That's irrelevant, however. What another character can or cannot do does not change what a fighter can do. The fighter can do those things. It's not like allowing a cleric the same possibilities precluded the fighter from those options.
- Not everyone is a wizard, for starters. That's looking at a high utility class as the standard. What most classes accomplish is the norm, not the extremes.
- I did qualify that it's an environmental and/or prep factor. It's not like there was anything misleading there. I simply ask questions. Coating the ground with oil or pitch to light with a flaming arrow can do the same thing.
- Fly sucks compared to the griffon mount. Griffons aren't dispelled like magic, don't break on failed concentration, don't spend a spell slot, have a reasonable amount of hit points for a mount, and the range on a bow is greater than the vast majority of spells. If a person does find the mount is dying (I didn't find that) then take the mounted combatant feat so that the griffon has evasion and the fighter can take the attacks instead of the griffon. There are plenty of advantages for a griffon over the fly spell.
- The wizard isn't guaranteed to sneak right past the guard's face because he still needs to roll the check. The fighter can bribe the guard or intimidate him with "you didn't see me. If you let anyone know I was here I will....." and get passed the guard with a check too. Disguise and intimidation are both methods to bypass guards in plain sight. So would climbing a sheer wall farther away from the guard's line of sight. There's often multiple approaches to the same goal.
Which is why I pointed out there are obviously things magic can do that a fighter cannot. That's not a point of contention. People seem to ignore the options and utility fighters do have as if it doesn't exist. My point is the gap isn't a big as a lot of people seem to think.
Because they don't have any. Everything you list here is accomplished by anyone trained in the skill, which any class can be thanks to how backgrounds work. Fighters receive no significant buffs to utility and no way to use skills in a fashion not available to other characters. They lose in untility to every character with magic at their disposal, which in 5e is a ton of them.
The point of the book case is multiple targets of low hit points and generally at lower levels and has nothing to do with DM fiat. I provided the the DMG page for reference on that type of damage. DM fiat would be ignoring it.
The bookcase does 1d10 with no modifiers. It's a better option in almost all cases to just move and attack the foes, unless for some bizarre reason there're 4+ enemies in the range of one bookcase. In all other scenarios the fighter is better off not relying on conditional amounts of puny damage.
Gun powder may or may not be an option. Asking for it isn't a problem. Either the other existing options continue to exist (no loss in asking) or the option becomes available. That is a DM decision based on campaign and why the hermit secret gives legitimacy to controlling access for some. Calling it a hilarious super secret clubhouse discredits your answer given that all characters with the hermit background have their secrets and we play in a world with alchemy labs.
The difference being that there's little to suppose wizards couldn't also discover it for one. Asking for it is a problem if it implies that you need special-snowflake options to keep parity with other classes, and the clubhouse comment is spot on when any wizard who sees a mundane class use gunpowder is going to immediately dedicate resources to its experimentation. That's kind of the fundamental difference between technology and magical skill; the idea that you could keep effective gunpowder use secret for any degree of time (much less so in a world with magical divination) is indeed ludicrous. It's just the GM explicitly saying that a fighter gets these toys and no one else, logic be damned.
Not really. The wizard can have a griffon for a mount (and I think it's a good idea) but it's not a competition. The wizard who turns invisible still makes a stealth check. Now so does the griffon if the wizard knows how to get it to try to be quiet. The griffon has a +2 bonus with no proficiency, the wizard may or may not have proficiency, the invisibility spell is now costing a higher level slot, and the utility magic still doesn't completely replace skills as demonstrated by the stealth check that continues to be requires of invisibility.
It's absolutely a competition when you're comparing the capabilities of two classes, or archetypes. I'm also puzzled by your inclusion of the griffon's stealth check, since it assumes both that they will be close enough to hear (which can easily be no) or that the fighter can somehow be better at this, which he can't. My point is that the mage can be an invisible flying scout when given the same resources (the mount), and the fighter can't, so bringing the griffon up is pointless.
The wizard flying on a griffon doesn't prevent the fighter from flying on a griffon. It means they are both flying. As point out above, the fighter has better range with his or her weapons than the wizard does with his or her spells for the most part.
Sure, when it comes to damage dealing the fighter is typically the better option sans edge cases. Not really the point though, since we're discussing utility.
Darkvision doesn't give any bonus to perception. It's also "darkvision" and not "xray vision". In order to hide, there needs to be a place to hide. That means behind bushes, crouching behind thrones, climbing up into a little alcove, climbing a tree, even hiding behind another party member as a possibility. Hiding does not require darkness just because a person can also hide in the darkness.
Heavy armor can be taken off for the times a person wants to be stealthy and DEX definitely helps. Fortunately, it's easy to build a DEX fighter for those who want to be stealthy.
