very niche) subclass, which I already acknowledged. But it takes serious resources to make "super stealthy..." fighter and you'll sacrifice a lot more then a caster who wants to do it.

Can they be among the best at every pillar? No. Nor should they be. You can roll a fighter that will be a good face, but if you want to be a great one, roll a bard, just like you can be a bard that is good in melee combat, but if you want to be great at it, roll a fighter.

ALL classes are good at combat. Bards absolutely rock in combat, they just do it differently than fighters (in my Sunday game, the bard ensured the main bad guy and his top lieutenant were out of the fight for about 3 rounds while the rest were mopped up, then the big bad was teamed up on. The bard also turned a hit into a miss twice and turned at least one failed save into a success. It's not DPR but it was central to the fights success).

But the bard ALSO rocks at social (obviously) and is good at exploration (spells like enhance ability really show here). All this without having to sacrifice combat prowess.

There are plenty of steps to minimize/eliminate caster dominance - but they need to be more overtly stated for newer players. And there really do need to be more options for fighters outside of combat, not just the baby steps currently offered.

 

[Eubani]

Is it me or does sound like some people here seem to think that the Fighter is the only class that can take races, backgrounds and feats. All those poor other obsolete classes only getting their class abilities.

 

[Minigiant]

Again

The issue is that that the fighter is the best at combat.

The issue is at level 4:

Fighter Attack: +4 to hit, 1d8+6 damage.
Tempest/War/Forge/Twilight/Etc Cleric: +4 to hit, 1d8+4 damage.
Rogue: +4 to hit, 1d8+4 damage.
Hexblade: +4 to hit, 1d8+4 damage.
Bladesinger: +4 to hit, 1d8+4 damage.

What do all those classes gain in exchange for 2 damage a turn and an Action Surge? Not Enough design space in 2 damage.

 

[cbwjm]

Just reading the opening post, it sounds a lot like the issue is that you've got someone who has taken a fighter, given it powerful wizard-like abilities without taking anything away.

In the case of this warlord, sure, you want those powerful abilities then you can have them, but you need to drop the hit die to d6, you can't start with any armour proficiencies, and you only get a handful of weapon proficiencies.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Very late to the thread, but:

In the end, it's fine that people have different preferences. Really! Seriously, there are those that want their martials all mundane, or, at most, a little Conan-y. And there are those that want Martials goin' all Wuxia and wielding swords that are four times the length of their bodies and jumping up 200 feet to bash a demon lord in the face.

I just wanted to say (in case nobody else did) that a person’s preferences in this context can vary over time, across campaigns, and across systems.

Disclosure: I’ve personally enjoyed playing both ends of these extremes and many points in between. Over time. Across campaigns. Across systems.

 

[Minigiant]

Just reading the opening post, it sounds a lot like the issue is that you've got someone who has taken a fighter, given it powerful wizard-like abilities without taking anything away

The point was that their homebrew warlord was weaker than the wizard. Likely half caster power.

On the issue of what this warlord loses from the fighter base...

In the case of this warlord, sure, you want those powerful abilities then you can have them, but you need to drop the hit die to d6, you can't start with any armour proficiencies, and you only get a handful of weapon proficiencies

Dropping HD to d6 and removing weapon and armor isn't enough.

That's the hidden core problem.

Lowering HD, weapon and armor for area buffs and debuffs? That's the Hexblade. The Hexblade is very strong and to many OP.

Elements like the fighter, half orc, vamipiric touch etc are so simplistic you can't add new elements to the game because these elements are also so bad any decent addition ALSO power creeps them.

 

[Eubani]

Again

The issue is that that the fighter is the best at combat.

The issue is at level 4:

Fighter Attack: +4 to hit, 1d8+6 damage.
Tempest/War/Forge/Twilight/Etc Cleric: +4 to hit, 1d8+4 damage.
Rogue: +4 to hit, 1d8+4 damage.
Hexblade: +4 to hit, 1d8+4 damage.
Bladesinger: +4 to hit, 1d8+4 damage.

What do all those classes gain in exchange for 2 damage a turn and an Action Surge? Not Enough design space in 2 damage.

But But But the Fighter has a Background. lol
Can anyone yet see how worthless such arguments are yet, or have I not yet used enough sarcasm to point out how lacking such arguments are?

 

[Minigiant]

But But But the Fighter has a Background. lol
Can anyone yet see how worthless such arguments are yet, or have I not yet used enough sarcasm to point out how lacking such arguments are?

The issue is if you play stereotypical race/background/class setups with no overlaps, you don't see the problem.

The issue with the 5E 2013 Playtest is it changed so often, people only playtested the same beginner stereotypes over and over.

Human/Dwarf soldier champion fighter, Human/Dwarf acolyte life cleric. Human/elf sage wizard. Human/Halfling criminal thief rogue.

Why do you think the dragonborn was released so weak?

If no one playtests a knight battlemaster fighter, charlatan lore bard, criminal enchantment wizard, and noble paladin together in playtest, WOTC doesn't realize how close and far their modifiers are in the same team until 2020.

 

[Eubani]

The issue is if you play stereotypical race/background/class setups with no overlaps, you don't see the problem.

The issue with the 5E 2013 Playtest is it changed so often, people only playtested the same beginner stereotypes over and over.

Human/Dwarf soldier champion fighter, Human/Dwarf acolyte life cleric. Human/elf sage wizard. Human/Halfling criminal thief rogue.

Why do you think the dragonborn was released so weak?

If no one playtests a knight battlemaster fighter, charlatan lore bard, criminal enchantment wizard, and noble paladin together in playtest, WOTC doesn't realize how close and far their modifiers are in the same team until 2020.

Not what I was getting at, some our more um stubborn SSS (Society for Spellcaster Supremacy) members keep trotting out garbage like the Fighter having a background makes up for any out of combat disparity.

 

[Minigiant]

Not what I was getting at, some our more um stubborn SSS members keep trotting out garbage like the Fighter having a background makes up for any out of combat disparity.

The point is the +2 a fighter gets with a background is being compared with a paladin's +4, a sorcerer's +5, or a Bard's +7.

The Bard and Sorcerer are very close. The Bard and Fighter are far.