What shifting of the goal posts am I doing? I've been consistent the entire time in my position that a character isn't defined by only what is a clearly defined ability on a character sheet. You're the one who said only people who don't care about options or character variation would play a fighter. And then shifted your goal posts to talk only mechanical options (which was still a fallacy)
Have you even played 5e? You do realize that I'm not talking about any houserule. In 5e's context, there are things like the DC mechanic that handles 99% of what I was talking about. Wanna do something not on our sheet? Have the DM come up with a DC based on the guidelines and go to town. That's not a custom houserule.
I didn't modify your quote. I quoted directly in my original quote, and again in post 53. Either way, it's beside the point because it's still wrong. You've had two of us come right out and say that we prefer fighters and not for the reasons you gave. It literally has nothing to do with not caring at all, or "as much" about options.
You made a claim ascribing peoples' motivations who like fighters. People who like fighters said you're wrong in your assumptions. That's it. You even doubled down in your fallacy on post 60* And rather than admit you were wrong in your assumption, you're spinning in circles trying to change your argument to mean something other than what you said.
*""Players who don't care as much about in combat options" - Fighters have less mechanical combat options. If you want more combat options, it's not as good of a choice."
Not true. Lots of people play fighters and also like options. Several reason include but are not limited to: 1) they like the class, 2) options aren't limited to a defined ability
"Or character variation." - Fighters, again, have less mechanical options, most of which any character can do. If you want a character that plays different, you're not going to want a pick a fighter."
Also not true. Character variation is more defined by how you as a player play your PC than a class. A single fighter can be a swashbuckler, soldier, knight, bruiser, etc. Not to mention personality differences. If fact, a statement like this displays a tremendous amount of ignorance to how people played D&D for the first 25 years of it's existence before feat bloat came with 3e.
I have been talking about Fighter in-combat options this entire thread; due to you purposely ignoring assumed details, I've had to explicitly label what I've been talking about because you're being a mixture of condescending, presumptive, and plain wrong.
You are now posting customs skill checks as a means of Fighters having more mechanisms in combat. That does not change the fact that they have less RELATIVE options, as literally anyone can do that. Just about any of the stats can be used to dictate a custom action, with the exception of Constitution, as it tends to be more passive.
I'm sticking to what I said: if
more options is a priority, Fighter is not the best fit for that. You have an entire thread full of people basically agreeing that fighter is less complex and have less options, but their argument is "it doesn't matter." Which I agree with. You play a fighter when you want to play a fighter, not when you want versatility in combat.
Let's take a single spell, Conjure Animals. You can summon flying creatures, pack tactics creatures, creatures to help engage multiple targets, large creatures to ride, creatures with blindsight, creatures that can restrain at will, strong creatures that can grapple, creatures that can poison. You cannot possibly say with a straight face that the sheer number of possibilities does not give you more mechanical combat options than a Fighter will ever have on his own. The action economy alone balloons your options, let alone the many things a fighter just plain cannot do without outside magical help.
Let's take another more straightforward spell, Fireball. You can hit multiple targets in a set radius as long as you have a level 3 slot. Without an item or a very specific environment, a fighter is not going to be able to replicate that. Maybe after he gets 3 attacks at level 11, at which point the wizard is brainwashing enemies to fight for you, teleporting around the battlefield, ignoring status effects, giving allies superhuman abilities, countering other magic effects, or basically using one of the dozens of other spells available to him.
Magic gives you more options, period. Of the martial classes: going Rogue gives you way more skill options that you can feasibly use in combat, especially if you're trying to cite custom actions. Going Barb is generally seen as more complex; at the very least, Barbarians have more specialized builds. Monks and Rangers are arguable, mainly because EK is a thing.
3/4 of the classes have more combat options, the last 1/6 of them are about equivalent, and without EK, I'd argue it would be in Monk/Ranger favor. Whether or not you try to use skill checks in battle, Fighters have LESS to work with than the vast majority of the classes.
