False truisms in 5th edition

[Parmandur]

Can you come over and tell my player he's doing it wrong; that he can't have a +1 AC from the Defensive fighting style because it makes him a worse fighter than the barbarian? The player made the choices he did because he wanted to have the least possible chance of getting hit by attacks and the least possible chance of failing the majority of saving throws. He wanted maximum survivability out of his "fighter," and he should forever be ashamed.

[SBLOCK]Look, and I'm putting this out there to anyone who disagrees with me about the barbarian being a better fighter than the fighter; have your own opinion. You're absolutely welcome to it. If your opinion is borne out in your play experiences, that's great. It's not reflected in mine. I have a game where the barbarian is a better fighter than both the champion and the eldritch knight. That doesn't mean that I or my players are doing anything wrong anymore than it means my experiences invalidate yours.

To those who say that feats are the problem, not the class, you're welcome to that opinion as well. However, it's my firm belief that if I disallowed feats at my table the player of the champion would pump his ASIs into Dex & Wis to try as hard as possible to achieve the same goals he's working toward with the resilience feats. And maybe that would make him a worse fighter than the barbarian. Maybe a fighter who aims for survivability is just a bad fighter, and the player should feel bad about the character he wanted to make and play.
[/SBLOCK]

Who says that he should feel ashamed? So he is less optimized than the Barbarian, big deal. So the Barbarian isn't pushed to his limit and seems "better" at fighting (despite not being as good at fighting), big whoop. If y'all are having fun, that's what matters.

And yet, the Fighter remains the supreme combatant, mathematically. Anecdotal experience notwithstanding.

 

[Guest 6801328]

"If you get angry enough, and wish hard enough, one day you'll wake up and 5e will feel more like your favorite previous edition."


FALSE

 

[Ratskinner]

But don't you get it? If you don't play a character that's only an effective combatant or with only DPR in mind then you're clearly playing it wrong!
/sarcasm

I suppose that's true. I mean, I've never seen the party cheer when the wizard uses a damage-less "utility" or "control" spell to make the encounter even winnable, let alone possible. /sarcasm

 

[Satyrn]

"If you get angry enough, and wish hard enough, one day you'll wake up and 5e will feel more like your favorite previous edition."


FALSE

It becomes true if you sacrifice a goat once a week. A few years back, I did that for several months out of desperation, and then one day -Poof! - 5e was released.

 

[Satyrn]

[SBLOCK]Look, and I'm putting this out there to anyone who disagrees with me about the barbarian being a better fighter than the fighter; have your own opinion. You're absolutely welcome to it. If your opinion is borne out in your play experiences, that's great. It's not reflected in mine. I have a game where the barbarian is a better fighter than both the champion and the eldritch knight. That doesn't mean that I or my players are doing anything wrong anymore than it means my experiences invalidate yours.

To those who say that feats are the problem, not the class, you're welcome to that opinion as well. However, it's my firm belief that if I disallowed feats at my table the player of the champion would pump his ASIs into Dex & Wis to try as hard as possible to achieve the same goals he's working toward with the resilience feats. And maybe that would make him a worse fighter than the barbarian. Maybe a fighter who aims for survivability is just a bad fighter, and the player should feel bad about the character he wanted to make and play.
[/SBLOCK]

I feel like I should apologize. You made your initial comment about your table's barbarian being better the two fighters as an anecdotal aside when responding to me with that quote about fighters being the best fighter.

Now, enWorld's ganging up on you to tell you that your experience doesn't fit the math. I don't get why they're bothering.



So, I'm not gonna apologize (it's them, not me) but thank you, again, for your original post. Sorry it led to this.

 

[Parmandur]

I feel like I should apologize. You made your initial comment about your table's barbarian being better the two fighters as an anecdotal aside when responding to me with that quote about fighters being the best fighter.

Now, enWorld's ganging up on you to tell you that your experience doesn't fit the math. I don't get why they're bothering.



So, I'm not gonna apologize (it's them, not me) but thank you, again, for your original post. Sorry it led to this.

There was a specific goal cited that the developers had, of niche protection. They succeeded at that goal, to a pretty large degree. The Fighter really is better at fighting, mathematically, than Rangers, Barbarians, Monks or Paladins, let alone single attack per action Classes. That a given Barbarian is better than a given Eldritch Knight and a given Champion in a given game does not take away from the systematic accomplishment. The Barbarian is similarly the great nova melee combatant. Push them past their rage limits, or have a flying creature, and they get in serious trouble that a Fighter doesn't need to worry about.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

not as a sword & board champion

I mean, sure, but that isn’t what was being compared. A defensive character won’t keep up in damage with an offensive character.

I’m sure he’s harder to hit than the Barbarian, and harder to get with save targeting effects. If that’s what the player wanted, great!

It doesn’t point to any problem with the two classes.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Apparently a 5e truism is that if you create a thread about how you’re giving the final word on a topic, you WILL make another thread later on anyway

I’m impressed you waited until the day after Christmas before doing so however, so Santa couldn’t put coal in your stocking for doing that. Well played.

 

[the Jester]

There are several areas of the game where the designers seem to merely coast on the collective wisdom of us gamers, than actually making sure the respective "truth" is actually true.

Cite, please.

"When you play a martial, choosing a slow build is just as viable as choosing a fast one."​

Who are you quoting here?

"Choosing a melee build is just as viable as choosing a ranged one."​

Who are you quoting here?

"Choosing a melee build is just as viable without feats as with them."​

Who are you quoting here?

"Choosing to play a Rogue is just as viable with feats as without them."

Who are you quoting here?

"Choosing the wizard class is the best choice for an arcane caster."

Who are you quoting here?

I don't think I have seen any of the designers say any of these things. But since you've put quotation marks around all of them, I assume you can back them up as statements from one or more of the designers.​

 

[Sacrosanct]

Jester, the designers have said things very similar to that, but context is important. They’ve said those things in the context of playing the game in general. Which is true, it is perfectly viable to play a rogue with feats or without them.

But I don’t recall them ever making those statements in the context of how CapnZapp plays his game. I think CapnZapps biggest error here (and in most threads), is in his assumption his style of play is how everyone else plays. All of his arguments are based on the premise of that, and why he positions his arguments as objective issues rather than just issues he faces that most others do not.