D&D 5E So what's exactly wrong with the fighter?

[Sacrosanct]

What's wrong with the Fighter?

Not enough inherent, declarative abilities with inarguable application to non-combat. Also, its few inherent, declarative, potentially-non-combat abilities applying FAR more profitably to combat, such that expending them anywhere else feels, and *may* even be mathematically, inferior to saving them for combat.

I think having two extra feats above and beyond everyone else is pretty inherent and declarative of the class. And with those two extra feats above and beyond what anyone else gets, you have plenty of choice to focus on non-combat areas of specialization.

As I've said a few times now, if they hard baked into the class instead of giving two extra feats:

At 6th level you can choose any two cantrips and any first level spell
At 12th level you can cast any ritual spell as a ritutual

Would you still argue that the fighter doesn't have "enough inherent, declarative abilities with inarguable application to non-combat"?

I would think being able to cast mending, minor illusion at will, and charm person once per long rest are pretty darn significant non-combat abilities that a fighter can get.

Or if you don't like spells, go with

At 6th level you get the lucky feat
At 12th level you get the dungeon delver feat

Both two hugely impactful non-combat skills. Along with a lot of other choices to choose from.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I think having two extra feats above and beyond everyone else is pretty inherent and declarative of the class. And with those two extra feats above and beyond what anyone else gets, you have plenty of choice to focus on non-combat areas of specialization.

I think we are using different definitions of "declarative." I...can't honestly say I understand exactly how you mean it, but at least I can explain my usage. A "declarative" ability is something you, as a player, elect to "expend" or "use" or the like (e.g. you declare its use). This need not necessarily also mean that the character's behavior be identical, though the ideal case would be where the player's choice is mirrored, in the fiction, by a specific choice on the character's part. For example, Action Surge is a declarative ability, though as I've said elsewhere, it's heavily slanted toward combat-related uses and I remain skeptical about its uses in the other pillars. Essentially all "spells" are, by nature, declarative things. (If we're speaking very technically, each and every "attack" also would qualify as "declarative," but I'd call that a trivial case since it's a declarative ability shared by 100% of classes.)

Passing over the spells suggestion, since I doubt anyone (myself included) feels like having me re-rehash my distaste for resorting to spells (a distinctly "non-martial" mechanic) to achieve such ends...

Or if you don't like spells, go with

At 6th level you get the lucky feat
At 12th level you get the dungeon delver feat

Both two hugely impactful non-combat skills. Along with a lot of other choices to choose from.

There's nothing declarative about Dungeon Delver. It's entirely a set of passive bonuses, and since I consider trap damage to be a combat thing, its primary benefits are combat-related. Discovering and disarming/subverting traps is more clearly exploration-related, but once it's actually doing the hurty things, it's effectively an enemy (or an enemy's attack, if you prefer). This is for the same reason that I consider, say, the Dragonborn elemental resistance a "combat" benefit, or the Barbarian's d12 Hit Die a "combat" benefit. Nothing about Dungeon Delver helps with discovering, disarming, or subverting a trap, unless you count "setting the trap off" as "discovering" it (which, I mean, sure you know it was there, but it's not really "a trap" anymore once it's sprung).
The "advantage to find secret doors" benefit is especially hollow, because its biggest benefits come into play only when your DM is not very good at using secret doors. If a secret door is an essential plot element, that is if the story cannot progress until it's found, then finding it absolutely should not be predicated on player skill, it should be part of the fiction, just like any other "plot hook"/"story-advancing" element.* If the door is merely extra loot, I hardly think having advantage on that check is particularly related to any of the pillars, because treasure is treasure. And if the door is helpful without being essential, perhaps hiding a helpful clue when the players already have enough to move on, there's a good chance they won't even think to look for it anyway.
Perhaps this is simply my inexperience with dungeon-delving (most of my campaigns with significant traps have spent more time in the "overworld," if you'll pardon the vaguely videogamey term, or one/two room buildings directly connected to the out-of-doors), but the only even remotely "declarative" bit--search for traps at "normal" rather than "slow" pace--seems of very limited utility to me. How often is one going to need the extra mile per hour when within a dungeon? When are there going to be so many traps that Normal speed is a problem in the "overworld"?

