D&D 5E Less about the numbers and more about the concept: Judging classes in 5th edition.

[Xeviat]

Not to mention, NO ONE else gets two extra feats, which means that the fighter can use those feats no one else gets to make them extremely skilled at exploration (or interaction) pillars if the player chooses. And even if the fighter chooses those feats for out of combat abilities, it doesn't take away from their role at being the best at mundane combat.

Two extra feats is a hard baked in class feature. I really wish people would stop ignoring that because it runs opposed to their biased arguments. Just because they give a choice of what to do with them, rather than force you by instead saying something like, "At 6th level, gain the (ability that mimics a feat)", doesn't mean it doesn't matter. In fact, I like the choice, because choices are generally better.

Feats are listed as optional. The Ranger and rogue get built in skill bonuses in their class abilities. They will always be better than the Fighter at their specialized skills. That's what people mean when they say the Fighter doesn't support non-combat.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Miladoon]

The data from the survey results - maybe the only math that matters in 5E, but I don't have access to the data so its just guesswork. I rarely use white room math to judge a concept I come up with.

MC really screws up judging straight classes especially when it come to making a concept over playing a class.

For instance,

Fighter level 3 EK subclass. This is the only Eldritch Knight because WotC says so.

but wait, how about this?

1Fighter/2Sorcerer (whatever subclass). The classes detail the mechanical. Concept wise, she claims she is an EK and can back it up. So she is an EK.

Argue these guys are not EKs once the player declares their intentions to play an EK:

1Fighter/1Cleric/1Wizard
1Rogue/2Sorcerer - What? This is an Arcane Trickster, BADWRONGFUN!
2Ranger/1Wizard - STOP IT! The game must have three equal angles

Fuzzy math dictates which one is optimized for moar damage. Or you can see if the DM will allow a 'fixed' class from the message boards.

I think if the BeastMaster Ranger' companion scaled better it would be more exciting to dip levels into it. Losing companions in battle all the time gets monotonous. 3 levels may not be worth it when you can do almost the same thing with MC combos. Druid/Wizard for instance.

Also, classes are often judged in a light that there will never, ever be magic items. Which I think only benefits players that play in a low low low low magic fantasy world. IME magic item drops are an immediate build reevaluate. I suppose less so, at higher levels.

Anyways, my mind is in two places right now.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Feats are listed as optional. The Ranger and rogue get built in skill bonuses in their class abilities. They will always be better than the Fighter at their specialized skills. That's what people mean when they say the Fighter doesn't support non-combat.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I knew I should have expanded my post because I had a sinking feeling someone would reply with this. Even with optional feats, the fighter would get two extra +1 bonuses to any ability roll they want. Which means they get bonuses to any skill (combat or non combat) they want. Which means they do in fact get bonuses to exploration or interaction no on else gets depending on how the player chooses to allocate them.

On a side note, I also can't help but notice that people bringing up that objection (feats are optional) are almost always people who use feats in their game. Do you use feats? So it seems to me to be a bit of a disingenuous complaint to bring up an objection that doesn't apply.

*Edit** Also, the ranger and rogue get bonuses to a specifically determined set of skills. Fighters get the opportunity to use those ASI bonuses on abilities that impact ALL skill checks (because they get to choose which ability to add those points to). Secondly, I would not expect a fighter to better at stealth than a rogue, or better at survival than a ranger. But the point is that they can still be decent at those by using the hard baked in class feature that is 2 extra ASIs. Which objectively make the comment that fighters have no exploration ability a false one.

 

[Tony Vargas]

A lot of it comes to player perception and expectations. Are they perceiving what they expect?

If you're returning to D&D from the 90s or the fad years, or have been with it the whole time, yeah, you probably percieve enough of what you expect in 5e.

Now that the expectations of new players are being shaped by MMOs as well as by the fantasy genre in general, there's probably a better alignment of those expectations with what they're likely to perceive in D&D when they try it there than there had been in the past.

 

[Imaro]

Feats are listed as optional. The Ranger and rogue get built in skill bonuses in their class abilities. They will always be better than the Fighter at their specialized skills. That's what people mean when they say the Fighter doesn't support non-combat.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The fighter gets extra ASI boosts that support non-combat by making him broadly better as opposed to better in a speciaized way like the rogue... so yeah the comment that the fighter doesn't support non-combat is only true if you choose not to go that route with your particular fighter.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Feats are listed as optional. The Ranger and rogue get built in skill bonuses in their class abilities. They will always be better than the Fighter at their specialized skills. That's what people mean when they say the Fighter doesn't support non-combat.

Yes, feats are optional, and UA feats moreso, and, from an optimization perspective, a fighter build can't 'afford' to invest in non-combat feats until it's maxxed its attack stat and acquired feats to support its style.

Without feats, a bonus-ASI boost of a tertiary stat gives a simple +1 as compared to the more focused/meaningful/potent *doubling* of proficiency you can get from Expertise, or the manifold non-combat applications of spells & rituals. While it is, in a literal, pedantic sense, something a fighter could do with his 6th level bonus ASI instead of taking a much more optimal feat or maxxing his STR or DEX two levels earlier, without being at stat/feat disadvantage vis a vis other tank/dpr classes, it's also pretty trivial.

