A critique and review of the Fighter class

[Flamestrike]

I think there's some cherry picking going on here; Banneret for the free expertise, Vuman to be able to take an extra fighter feat and 13th level for the +5 proficiency here.

There IS some cherry picking, because you can easily design/ build a fighter to be a good Face (for example) and to dominate both the Combat and Social pillars if that's what you want.

The fact that you can dump all your ASI and class features into hitting and damage doesnt mean you have to. You can still be an amazing Fighter, and also be excellent in other pillars.

A Wizard could dump all his Spells into blasting and also suck at social and exploration - there is always an element of choice and design involved, but ultimately the only thing stopping a Fighter (or Wizard) from being good in the Social or Exploration pillar, is the design choices of the player. It's not inherent in the class.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I don't consider that a "house rule". A DM should be able to gauge NPCs reactions to things without constantly rolling dice or calling for skill checks. I don't just say all fighters are revered, etc. It depends on the situation and circumstance and the type of character in question. I suppose I let the player play out the social pillar more than just calling for mechanics.

I guess I don't think the common villagers view fighters as psychopaths. The captain of the guard, local militia chief, etc. are fighters too. I would think they would be more leery of the supernatural than the mundane.

The captain of the guard and local militia do not go out and seek fights or make their living from fighting. At least they really really shouldn't. If they were to do so rather than being prepared if one came to them they'd be seen with fear. A fighter is closer to a mob legbreaker.

 

[Flamestrike]

So you're saying he didn't take Superior Technique into skills because he would give up a lot of combat power; all this does is preps a non-combat feat. You agree with my analysis then?

He took those two 'skill' maneuvers with Martial Adept (and as an added bonus, grabbed an extra Sup Dice while he was at it for Precise strike).

only mid-tier socially

Bahahahahahaha!

A 13th level PC with +16.5 bonus to Persuasion, and a +13.5 bonus to Insight, and has an always on 'Gain access to the King and Nobility' is 'mid tier socially'.

Never change Enworld. Never change.

 

[Neonchameleon]

There IS some cherry picking, because you can easily design/ build a fighter to be a good Face (for example) and to dominate both the Combat and Social pillars if that's what you want.

No you can't. As your example demonstrates. They are a decent combatant but hardly dominating - and they are a very good but not outstanding face. They can legitimately contribute and sometimes have spotlight time but are far from dominating.

A Wizard could dump all his Spells into blasting and also suck at social and exploration

And why would they want to do that, especially as you get diminishing returns from having extra blasting spells at any level? More to the point why would they do that every day? A fighter could also theoretically bounce around on a pogo stick - but this is an equally daft in-character choice. And we wouldn't discuss the ability of the fighter class based on one who decided to pogo through dungeons.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

No, it's Not.

Literally every single ability it gets is 'buff the party in combat'. It gets a single social ability (Persuasion + expertise).

That is NOT a 'socially focused' subclass.



Not at all.

Question for you. Do you consider the Battlemaster Fighter to be a 'socially focused' subclass?

Pre-Tasha’s, obviously not. Post-Tasha’s, probably.

A subclass that gets proficiency and expertise in the primary social skill, and whose thematics are all about being a knight of a specific knightly order, on a class where subclasses usually just give damage boosts and/or magic, it’s a socially focused subclass.

Besides this tangential semantics argument, comparing any fighter subclass to a similarly themed subclass for another class, and 9 times of 10 the fighter will be outclassed.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

He took those two 'skill' maneuvers with Martial Adept (and as an added bonus, grabbed an extra Sup Dice while he was at it for Precise strike).



Bahahahahahaha!

A 13th level PC with +16.5 bonus to Persuasion, and a +13.5 bonus to Insight, and has an always on 'Gain access to the King and Nobility' is 'mid tier socially'.

Never change Enworld. Never change.

The wizard loses nothing by doing both.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Bahahahahahaha!

A 13th level PC with +16.5 bonus to Persuasion, and a +13.5 bonus to Insight, and has an always on 'Gain access to the King and Nobility' is 'mid tier socially'.

Yes. They are very good at a relatively narrow range of situations. For example that +16.5 bonus to persuasion isn't going to help much e.g. with negotiating with the local orc tribes in the way that someone with a much lower persuasion check but who speaks orcish would. They are great if you have a DM who lets you look at your sheet and simply say "I roll persuasion" in any social situation - and who only has you places where being a noble would be respected.

Meanwhile how would a half-decent level 13 spellcaster handle that "doesn't speak orcish" problem? What's the spell called? Ah, yes. Tongues.

So no. Not top tier. Mid tier - really good at what they do well and with numbers that compete with a bard on those skills at that level. But skill numbers aren't everything and they just don't have the spells or abilities to provide the set-up that's often needed.

 

[bedir than]

He took those two 'skill' maneuvers with Martial Adept (and as an added bonus, grabbed an extra Sup Dice while he was at it for Precise strike).



Bahahahahahaha!

A 13th level PC with +16.5 bonus to Persuasion, and a +13.5 bonus to Insight, and has an always on 'Gain access to the King and Nobility' is 'mid tier socially'.

Never change Enworld. Never change.

Yes, you've included a background open to everyone. That doesn't prove the Fighter has social and exploration abilities. You've chosen feats open to everyone.

So your Fighter only got social & exploration by not being a Fighter.

 

[Flamestrike]

You've chosen feats open to everyone.

So your Fighter only got social & exploration by not being a Fighter.

If only Fighters got more feats as a class feature...

Oh wait.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

If only Fighters got more feats as a class feature...

Oh wait.

Good thing feats aren’t an optional rule that most people don’t use…

Oh wait.

Edit: also, every other class (most pre-Tasha’s) can be just as good at any out of combat thing the fighter focuses on, and they will do so with some degree of ability that isn’t open to everyone.