Stealth rules are a mess, but some keys phrases are "you can't hide from a creature that can see you clearly." and "one of the main factors in determining whether you can find a hidden creature or object is how well you can see in the area, which might be lightly or heavily obscured." So if you're not moving and hiding behind a rock, great, but any sort of mobile stealth suffers greatly from enemies that can see regardless of light.
Also, I sure hope your fighter has the time to take off all that armor, and then put it back on before any fighting happens, since a fighter with low dex and no armor is a dead man.
Charm person doesn't kill anyone. It prevents the charmed person from attacking the spell caster (not anyone else), treats the spell caster as friendly, and gives the spell caster advantage on some checks. The save is even made with advantage if it's being done in combat the charm is automatically broken if the spell caster or any of his or her companions does anything harmful to the target.
It's even restricted in target by charm immunity and creature type. Intimidation or persuasion can be done to a vampire or ogre. Charm person cannot.
It's a great social tool that at worst can force the enemy team to split damage. That's not bad for a level 1 spell, and at higher level charm effects turn into outright control, some for hours at a time.
I don't find it appealing. Teleportation is a cool concept but unless fleeing home or traveling to a known circle is suddenly vital the application is isn't much. There are several other high level spells on which I would rather spend those slots.
Fighters are good at forced marching. Animal handling allows for pushing mounts further and CON save proficiency helps in making forced march saves. It's not much but it's there. Riding the griffon aids in travel more than either of those options.
So the griffon anyone can get, coupled with a skill anyone can take, plus a stat that this very thread attests is over-represented? A huge win for the fighter, there.
Death leads to death. I'd take a high damage fighter kill over stunning and then eventually killing. How often does a wizard stun anyone, for that matter? Monk thing.
The important part of the stun is the incapacity and that can be done with poison. Poisons can cause unconscious, paralysis, incapacity, blindness, veracity, the poisoned condition (naturally), and excessive damage. It can be expensive and requires access to the poisons somehow (typically criminal / spy background, crafting or harvesting one's own) but it's definitely an option. The fact that this is per attack favors fighters. Attacking the same target with 3 arrows that are dipped in drow poison might be a low DC but the target requires rolling 3 saves. It's the same DC as low level spell casters so not so bad if a person considers it good enough for the spells listed a person would also need to consider it good enough. Action surging and attack 6 targets with poisoned arrows means multiple targets but the success ratio isn't impressive. Likely to get 2 or 3 out of 6 possible.
Where to even begin. It's been a recurring theme of discussion that as caster levels progress, spell DCs become harder and harder to resist. Hold person has been repeatedly brought up for being too good as a mass stun or single target stun that ends encounters and boss fights on its own. So I couldn't give you hard numbers, but wizards definitely stun enough for it to be a concern to some. Additionally, of all the listed poisons in the DMG, ONE can hard cc opponents through injury, the one you mentioned, and it has a low DC that the enemy has to fail by 5 or more to be CCed by. Go leaf through the MM and see how many threats will reliably fail essentially a DC 8 check. Oh, and the cherry on top is that poison is by far and away the most likely immunity creatures will have, including pretty much all demons, elementals, golems, and undead.
It's an option. Not an advantage. I was pointing out that a fighter can do what was mentioned. Not that a wizard cannot also do that. It is an advantage for a champion or bard because extended chases include CON checks to avoid levels of exhaustion. It could be considered a benefit of extra ASI's as well because WIS, DEX, and CON are the relevant ability scores to the typical chase encounter.
My argument isn't that wizards don't have more options and can have better options. The example I would use is alter self. Fighters can possibly have a background or use a disguise kit but underwater adaptation isn't something a fighter adds outside of going genasi.
My argument is that fighters still have options. Every character has options. The fact that some have more or better options doesn't take away from the fact fighters do have out of combat options available to them.
As I said above, fighters do not. Characters do, by virtue of how skills are assigned in this edition, but the fighter chassis innately brings almost nothing new to the table, and does not elevate your own skills to significant levels (such as the rogue's expertise). That's the complaint I personally have with the system, a mage/bard/cleric/druid has amazing utility without regards to their skill or feat choice. They just have it for free.
Why compare to the wizard? Comparing to high end draws a false conclusion. Comparison to the average is how a person determines if something is above or below average. Fighters aren't lacking in utility. Wizards just happen to be a higher utility class in a class based system.
Bards, Clerics, and Druids are roughly on par. However, paladins/rangers/warlocks/sorcerers also receive significant utility options, with or without spells. The problem is that the fighter isn't average; he's the bottom of the barrel. I honestly can't think of a single class with less innate social/exploration utility.
