D&D 5E Fixing the Fighter: The Zouave

[Undrave]

Spell casters that can prep spells are inherently more flexible though. Their bad choice are only a problem for a single day. Picking a feat that turns out useless is far more impactful if your DM isn't lenient.

Your argument also isn’t limited to fighters and feat choices, but is applicable to every class. Just about every ability is going to be useful in some scenarios, and not others. A caster who prepped spells not useful in a scenario, or is out of spells will face the same dilemma as what you gave in your scenarios.
So have the goal posts shifted from “the fighter needs to have an out of combat ability” to “the fighter needs to have an out of combat ability useful in all scenarios?”

I mean, ideally no one should be left twiddling their thumbs during any of the pillars of plays, that'd be ideal, and every class should have something that is uniquely theirs to contribute in all three pillars, regardless of how effective it might be. That something should represent a clear player-sided choice beyond "I want to roll for that skill"... But I guess that's too much to ask of the traditional DnD paradigm.

Personally, I view spending your first feat on a non-combat option as downright 'throwing good money over bad': You're investing a rare ressource into shoring up a deficiency of your base class so you can be at a similar baseline as other classes (as an aside I find the combat feats to be generally more engaging mechanically than their, rarer, non-combat equivalent) instead of making your strengths better.

And if you decide to invest into combat instead, you can't be sure you'll get the chance in your current campaign to pick a non-combat feat because you never know when it could end.

To say nothing of what happens if everybody goes with a non-combat feat, movie the 'baseline' back a step...

I totally believe that some players are perfectly content with the Fighter as it is. I do, however, believe there is plenty of room to improve in a way that wouldn't, in any way, diminish the satisfaction of players who are already satisfied, and that people like me have legitimate complaints. Every time we want to talk about improving the fighter we have to waste our time defending our grievances as legitimate.

 

[5ekyu]

Basically, it boils down to this: Other classes get handed non-combat class features, the Fighter has to trade his combat class features to do it.

No, not at all. Every class feature is part of the whole package. The extra asi/feats are there to give choices.

Viewing those as combat features not flexible choices is not rational because they can be either. I mean, it's obviously about trade-offs.

The rogue starts with more skil and expertise but also two armor proficiencies less, shield nope, limited weapons, d8 hd. Thsts a lot of combat " less" that would take several feats to replace too.

Sorry but if you choose yo see it as the fighter class should have more while making all combat choices, it's you who are cutting your fighter out of the areas, not the class.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Dude, you literally said fighters are for suckers, "casual players" or newbs. Your words, not mine.

No. Your word:

So many suckers.

My actual words:

But fighters are a "trap option" baited with some of the most popular heroic tropes out there.

I am talking about the class.

You are trying to make it about people.
Please stop that, it's rude.

 

[Ancalagon]

It's not a complete picture if you throw out backgrounds and (for most games) feats. It's like saying car X really sucks if you don't put tires on it.

But again, what would you add that would address this? Because the article linked to was a background with what were effectively a couple of bonus feats.

The article linked was a class for the Glog system.

 

[5ekyu]

Is there another class feature out there that makes you choose which pillar of play to invest in? Maybe Spells do, but those are immensely more versatile.

Let's say you reach lv 6 in the middle of a dungeon where zippy and mobile enemies have been pummelling your casters like crazy while you chase them. Thus, you decide to pick Sentinel to protect your allies from them.

Then, a session or two later you get out and spend three sessions or more in the middle of a city in some dense social stuff. Your shiny new Sentinel feat sits on the wayside catching dust while the full caster change their load out after a goods night sleep and everybody else gets to lean on their class features to make effective contributions, you are reduced to the skill equivalent of 'I swing my sword'.

Plus, if you do pick non-combat you're just paying a rare ressource to reach the same baseline as everybody else (except the Barbarian I guess).

Expertise. Which skills you chose determines which pillar(s) it applies to.

But really most every character design makes you choose- from race to background to class to ability scores.

 

[Oofta]

The article linked was a class for the Glog system.

I wasn't aware of that. Or what the Glog system is for that matter.

So that may change things somewhat, if we take out the "first in combat" and bonus vs fear everything else is just common background stuff with a little more detail. Unless I misread something which is entirely possible.

 

[Sacrosanct]

It’s like you’re choosing a 4x4 vehicle and are complaining because it won’t win any races. Well duh, it’s not designed to win races. It’s designed to be off-road. Not winning races isn’t really a deficiency in the design.
However, if racing is important to you and you chose the 4x4 anyway, you have the option of adding components to make it faster as well (and still be good at off roading). Or you can continue to add components to make it exceptionally well at off-roading. It’s your choice. It’s all about choices, starting with what class you want to play. Making everyone take race components even if they don’t want them is bad design. Especially since there are plenty of other options that do exactly that already.

 

[Oofta]

No. Your word:



My actual words:


I am talking about the class.

You are trying to make it about people.
Please stop that, it's rude.

Well, I would say that calling the most popular class a "trap option" is rude as well.

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.

Which was followed up with.

Which is why it's the most popular class? So many suckers.

"One born every minute."

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

I think it's rude to tell people only newbies and casual players play fighters. You think it's rude when I point that out. In any case I'm done with this particular pissing contest.

 

[Undrave]

I think it's rude to tell people only newbies and casual players play fighters. You think it's rude when I point that out. In any case I'm done with this particular pissing contest.

I see the problem... Tony was being sarcastic with his 'But the preferred term is "new and casual player"', basically implying that when people say the Fighter is good for 'new and casual players' they're really thinking 'for suckers and idiots', but that's not what Tony himself think.

 

[Ancalagon]

I wasn't aware of that. Or what the Glog system is for that matter.

So that may change things somewhat, if we take out the "first in combat" and bonus vs fear everything else is just common background stuff with a little more detail. Unless I misread something which is entirely possible.

I edited my OP yesterday to point the Glog aspect out, but I think many missed it.

It's why I would have to convert to a 5e subclass.