Apologies for the long post. Just catching up.
I guess that means Paladins have their cake and eat it too.
Not really. That only works for the paladins on a 5mwd and smites eat slots fast for spike damage.
PDK/bannaret or samurai still spikes with action surge and multiple attacks. Either can be built with a diplomancer style with PDK being easier.
A person can go battle master and still do something similar because they are less MAD than a paladin with more ASI's.
First of all, I still don't get why D&D even balance things like this, why one must suck at Fighting to be useful when there's no Fighting. Even if you think it's an important balancing tool, I think the Fighter's Fighteriness is over valued compared to its lack of Social graces (same with the Barbarian, but at least one of its subclass has rituals that could technically be useful).
The Paladin you mention? Yeah his social utility spells compete with Smites... but that competition only lasts until the next long rest. If you're spending multiple days in the city and don't expect to get into any fights, then you're not penalized for spending spell slots on social tricks until a surprise fight breaks out... but that aspect to me is a lot more balanced than what the Fighter gets.
Fighters don't get that opportunity, they're locked in. Which is why the Battlemaster Maneuver that give skill bonus are actually a good thing.
And the PDK doesn't actually have 'social aspects'. It gets ONE skill proficiency with a bonus that will probably just compensate for having subpar Charisma (you don't need Charisma for anything else as a PDK, so why should you waste points on it?). Something the Samurai also gets while still being solid in battle. The Battlemaster ALSO gets a non-damage based ability at level 7, it's not particularly rare or exceptional.
I don't know why you think a fighter sucks at fighting by not going battle master. To me, that just looks like "if you're not first you're last". All fighters are good at combat from a solid chassis.
As for low charisma, the premise is we want a social fighter. If the goal is social aspects it doesn't make sense to avoid charisma. It's generally a 14 or 16 with that focus IME so a player can gauge the likelihood favor requests succeed.
It's slower than a rogue or bard focused in the same area but still good. It's high level where this feature flourishes.
I would actually argue the long rest isn't really needed for the paladin, though.
The smites fall behind in damage as the day and number of encounters increases (outside of good spikes) but they have enough spells known and slots that they can fit in some utility spells. I just don't think it's enough compared to at-will persuasion for favors using free expertise.
The point was the more one is used for the paladin the less there is of the other. My game days mix different types of encounters so the long rest is moot IME.
The Oath of the Ancient Paladin gets Speak with Animals, which opens up all sorts of source of information.
Which is why it's rated so high in the guides and prominent in most discussions on utility? ;-)
I kid. I agree it's useful. It's also available to anyone who wants it with a feat (to be clear, feats are limited -- it's still a trade off).
A Battlemaster is just as effective, and with Rally, might even want better charisma than the PDK so his Persuasion could easily be as high.
I'm repeating myself here. The PDK has no reason not to invest because the premise is social ability.
A battle master who went 20 charisma would still be behind a PDK who went 10 CHA even if this were the case, and in doing so the PDK would have the opportunity to apply that investment in another ability score or feats, and would still be up one skill proficiency.
The fighter has no way to assist outside of combat without GM fiat.
Because STR, athletics, and equipment aren't common on a fighter?
Fighters can help with the action or contribute via group checks at the very least.
The PDK example easily succeeds DC 15 favor requests regularly.
Fighters don't have a lot of options, granted, but they always have options. The lack is in unique options.
Need to convince the local baron to lend you support? Social Classes only. I see it all the time.
Except "social class" isn't a game term. It's a player perception based on the preconception that CHA synergy is required to make a social character. It's not.
Because every time you picked up the dice, and you always had to pick up the dice, you were just making things harder for everyone, and having the DM bend over backwards to not derail the story.
Rolling isn't necessary every time. That's a basic 5e concept.
Making a high bonus only requires investment. Some CHA, a bonus proficiency, and expertise is available on PDK's. Samurai add WIS bonus.
The DM doesn't need to bend over backwards if the player actually invests in these traits he or she wants.
Basically "Shut up and sit down, the CHA casters are talking" right?
I'm going to point out that I never take persuasion expertise on a bard. Proficiency plus CHA bonus plus JoaT us more than enough. Sorcerers and Warlocks don't get free expertise like PDK (or the samurai bonus).
PDK expertise puts the fighter in the same ball park even without a CHA bonus. Persuasion expertise is the reason to okay a PDK.
I agree, players play and be clever, but saying "well anyone can try to climb the mountain" kind of ignore the point of one person is likely to fall to their death, and the other has a climb speed so it is exactly the type of thing they are supposed to be doing.
No one falls to their deaths because the standard for failure is not progressing. A climbing kit prevents falling even if a DM adds a falling condition for a low check
Then what was the use of the Bard putting their expertise in persuasion and playing a glamour bard to charm people?
See above. It's a waste of expertise given then existing bonuses already. Use expertise where it'll do more good shoring up a low ability score.
Not your point, of course, but the glamour bard has the advantage of charm still. The attitude shift is faster that way.
Barbarian, Fighter, Ranger, Druid, and Monk get nothing to really affect social scenes.
Social abilities for fighters have been mentioned in this thread. They clearly exist. The argument is players choose not to make use of them.
I think it's a big failing of the rules that it's just a small aside instead of a core feature. The skills, for exemple, are all detailed in the section of the book relating to their default ability instead of being explained in their own section.
I agree. There should have been more page count invested in skills.
DM empowerment also creates inconsistencies between tables.
I use ability checks on fighters all the time. Even perform. ;-)
The open nature of ability checks is something I really like but the consistency issues do exist, and the open nature leads to DM's and players not knowing what they might be capable big in that system.
Well, we are supposed to use the racial statblock for all NPCs, and every dwarf gets Dwarvish and Common, Every elf gets Elvish and Common, Every Gnome gets Gnomish and Common.
And every human gets +1 language.
So, I'd say most people in DnD get two languages.
Yes. I was going to mention this too but you beat me to it. I find several languages pointless for social checks because those beings all speak common anyway.
