Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Oofta" data-source="post: 8669719" data-attributes="member: 6801845">The problem is that not only does the fighter need to be decent at skills and is comparable to 80% of the other classes,  they have to be as good or better.  Heck, fighters aren't good because they can't compare to a bard who's main reason for existence is being the party's face? It's not like every party has a bard.  If there is a bard, then odds are, the fighter can focus on something else.  Maybe they focus on stealth and picking locks because the party has no rogue.  Maybe they focus on survival skills or use one of their extra feats to take the healer feat and help keep the party alive.Just a reminder: you can't have any discussion that includes feats, disguise kits or hats of disguise (only casters can disguise self), a fighter that happens to speak orcish for one reason or another.  Oh, and charm person is some kind of ultimate mind control that does more than just make you a friendly acquaintance and gives you advantage on social skill checks.  Forget the fact that after the spell is done the target knows you charmed them, apparently NPCs cease to exist after an hour goes by or they develop amnesia.It's a silly argument.  The fighter can be good at a wide variety of things, not just combat, not just social encounters.  But in order to "compete" they have to be better than the bard, better than the caster* who happens to have exactly the right spell and spell slots for any scenario in a game with no feats or magic items.  The wizard always has tongues (comprehend languages just lets you understand, not speak a language) prepared.  A fighter getting aid from another PC to accomplish any goal is pointless, although the same logic doesn't apply to other classes.  The fact that, as far as we know, fighter is one of the most popular classes has no relevance.  Throw in that the party obviously has a rogue, bard, wizard or whatever class could be better at any specific skill for any specific scenario.I don't think fighters need to be, nor should they be, better at non-combat than those classes that are explicitly designed to excel at out of combat scenarios.  They just have to be decent and have a fair amount of flexibility to focus on some non-combat skills if it's something the player desires.  They're never going to be a jack-of-all-trades like a bard.  They're never going to compete with a high level rogue's expertise and reliable talent.  I for one wouldn't want them to.*including warlocks and sorcerers with their limited options for what spells they can cast and, in the case of the warlock, significant limits on how many spells can be cast. </blockquote>

Verification