Lucky is...I'm honestly not sure HOW to feel about Lucky. It's unquestionably powerful, the equivalent of "stacking advantage." And it applies to any "ability check," sure. I'd call it rather a mixed bag, since that kind of powerful benefit, much like Action Surge, would feel wasteful if used on anything less than a *very* important check...and I find that the vast majority of nail-biting, "will-I-or-won't-I-make-it" checks occur in combat. The fact that two of the uses (your own attack rolls, or being attacked) are purely combat, and a third (saving throw) is almost purely combat, doesn't help make it seem strongly non-combat oriented.

I'm also still stuck on: what's actually Fightery about either of these things? Anyone can be supernaturally lucky. Anyone can know dungeons well. What's Fightery about doing those things? The fact that you can do them while also being strong/quick? That's...really quite boring, if that's what "being a Fighter" means. I'm also left asking, why force me to choose between these benefits, and combat benefits? Why allow people the option to have nothing special to do in 2/3 of the game's core, high-priority situations? That's a crappy choice to give people. I genuinely don't understand why it's so bad to have more than just "I can roll skill checks" or "I can compare [strike]size[/strike] *ahem* combat stats with someone!" for the enormous number of things a "soldier"-type should be good at that aren't about the "make things die" part of fighting. You could even have a list--just like a list of fighting styles--so that people don't feel like they MUST accept a particular kind of flavor within the "Fighter" archetype.

Why is it such an abomination to have special Fighter actions...that are about all the non-killing parts of being a "trained" (whether self-trained or not!) combatant?

*For example, if the meaning of the sigil on the escaped assassin's cloak is essential to moving the story forward, then that meaning should be provided to the players without depending on the whims of chance. That said, this automatic provision should only apply up to the point at which the story can definitely progress; the players don't necessarily need to be told that the sigil is faked, or that it has specific filigree details that point to the heir apparent, rather than the current head of the house. Another way to say this: details that add or remove intrigue can be left to chance, but details which are essential for the players progressing on the course they've chosen (even if "progress" means "crap, we followed the wrong lead") should not be left to chance.

 

[Quartz]

Lucky is...I'm honestly not sure HOW to feel about Lucky. It's unquestionably powerful, the equivalent of "stacking advantage." And it applies to any "ability check," sure. I'd call it rather a mixed bag, since that kind of powerful benefit, much like Action Surge, would feel wasteful if used on anything less than a *very* important check...and I find that the vast majority of nail-biting, "will-I-or-won't-I-make-it" checks occur in combat. The fact that two of the uses (your own attack rolls, or being attacked) are purely combat, and a third (saving throw) is almost purely combat, doesn't help make it seem strongly non-combat oriented.

Don't forget you can use Lucky in the other two pillars of play too as it can be used any time you make an ability check.

 

[Minigiant]

At level 6, a fighter can take the Skilled feat.

Let's look at the skills, tools, and languages, of a standard FCRW party with the suuggested builds.

Acolyte Cleric: Insight, Religion, History, Medicine, 2 languages.
Charlatan Rogue: Deception, Sleight of Hand, disguise kit, Forgery kit, Acrobatics, Athletics, Intimidation, Stealth, thieves' tools
Sage Wizard: Arcana, History, 2 languages, Insight, Investigation.
Soldier Fighter: Athletics, Intimidation, gaming set, land vehicles, Acrobatics, Animal Handling,

Bold are skill and primary score matches. Expertise are underlined.

The Strength fighter reigns on Athletics. That leaves Nature, Survival, Perception, Performance, and Persuasion untouched. With 18 skills and only 4 proficient skills for most PCs and 6 for rogues, and 5 for rangers and bards, a 4 man party would have to purposely cover all bases to get them all. And then there are skills like Perception Stealth, and Insight where the more trained the better. AND there are all the tools.

Take the Skilled feat at level 6 for a fighter. Perception, Stealth, & Insight is almost never bad picks. And only a massive party can cover all skills and tools easily.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I think we are using different definitions of "declarative." I...can't honestly say I understand exactly how you mean it, but at least I can explain my usage. A "declarative" ability is something you, as a player, elect to "expend" or "use" or the like (e.g. you declare its use). *snip* Why is it such an abomination to have special Fighter actions...that are about all the non-killing parts of being a "trained" (whether self-trained or not!) combatant?