The fighter gets extra ASI boosts that support non-combat by making him broadly better as opposed to better in a speciaized way like the rogue... so yeah the comment that the fighter doesn't support non-combat is only true if you choose not to go that route with your particular fighter.

Saying the fighter 'doesn't support non-combat,' relative to other classes, is perfectly valid, and backed up the facts (the fighter has two features, at 6th & 14th level, that can be dedicated either to combat, synergizing powerfully with the fighter's existing features, or to non-combat, barely shoring up the fighter's conspicuous lack of skill; other classes have features dedicated to non-combat functions, including non-combat rituals that don't consume slots, not to mentions extremely versatile spellcasting).
Even saying that the Fighter has "no support at all" is much less misleading than implying that the support it does have is remotely adequate, though both are clearly exaggerations.

 

[Imaro]

Saying the fighter 'doesn't support non-combat,' relative to other classes, is perfectly valid, and backed up the facts (the fighter has two features, at 6th & 14th level, that can be dedicated either to combat, synergizing powerfully with the fighter's existing features, or to non-combat, barely shoring up the fighter's conspicuous lack of skill; other classes have features dedicated to non-combat functions, including non-combat rituals that don't consume slots, not to mentions extremely versatile spellcasting).
Even saying that the Fighter has "no support at all" is much less misleading than implying that the support it does have is remotely adequate, though both are clearly exaggerations.

It all depends on the classes you are comparing these bonus ASI's (or feats) too, I'd take them over the barbarians out of combat features... especially in a feat game. As for your personal and subjective view of what constitutes remotely adequate... You've expressed the fighter doesn't meet that but I doubt you are speaking for everyone.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It all depends on the classes you are comparing these bonus ASI's (or feats) too

Sure, the depth and breadth of the gap varies from class to class.

I'd take them over the barbarians out of combat features... especially in a feat game.

Barbarian would probably be the second-worst-off class in that regard, yes. The berserker not even too distant second, really. Closer to crack-in-the-sidewalk than Grand Canyon.

Of course, the berserker is one of the three non-fighter sub-classes that's got no casting or other magic going for it, and just about as Tanky (lower AC, higher hps) and DPR-focused (Rage vs Action Surge) as the Fighter, too.

Even so, it's a point. And, even given that point, feats are optional.

What other classes rest their best claim to out-of-combat capability on an optional rule?

 

[Imaro]

Sure, the depth and breadth of the gap would vary.

Barbarian would probably be the second-worst-off class in that regard, yes. The berserker not even too distant second, really. Closer to crack-in-the-sidewalk than Grand Canyon. Of course, the berserker is one of the three non-fighter sub-classes that's got no casting or other magic going for it, and just about as Tanky (lower AC, higher hps) and DPR-focused (rage instead of Action Surge) as the fighter, too.

And, semi-seriously, before you go all 'but, but, subjective!'* on me: feats are optional. What other classes rest their best claim to out-of-combat capability on an optional rule?










* too late, I know, but take another shot at addressing an observation of the facts of the game with a cite of the facts of the game (like you did the barbarian, solid effort), rather than retreating into the eternal, automatic stalemate of universal subjectivity.

I was talking about the ASI's over the Barb's out of combat... not feats. My point was depending on the game they could be either so it's inaccurate to only treat them as ASI's...

And if we're dispensing with subjectivity how about you fill us in on this <sarcasm>totally objective ranking system<end sarrcasm> you are using...

 

[Sacrosanct]

It all depends on the classes you are comparing these bonus ASI's (or feats) too, I'd take them over the barbarians out of combat features... especially in a feat game. As for your personal and subjective view of what constitutes remotely adequate... You've expressed the fighter doesn't meet that but I doubt you are speaking for everyone.

I don't think the argument Tony is making is valid at all. Why? Because it's based on the assumption that with those two extra feats, they must be dedicated to combat related abilities or they take away from the fighter's core ability in combat, and those two extra feats "barely shore up lack of skill."

Firstly, the core combat ability of the fighter is outside of those two extra feats. That's why they are two extra feats. If Tony or anyone else feels like they have to use them for combat, then that's their choice. And their choice is not true of everyone else.

Secondly, some of those feats can grant abilities that grant exceptional out of combat ability, such as magic initiate, ritual caster, dungeon delver, etc. I strongly disagree with his assumption that an extra feat (let alone two) "barely shore up (out of combat) skill." That's just a silly statement to make.

But really, here is the thing that always gets me about these types of discussions. It seems that people are arguing that the only way they would be happy is if instead of two extra ASIs, there was something like this:

"At level 6, you gain advantage on all Wisdom and Intelligence checks to detect secret doors. You also have advantage on saving throws vs traps, and gain resistance to damage from traps. Finally, you can search for traps while moving at a regular pace.

At 11th level, increase your intelligence by 1. You always know which way is north, the number of hours left before the next sunrise or sunset, and can recall anything you've heard or seen in the last month."


Because their argument is that the fighter doesn't have hard coded out of combat abilities. Well, by forcing them to take something like those two feats, how is that any better than to not have specific hard coded out of combat abilities, but the option to give the player the choice? You're getting to extra things no one else gets, which you can absolutely use to improve out of combat capability rather than be forced which abilities to take like every other class does.