D&D 5E Fixing the Fighter: The Zouave

[Garthanos]

HA! 1st level Fighter! Still a "Veteran!"

1E FOREVER!!!

I saw that too... you cannot say MM did not make his throw back edition a throw back

 

[Tony Vargas]

I saw that too... you cannot say MM did not make his throw back edition a throw back

Yeah, but callbacks like that are in a GOOD way.

 

[Sacrosanct]

“The fighter isn’t even the best at fighting. A paladin with GWM blows him out of the water. A ranger with sharpshooter puts him to shame. Even a warlock with spell sniper spamming a cantrip is better!”

“you know you can use feats to get that out of combat ability, right?”

“FEATS ARE OPTIONAL AND YOU CANT USE THEM FOR ANALYSIS!”



not to mention my earlier point, the folks using that excuse DO use feats so it doesn’t even apply to them. Arguing a problem that doesn’t exist.

 

[Oofta]

The thief ... no wait that was 1e and he was ineffectual at what he was supposed to be good at too so it doesn't count.

Like the wizard was really any good if you had more than 2 encounters per day?

“The fighter isn’t even the best at fighting. A paladin with GWM blows him out of the water. A ranger with sharpshooter puts him to shame. Even a warlock with spell sniper spamming a cantrip is better!”

“you know you can use feats to get that out of combat ability, right?”

“FEATS ARE OPTIONAL AND YOU CANT USE THEM FOR ANALYSIS!”



not to mention my earlier point, the folks using that excuse DO use feats so it doesn’t even apply to them. Arguing a problem that doesn’t exist.

Not to mention that backgrounds can't be considered either. Fighters are obviously completely useless sacks of meat because they don't have expertise.

As far as rogues and bards being just as good at combat as fighters .... yes rogues can be decent. I've never seen a bard that got into combat so I have no opinion. Not as good as fighters with equivalent feats, but decent. Assuming they have a front line tank to protect them of course. I've seen games where there was no front-liner, it wasn't pretty. So much running and screaming "Get it off me!" Followed by "The rogue is down again!"

 

[Don Durito]

So what does the bard player do if there’s a combat? Go sit in a corner?

 

[Tony Vargas]

“The fighter isn’t even the best at fighting. A paladin with GWM blows him out of the water. A ranger with sharpshooter puts him to shame. !”

Wow, that is the strawest of straw men.

"The fighter isn’t even the best at fighting."
"But, he has TWO bonus feats! He can max out his strength or dex by 6th level!"
"A paladin's Smite blows him out of the water."
"The fighter should take GWM with his bonus feats!"
"And the Barbarian's tougher"
"The fighter should take Durable with his bonus feats! And max out his CON, too!"
"Even a warlock with spamming Eldritch Blast is just as good /and/ he gets spells and...."
"The fighter should take Sharpshooter with his bonus feats!"
"The fighter's saves suck compared to the good old days"
"The fighter should take Resilient for DEX and WIS with his bonus feats!"
"The fighter sucks in the social pillar..."
"The fighter should take Actor with his bonus feats!"
"...and the exploration pillar"
"The fighter should take Keen Mind with his bonus feats!"
...
"You do realize feats are optional, right? That if they're in use, other characters are just going to have 'em, too..."
"BUT!! TWO BONUS FEATS!!!!"

 

[Tony Vargas]

So what does the bard player do if there’s a combat? Go sit in a corner?

If it's the safest place to cast from, I guess.
Actually, there's a special corner, just for bards to cast Vicious Mockery from, it's elevated relative to the rest of the field so they can target anyone.
IDKW, but they call it "The Peanut Gallery."

 

[Oofta]

So what does the bard player do if there’s a combat? Go sit in a corner?

The bard in our campaign typically spent most of their time buffing the fighter while hiding in the corner. Not that they were totally useless, they're just more of a support character. A spell caster that's not quite a good as a wizard, a healer that's not quite as good as the cleric and so on. In a campaign that spanned multiple years and went to 20th level I think they used their sword once.

 

[Ancalagon]

Ummm ... so in order for a fighter to be useful outside of combat they have to be better at it than every other class?

This is not helpful. You're presenting our position as something extreme and exaggerated, so you can knock it down. We should work together to find solutions. This isn't about who is the sharpest arguer.

So, about your argument, no one said they have to be better than the other classes at the other two pillars. We just want them to be better than what they are now.

The fact that they can make the same contribution doesn't count?

Can they though? That's the question. Can they turn invisible? Sneak extremely well? have a magical animal that scouts for them? Cure diseases? Conjure food out of thin air? Turn into a raven and go spy?

Not to mention that backgrounds can't be considered either.

We are considering backgrounds. Every character has backgrounds, so a fighter character also having a background is sort of a non issue. We are talking about the fighter class.

Fighters are obviously completely useless sacks of meat because they don't have expertise.

Again with the exaggerated language! Try nuance, it's quite useful.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

The bard in our campaign typically spent most of their time buffing the fighter while hiding in the corner. Not that they were totally useless, they're just more of a support character. A spell caster that's not quite a good as a wizard, a healer that's not quite as good as the cleric and so on. In a campaign that spanned multiple years and went to 20th level I think they used their sword once.

Did that support and buffs through inspiration, spells etc really help? Did just sitting in a corner and not engaging with the combat significantly contribute to the party's success in the fight much?

Did it seem to be a choice of this specific player, or do you think that any bard would have contributed about the same?