If the essence of being a fighter is "being a trained combatant" as you say, then there are no non-combat related bits. That's like asking about the non-magic-related aspects of being a trained wizard. At most you're talking about skill proficiencies, but fundamentally the non-magic-related aspects of being e.g. Mercury Boltblaster don't originate in his being a wizard at all--he has non-magic-related aspects like crazy hand-to-hand combat skills and a close relationship with the Queen of Raelna, but those things originated in his background and martial arts training, not from his training as a wizard.

But what really makes the idea of expendable nonmagical resources (what you call "declarative") an abomination to many people is that Vancian mundane activity is fundamentally incoherent. Let's pick a mundane activity and pretend that it's a fighter thing. Say, spotting when someone is lying. "Liar's Scent: you can tell when someone is lying to you." In what universe would it ever make any kind of sense to say "By concentrating briefly, you can tell when someone is lying to you, once per day?" What, I lose my training at detecting hinky behavior just because I talked to a different hinky guy in the market earlier today?

Vancian mundane abilities just make no sense. 5E has a few of them (like Lucky, which is kind of like being proficient in every skill). Fortunately it doesn't have a lot.

Hope that answers your question. Although it wasn't really a question, was it? It was just a verbalization of a wistful emotion which is not widely-shared, and for your sake I'm sorry about that.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Passing over the spells suggestion, since I doubt anyone (myself included) feels like having me re-rehash my distaste for resorting to spells (a distinctly "non-martial" mechanic) to achieve such ends...

Ok, using your definition, my first reaction here is, "Just because you personally don't like using spells doesn't mean they don't exist. So when you say there are no declarative abilities, that's not a true statement. There just aren't many that you like. Two totally different statements."

Lucky is...I'm honestly not sure HOW to feel about Lucky. It's unquestionably powerful, the equivalent of "stacking advantage." And it applies to any "ability check," sure. I'd call it rather a mixed bag, since that kind of powerful benefit, much like Action Surge, would feel wasteful if used on anything less than a *very* important check...and I find that the vast majority of nail-biting, "will-I-or-won't-I-make-it" checks occur in combat. The fact that two of the uses (your own attack rolls, or being attacked) are purely combat, and a third (saving throw) is almost purely combat, doesn't help make it seem strongly non-combat oriented.

??? PCs have to make saves and ability checks out of combat all the time. Almost every single skill check is out of combat, and there are plenty of spells like charm person that are used out of combat. Not to mention poison saves and trap saves. There is no question that this is a declarative ability used in non-combat.

I'm also still stuck on: what's actually Fightery about either of these things?

You're complaining that the fighter doesn't have any declarative abilities to do out of combat, and when shown examples, you're saying they aren't fightery enough? That seems...contradictory. Of course an out of combat skill/ability/power won't seem fightery. That's because it's being used out of fights. :\


The unquestionable bottom line is that the fighter has two choices above and beyond any other class to give them some pretty significant mechanics to use in the other two pillars. They will always have that extra bonus over any other class, and it's a clear defined feature of the class. The only thing WoTC did was instead of baking some of these things into the class directly, they gave you a choice to become even more of a combat bad ass, increase your ability scores, or to become more well rounded into non-combat pillars. If you (general you) choose not to use the relevant feats to achieve this but focus on becoming more combat orientated, that's not the fault of the class for not having non combat abilities. That's your choice.

 

[Obryn]

But what really makes the idea of expendable nonmagical resources (what you call "declarative") an abomination to many people is that Vancian mundane activity is fundamentally incoherent. Let's pick a mundane activity and pretend that it's a fighter thing. Say, spotting when someone is lying. "Liar's Scent: you can tell when someone is lying to you." In what universe would it ever make any kind of sense to say "By concentrating briefly, you can tell when someone is lying to you, once per day?" What, I lose my training at detecting hinky behavior just because I talked to a different hinky guy in the market earlier today?

The process isn't simulative, but the results work just fine. You're good at detecting lies all the time, but by declaring it, you get to shift the outcome of this particular event.

