Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dualazi" data-source="post: 6921316" data-attributes="member: 6855537">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 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.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.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.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.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.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.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.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.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.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.</blockquote>

Verification