D&D 5E Fixing the Fighter: The Zouave

[Sacrosanct]

Honestly, I’m not sure I agree with the premise of the argument. That every class needs to have what other classes have. The entire argument is based on the fighter needing to have additional unique out of combat abilities. And that is a preference, not an objective truth. And as long as people don’t agree on that subjective point, there will never be agreement.

So who cares if the fighter doesn’t have any extra unique out of combat abilities? Some, certainly. But not everyone. Or even the majority (we’ll never know). So even if someone concedes that the fighter doesn’t have those extra unique features at level 1, that hardly proves they need it.

Look, I get how some people feel the fighter is lacking. And I totally support their efforts in addressing that. I’ve even participated myself. But it’s a matter of opinion. Calling the game broken, the designers cowards, and people who don’t share your preferences as whiners and liars who should be ignored is unacceptable behavior to have an actual conversation.

I also think it’s flawed to assume every class needs to be designed how you want. I certainly don’t expect WotC to design every class how I want. I prefer niche protection, so imagine the uproar if they did what I wanted?

Look at it like this. If classes were cable TV packages, and there was a package that gave what people wanted even if it didn’t come out of the box day 1 with the Hallmark channel and every other package did, that doesn’t make the package broken. If you want to watch the hallmark channel, you still have a ton of extra options. Especially when said package gives you a free bonus if you stay for a month, to get any channel you want that no other package gives (two extra feats). Which could be the hallmark channel, or more sports channels you really like.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Honestly, I’m not sure I agree with the premise of the argument. That every class needs to have what other classes have.

Not. The. Premise.

 

[Oofta]

Not. The. Premise.

Then what is the premise other than that people who enjoy playing fighters are fools for playing a "trap" option?

D&D is a team game. Fighters (as well as most other classes) can fill in many missing niches. Every game I've ever played some classes have minor useful tricks, but their impact on play has been minimal. Is it handy to have a bard in the party? Sure. But groups that don't have them are just fine.

I get that you want more from a fighter. That's fine. Work with your DM to work something out. Just stop insulting everyone who disagrees with you.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Then what is the premise

That classes should be balanced?

D&D is a team game.

It is a cooperative TT game. And balance is more important in a cooperative game than in a competitive one, which can generally get by on less stringent fairness.
It's also that much more important when choice can be legitimately made on the basis of aesthetics or expression or the like, as well as mechanical effectiveness, which is surely the case in an RPG as well.

Just stop insulting everyone who disagrees with you.

I have no intention to start insulting anyone who disagrees with me. But, your baseless personal attack is noted.

 

[jgsugden]

The fighter archetype does not require out of combat benefits. They're there to be the best at fighting. Their lack of out of combat benefits is partially what defines them.

Think about it - are you assuming that the lack of out of combat abilities was some type of oversight? That WotC just forgot to put them in for this one class? Or was it an intentional decision?

You don't need to fix something that is working as designed. Just figure out how to make it work for you.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The fighter archetype does not require out of combat benefits.

The fighter class would be better-balanced with some more of 'em though.

 

[bedir than]

But they aren't the best at combat either

 

[Tony Vargas]

But they aren't the best at combat either

"Best at Fighting" was the playtest mandate.
Who's definitely better, at fighting, with weapons, and without magic, than the fighter?
Of course not.
5e's designed, roughly, around a slot/damage/healing balance metric that keeps all classes in the same ballpark, in terms of overall, single-target, DPR, over a 6-8 encounter day. Other classes tend to use magic to get there. Simple.
Best at Fighting.

But, yeah, is there anything about fulfilling that mandate that precludes making significant contributions out of combat?
No.

 

[Oofta]

That classes should be balanced?

It is a cooperative TT game. And balance is more important in a cooperative game than in a competitive one, which can generally get by on less stringent fairness.
It's also that much more important when choice can be legitimately made on the basis of aesthetics or expression or the like, as well as mechanical effectiveness, which is surely the case in an RPG as well.

I have no intention to start insulting anyone who disagrees with me. But, your baseless personal attack is noted.

When everybody that disagrees with you is a fool or a sucker for taking a "trap option", yes it's insulting.

Because I'm not a "new" or "casual" player. Classes don't have to be perfectly balanced in and out of combat. Classes that are perfectly balanced and fair would be boring and generic, I don't think it's a worthwhile or even achievable goal.

I find fighters decent out of combat, especially depending on how you build them. I don't know what game you play, but my fighters (and my players that are running fighters) hardly sit on the sidelines drooling while mumbling to themselves.


Just a couple of quotes from this page.

Hey, if they were like truenamers in 3.5, and were obscure and virtually never played, yeah, that inferiority wouldn't matter.
But fighters are a "trap option" baited with some of the most popular heroic tropes out there.

"One born every minute."

But the prefered term is "new and casual players."

It's impossible to make a perfect game. If you came up with some concrete options for out of combat competence feel free to share.

 

[Tony Vargas]

When everybody that disagrees with you is a fool or a sucker for taking a "trap option", yes it's insulting.

"Fool" and "sucker" were your words.

"Trap option" is a quality of the class, not a failing of the players who might want to play it based on the concepts it's meant to model.

. Classes that are perfectly balanced and fair would be boring and generic, I don't think it's a worthwhile or even achievable goal.

Perfect balance, is of course, unattainable.
But, no, balanced is not boring, quite the opposite, balanced classes provide meaningful, viable choices that don't punish you for playingbtge concept you want, nor playing a cooperative game to contribute to the collective "win."