To the characters in the game, everything "looks" fine. The narrative of the game is uninterrupted and self-consistent; the mechanics are just different on a player/metagame level, just like with levels, hit points, armor class, etc.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

The process isn't simulative, but the results work just fine. You're good at detecting lies all the time, but by declaring it, you get to shift the outcome of this particular event.

To the characters in the game, everything "looks" fine. The narrative of the game is uninterrupted and self-consistent; the mechanics are just different on a player/metagame level, just like with levels, hit points, armor class, etc.

If you want to play that way, knock yourself out. I'd rather just say "You know when someone is lying to you." I also don't have an urge to limit the number of times per day that warlocks can communicate telepathically or that paladins can be immune to disease. Vancian mechanics for everything are not something I'm interested in, and applying them where there is no underlying gameworld justification is an abomination. A game designed around that premise is not a game I will invest time in playing. Fortunately 5E is not designed around that premise.

 

[Bluenose]

But what really makes the idea of expendable nonmagical resources (what you call "declarative") an abomination to many people is that Vancian mundane activity is fundamentally incoherent. Let's pick a mundane activity and pretend that it's a fighter thing. Say, spotting when someone is lying. "Liar's Scent: you can tell when someone is lying to you." In what universe would it ever make any kind of sense to say "By concentrating briefly, you can tell when someone is lying to you, once per day?" What, I lose my training at detecting hinky behavior just because I talked to a different hinky guy in the market earlier today?

Not having any combat abilities but ones which you can use all the time also makes no sense. At both ends, because repeating "At Will" attacks time after time is a cheap way to be predictable and have your opponent adapt to that, and that's an easy way to fail. At the other end, because virtually any martial school will teach you that some moves should only be attempted in the right circumstances and most of the time are not only not going to work but are going to compromise your defences. 4e resolved that dichotomy by allowing the player to choose when that opportunity came up and that's easy to criticise, but the alternative people seem to prefer is to either have no moments of opportunism at all or to make them present all the time - and neither of those things is as "realistic" as the 4e method.

 

[Aribar]

Ok, using your definition, my first reaction here is, "Just because you personally don't like using spells doesn't mean they don't exist. So when you say there are no declarative abilities, that's not a true statement. There just aren't many that you like. Two totally different statements."

You're complaining that the fighter doesn't have any declarative abilities to do out of combat, and when shown examples, you're saying they aren't fightery enough? That seems...contradictory. Of course an out of combat skill/ability/power won't seem fightery. That's because it's being used out of fights. :\

The unquestionable bottom line is that the fighter has two choices above and beyond any other class to give them some pretty significant mechanics to use in the other two pillars. They will always have that extra bonus over any other class, and it's a clear defined feature of the class. The only thing WoTC did was instead of baking some of these things into the class directly, they gave you a choice to become even more of a combat bad ass, increase your ability scores, or to become more well rounded into non-combat pillars. If you (general you) choose not to use the relevant feats to achieve this but focus on becoming more combat orientated, that's not the fault of the class for not having non combat abilities. That's your choice.

So is Linguist, Dungeon Delver, Observant, etc. equal or better than a Barbarian's Spirit Seeker and Spirit Walk? Or 90% of the classes' spell lists? Or the half dozen things the Rogue gets? Or are they consolation prizes (that you have to take instead of combat feats) for the class being a bland blank slate because 3E was designed that way? In fact, let's look at Mearl's design goals.

"The fighter is best at fighting" is a terrible design goal to shoot for, but even then it's debatable they reach that because other classes can easily reach or exceed a fighter's damage output or have additional utility in combat. Getting spells is definitely a non-fightery thing like you said, and goes against goal #2 and fighters don't match a wizard's utility in or out of combat at all for #6.

Bleh, I think I'm just going to duck out after this post. Maybe some people (myself included) in the "fighter sucks" crowd are bad at explaining things to people that don't see the problem. The bottom line for me is that the 5E fighter, as designed, does not live up to my imagination of what a fighter is. It doesn't have the combat utility or mechanics to support the kind of tactics I like to do in combat (helping allies, forcing enemies to keep me in mind, having ways to shrug off enemy blows, etc.) or the things I want these characters to do outside of combat.