D&D 5E Fixing the Fighter: The Zouave

[Garthanos]

Precisely. The bard might not have personally done as much damage as the wizard, or killed as many giants as the fighter, but I've generally found that having a bard in the team means the party as a whole can survive and be victorious in combats that would have defeated a party without them.

Like the non-combat flavor warlord they can very much contribute massively in combat without making one effective sword swing

 

[Oofta]

Good grief. The "screaming it's perfect" accusation. Again.

No edition is perfect. But when people try to give specifics on why "the fighter is useless outside of combat" we get "they don't have expertise" or supernatural abilities from half a dozen different classes. I simply see a lot of smoke and no fire.

They're only useless if you ignore a significant portion of the rules and refuse to take into consideration anything that any other class can also do.

Are they built around being the most flexible class outside of combat? Obviously not. That's why we have backgrounds and feats.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Precisely. The bard might not have personally done as much damage as the wizard, or killed as many giants as the fighter

Yes, but did the fighter kill /10/ giants?

but I've generally found that having a bard in the team means the party as a whole can survive and be victorious in combats that would have defeated a party without them.

IDK, what are you implying? That classes have different roles in combat, and contribute in different ways? That, in combat, no class can be seamlessly replaced with just a warm body with a background, but, as it were, no class?

Because, out of combat, it seems like contributions often come one at a time from a specialist in a task, spell or ritual that just solves the problem, or a "pillar specialist" like the 'Party Face.'
Like it stops being so much a team sport.

Really, the problem is more systemic than just the class that falls to the bottom of the pile. Fix the fighter, the barbarian will just seem sad out of combat.

Like the non-combat flavor warlord they can very much contribute massively in combat without making one effective sword swing

Hey, maybe that's what we need: a way for the fighter to contribute that /looks/ like he's still a mindless beatstick with no clue what to do once the party falls out of initiative order, but actually, somehow, indirectly makes everyone else better? Or the opposition worse?

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

I'm beginning to think that there are at least a couple of contributors to this thread that have me on ignore.

You seem to contradict yourself. Fighters are being compared to bards and rogues for skills. But they get expertise, so it's not fair to compare that.

Actually, I think that it might be . . .
The extra feats that the fighter gets are, as you say, what the fighter class gets to contribute to the party in non-combat situations, above the baseline.
(The baseline being the 4 skills, background ability, racial abilities, and a feat every 4 levels that all characters of every class get.)

You can get the equivalent of expertise with Prodigy.

OK. Now we're cooking. The fighter's social and exploration pillar abilities can be directly compared with the rogue's. A fighter could use their two bonus feats to gain skills and expertise that can be directly compared to the additional skills and expertise that a rogue gets at 2nd level.
(Assuming a Dex-based fighter for a better comparison and to avoid the issue that some abilities and the skills that usually key off them can be more useful than others out of combat.)

Want a familiar? Take ritual caster and get some other handy abilities as well.

Likewise the fighter could use their extra feat to pick up Ritual Caster feat, allowing the fighter class's out-of-combat party contribution to be directly comparable to a wizard with no spell slots.

The statements being made is that fighters are useless outside of combat is an exaggeration.

I've seen people saying the fighter has less to contribute than most other classes in the two noncombat pillars, of the game, but who has been claiming that the fighter is useless?

 

[Garthanos]

Yes, but did the fighter kill /10/ giants?

IDK, what are you implying? That classes have different roles in combat, and contribute in different ways? That, in combat, no class can be seamlessly replaced with just a warm body with a background, but, as it were, no class?

Because, out of combat, it seems like contributions often come one at a time from a specialist in a task, spell or ritual that just solves the problem, or a "pillar specialist" like the 'Party Face.'
Like it stops being so much a team sport.

How about an overarching resolution structure that treats skill application in their most significant context as just part of the solution? Where I use one skill its success catapults or provides more time to the implementing another skill or distracts an adversary from interfering with this other skill use causing a combinatorial success and they all work together in a sort of team fashion and DMs are encouraged starting out to think in terms of that.

 

[Garthanos]

Actually, I think that it might be . . .
The extra feats that the fighter gets are, as you say, what the fighter class gets to contribute to the party in non-combat situations, above the baseline.

Could be, the designers presumed feats would be used for the fighter ... then made them optional. So the that a couple ASIs end up the default which is definitely useful but not in the fashion something that makes you an expert or specialist does.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Yes, but did the fighter kill /10/ giants?

I'm guessing that that is a reference to something, but I'm not getting it.

IDK, what are you implying? That classes have different roles in combat, and contribute in different ways? That, in combat, no class can be seamlessly replaced with just a warm body with a background, but, as it were, no class?

I'm implying pretty much what I'm saying: classes seem to be designed to be reasonably on-par with each other in combat in general. Even a class that isn't a front-liner/damage monster/other 'high visibility' role still has the capability to contribute to the combat success of the team in a fairly equal manner.

 

[Don Durito]

Nevermind - the thread has moved on.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm guessing that that is a reference to something, but I'm not getting it.

Just another, equally polite and productive thread.

I'm implying pretty much what I'm saying: classes seem to be designed to be reasonably on-par with each other in combat in general. Even a class that isn't a front-liner/damage monster/other 'high visibility' role still has the capability to contribute to the combat success of the team in a fairly equal manner.

I agree the game at last tries to get there. After 6 combats & a few short rests, anyway. Yes.
Heck, MM has as much as said that they balanced the classes (at least their resources?) around some spell slots to hp damage/healing bit they showed us some version of in the DMG (that, like, I can't even remember right now, but I remember thinking it sounded plausible at the time).
Nor is 5e the first edition that's made everyone useful in combat. 4e was disastrously well-balanced, 3.x beefed up the Rogue's combat ability substantially with Sneak Attack (and we don't need to talk about casters in that Ed, I assume).

You have to go back to the TSR era to find classes that were designed to just outright suck in combat.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Could be, the designers presumed feats would be used for the fighter ... then made them optional. So the that a couple ASIs end up the default which is definitely useful but not in the fashion something that makes you an expert or specialist does.

For practical purposes and for engaging with Oofta's point I'm assuming that feats, and abilities that can be compared with feats, are directly comparable with ASIs.
Mostly because out of maybe a hundred games that I've been aware of, around five have not allowed feats. I'm accepting that they can generally be assumed - therefore you can compare class abilities with feats that are similar and vice versa.