D&D 5E The Fighter Extra Feat Fallacy

Mort said:

If we shore up the combat pillar a bit, the fighter can actually use his feats etc. to gain utility in the exploration/social tiers. of course the question then becomes, what if they just use them to gain even more combat utility - no real answer to that yet - just a few off the cuff ideas.

Click to expand...

Does the fighter need shoring up in the combat pillar? If not I say leave it to individual players to decide. Some don't want the extra utility while others will but I like that it's a decision.

Mort said:

If we shore up the combat pillar a bit, the fighter can actually use his feats etc. to gain utility in the exploration/social tiers. of course the question then becomes, what if they just use them to gain even more combat utility - no real answer to that yet - just a few off the cuff ideas.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that's an issue. One of the 'problems' is that there's a couple of specific feats that really pump the fighter's combat effectiveness, and feats are optional. The fighter will most likely take one of those feats at 4th (and use the 6th level feat to play catch-up with his primary), if not at 1st as a variant human. But, if no feats are available, the fighter's advantage is reduced to a +2 STR or DEX two levels early. Hardly nothing, but not as big a deal as the 'broken' feats.

Maybe re-cast those feats as an 'advanced combat style' feature that the fighter gets at some level...?

Greg Benage said:

Yeah, I'd add SCAG classes, some UA, and probably even the Open Hand monk, depending on the flavor of S&S. And fortunately, I only have to please my players.

Click to expand...

I'd also add in the totem barbarian. I don't really see them as overtly magical.

cbwjm said:

I'd also add in the totem barbarian. I don't really see them as overtly magical.

Click to expand...

I love the totem barbarian, but it's pretty hard to argue many of their abilities are not overtly magical or at least mythic (which seems to be in the same category for those concerned with such things):

1. You can cast beast sense and speak with animals (as rituals);

2. At low levels, you can run faster or jump higher than any other human (frankly this can be a training thing, but it's expressly stated as magical).

3. By higher levels some of the paths explicitly allow you to fly (for short distances, but still fly).

Mort said:

I love the totem barbarian, but it's pretty hard to argue many of their abilities are not overtly magical or at least mythic (which seems to be in the same category for those concerned with such things):

1. You can cast beast sense and speak with animals (as rituals);

2. At low levels, you can run faster or jump higher than any other human (frankly this can be a training thing, but it's expressly stated as magical).

3. By higher levels some of the paths explicitly allow you to fly (for short distances, but still fly).

Click to expand...

I honestly don't count the rituals as overt magic. They seem more like a vision quest or something and wouldn't worry about them. Point 2 I also wouldn't include as overtly magical. I'd I'd have to have another look at the fly ability.

cbwjm said:

I honestly don't count the rituals as overt magic. They seem more like a vision quest or something and wouldn't worry about them. Point 2 I also wouldn't include as overtly magical. I'd I'd have to have another look at the fly ability.

Click to expand...

Nod. Some stuff in 5e isn't overtly magical, like much of what the Open Hand Monk can do, but are none the less called out explicitly as magical.

cbwjm said:

I honestly don't count the rituals as overt magic. They seem more like a vision quest or something and wouldn't worry about them. Point 2 I also wouldn't include as overtly magical. I'd I'd have to have another look at the fly ability.

Click to expand...

Beast sense allows you to Warg (no control, but seeing AND listening), speak with animals allows actual talking to animals. Vision quest or no, it's not mundane!

Sent from my SM-G930V using EN World mobile app

Alexemplar said:

No, options in and of themselves don't have meaning. However many options actually do. What matters is the actual effects those options have and the Fighter's relative lack of options means that when it comes to dealing with a situation that doesn't involve hitting it until it's dead, it's pretty much at a loss compared to all other classes that have options other than that. Classes that can also usually fall back on hitting things until they're dead just fine (sometimes better than the Fighter).



"Oh, you're a two weapon fighter and he's a duelist. Wow, so different," Yes, it's very easy to be dismissive of what is actually a more substantive difference.

But that doesn't change the fact that a Wizard can lean hard into it's many choices AND lean hard into a specific set of tactics, a specific personality, or background while the Fighter is restricted in former.



It's not "most true" of the fighter. A player who leans hard into roleplaying unique non-mechanical characteristics in order to distinguish their character does not find tools to help them in the Fighter any more than other classes. It's just more notable in the fighter because it's pretty much the ONLY meaningful choice the character gets to make while every other class gets to make that choice PLUS those presented by their class.

The only advantage the Fighter has is that it's easier to make a character without having to make as many choices in character creation and gameplay. I would think that D&D would eventually release a simply blasty class as there's no reason to restrict such... restrictions solely to Fighters. I know so many players that want to play a spellcaster just so they can blast stuff every round but would prefer not to have to sort through a dozen spells and their associated mechanics just so they can roll a dice to hit and deal Xd8 fire/acid/lightning/cold damage.

Click to expand...

Isn't that largely what the Warlock was trying to be?

But you've hit on the point I've been trying to make...the Fighter is simpler in that there are less decisions for character build. I don't think that's a problem. I also don't think it limits the Fighter to being a "simple character" just because the class is simpler. It depends on what the player wants and how they play the character.

I mean, in my experience, the "social pillar" of the game is as much about how players play their characters as it is about CHA and a handful of skills.

May I submit for your perusal my changes to the class. The spell slots are for the Eldritch Knight.

hawkeyefan said:

Isn't that largely what the Warlock was trying to be?

Click to expand...

That was definitely more the case with the 3e Warlock as compared to the 3e Fighter, which I think is part of why it ended up being really popular. Fighter chose a bonus feat at 1st level and Warlock chose a single invocation at 1st level. That was it. You could easily jump into the Warlock without having any real understanding of how D&D spellcasting mechanics really worked, spend every turn using your default attack and the class would still work.

That's why I was a little disappointed to see the 5e version become more complex with the addition of cantrips and spell slots (of which there are dozens and more varied than 3e invocations. They don't even get Eldritch Blast automatically anymore. They gave the players a lot more choice in how to build their Warlock.

Meanwhile the Fighter class got *fewer* choices compared to 3e.

But you've hit on the point I've been trying to make...the Fighter is simpler in that there are less decisions for character build. I don't think that's a problem. I also don't think it limits the Fighter to being a "simple character" just because the class is simpler. It depends on what the player wants and how they play the character.

Click to expand...

My issue is that those lack of class options is tied almost exclusively tied to the only class that really does non-magical warrior. Want to be that guy? Better be happy with only 1 decision point at first level, all of which are focused on how much more/less damage you do/take.

Want to play someone who just blasts stuff with energy? The closest you get is a class that also saddles you with having to choose a greater power to bind yourself to, a couple of damage/utility spells from a dozen options and another couple spells from a list that's even longer. Also, don't foorget that you have to specifically choose the blasty spells. They aren't assumed, and you can easily build a character with nothing but utility spells.

Heck, I'd be thrilled if D&D introduced a new class that was pretty much a non-magical warrior, but with some more utility in the other pillars. Call it whatever you want. Unfortunately, this has tended to be a divisive thing whenever it appears in D&D.

I mean, in my experience, the "social pillar" of the game is as much about how players play their characters as it is about CHA and a handful of skills.

Click to expand...

Not entirely. Often times, being able to do stuff like speak/understand rare or unusual languages, being able to make decent knowledge checks related to the matter at hand, having useful utility powers, or being able to perform tricks like inducing various states of fear/charm/confusion can help where a simple Deception/Diplomacy/Insight check would not.

One reasons I really like Know Your Enemy is because it gives the Fighter an incentive to actually stop and at least talk to/interact with something. As mentioned before (or was it another thread) I really think it would have made a great 1st level Fighter feature.

And then there's exploration.