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

[Ashkelon]

If he's got that information just by reading the Monster Manual, that's a metagaming problem, of course. But don't you think an experienced adventurer might be able to size up his enemy, evaluate his own fighting condition, and come to a similar conclusion? Boxers can estimate how many rounds they can go against a tough opponent. It's not that they know exactly how many punches they can dodge and how many punches they can take; it's that they've got a general idea of their own endurance. Which is exactly what HP is.

First off, it is easy to tell what a monsters damage is unless your DM rolls everything entirely behind a screen. And even then, its not hard to figure out after an attack or two.

Secondly you are describing is nothing like real life. A boxer may have a sense for how many rounds he can go (usually they are wrong though) but you can't do that with weapons that should kill with a single solid blow. You can't predict how many swings from a greatsword you can dodge before one drops you. This is especially silly if you have two creatures facing off who both have full HP so they would have no clues as to the competence of the other.

They are less dissociated than the inspiration mechanic, or the "Fence" example I gave earlier, or the aspect system in Fate, because they inform the player's decision making in the same way they inform the character's decision making: "I'm feeling fresh, I can fight" or "I'm pretty beat up, maybe I should back off".

They are just as disassociated though if you actually think about it. A player knows how much HP he has so he knows what level healing spell to ask for to not get overhealed. He knows how many HD to spend during a rest to not waste any. He knows how far he can fall without dying because falling damage is only d6 per 10 feet. He knows how many fireballs he can take to the face. He knows that if he is at full HP and past level 5, almost nothing can kill him in one hit. Just because you choose to ignore the disassociated aspects of HP doesn't mean they don't exist.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

They are just as disassociated though if you actually think about it.

You're just repeating yourself, and I'd just be repeating myself if I responded in depth. I think this conversation has stretched past the point of productivity.

 

[Bawylie]

They don't exist. The entire concept is logically bankrupt.

 

[Quajek]

Is it just me, or has nobody has said a single thing the Fighter can't do outside of combat?

Exploration? The Fighter has high strength and proficiency with Athletics. The Fighter can climb up the cliffside, down into the ravine, jump across the pit, break down the door, clear the rubble from the cave better than anyone but an out-of-combat raging Barbarian, or the rare Strength-focused Rogue or Bard with Expertise in Athletics. Sure, the Rogue can pick the lock, but if he should fail and breaks the lock, you need the Fighter with a crowbar to crack it open. Yes, the Wizard could fly across the chasm, but why use a spell for that when the Fighter can just jump over it with a running start?

Social interaction? The Fighter is no worse at social interaction than the Wizard, Cleric, Ranger, Monk, or Barbarian just at its base level. But give him a decent Charisma score and a background with a social skill or two, and you've got yourself a smooth-talking fighter. And don't forget that the Fighter gets the most Feats and Stat Increases of anyone. Make your Fighter a Face. Why not?

So what's the problem? Am I missing something?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Is it just me, or has nobody has said a single thing the Fighter can't do outside of combat?

You mean that just anyone couldn't do? One saving grace of 5e is that Bounded Accuracy means anyone can attempt anything. The DM might judge that they fail with no check called for, buy you can always try, the DM might allow a roll, and you might roll high enough.

It's like the proverbial rising tide that floats all boats. The fighter can do a little more out of combat than he likely could in other editions, because he could always do so very little, and Bounded Accuracy made everything a little easier, especially things you're no good at.

 

[Quajek]

You mean that just anyone couldn't do? One saving grace of 5e is that Bounded Accuracy means anyone can attempt anything. The DM might judge that they fail with no check called for, buy you can always try, the DM might allow a roll, and you might roll high enough.

It's like the proverbial rising tide that floats all boats. The fighter can do a little more out of combat than he likely could in other editions, because he could always do so very little, and Bounded Accuracy made everything a little easier, especially things you're no good at.

Did you only read the first sentence of my post?


Yes, bounded accuracy helps the Fighter, as it helps everyone. But what I went on to say in my post is that the Fighter has the resources to be good at most things.

What the Fighter gets that other classes don't get is options for customization: more feats and stat increases than anyone else, which can be used to make him into whatever you want.

Just because most people only use those resources to get even better at the one thing the Fighter is already very good at, does not mean that Fighters don't get those resources and could put them wherever they wish.

 

[Sacrosanct]

There's a difference between dissociation and abstraction. Characters are aware of the variables that HP abstracts into a single number: they know when they've been exhausted, battered, and wounded, and can make decisions accordingly.

Absolutely true. And as you mentioned later, players saying "I have 45hp and the ogre does 13 each round so I can last...." is entirely metegaming, and not a disassociation problem. Disassociate, abstraction, and metagaming all mean very different things, and should not be used interchangeably.

I'm also in agreement that the very fact that hit points represents MORE than just physical damage, it by definition reduces disassociation. Everything that impacts hp can be traced directly to an action in game. I.e., associated with the context of an action in the game that caused HP loss. Even way back in the AD&D 1e PHB it tells you that it's silly to think that a 5th level fighter can take more damage than a war horse. However, his skill, experience, and luck play much bigger roles, especially at higher levels. There's nothing disassociated about that. It's abstract, but not disassociated.

Look, I know it's the internet, and people on the internet often try to position themselves as experts on something that they are completely ignorant of. That's nothing new. My secondary role in the military was a Combat Lifesaver (medic-lite), and my son is an EMT. The next person who starts claiming things about what the human body can and can't take, or how long a person can fight while suffering wounds, I just may lose my sh*t lol. Especially since I've already given numerous examples in real life how these claims are flat out false.

While I'm at it, it's a horrible fallacy to make the argument that since people are willing to accept disassociation with magic, then they should accept disassociation in mundane/marital acts as well or they are somehow inconsistent or illogical. Hello! It's magic. That's why reality bending things are accepted. Heck, it's the entire point of it.

 

[Ashkelon]

Is it just me, or has nobody has said a single thing the Fighter can't do outside of combat?

Exploration? The Fighter has high strength and proficiency with Athletics. The Fighter can climb up the cliffside, down into the ravine, jump across the pit, break down the door, clear the rubble from the cave better than anyone but an out-of-combat raging Barbarian, or the rare Strength-focused Rogue or Bard with Expertise in Athletics.

Not true. Anyone with a high Strength and proficiency can be just as good as the fighter at Athletics related tasks. I have played in a game where the Wizard had an 18 Strength, which was higher than my 16 strength fighter, so the wizard was actually better at athletics related tasks. The fighter has nothing that is class specific that contributes to completing athletics related tasks.

On the other hand, many classes gain features or abilities that allow them to outright bypass athletics related challenges. Shapeshifting druids can get more Strength than a fighter, a climb speed, or flight, all without using a spell slot. A valor bard with expertise in Athletics will generally have a higher Athletics check than your typical fighter. A spellcaster who chooses to use a low level slot on something like spider climb, jump, levitate, or misty step can outright bypass the same obstacles that your typical fighter has a 25-50% chance of failing.

Sure, the Rogue can pick the lock, but if he should fail and breaks the lock, you need the Fighter with a crowbar to crack it open. Yes, the Wizard could fly across the chasm, but why use a spell for that when the Fighter can just jump over it with a running start?

This is also untrue. In fact, due to bounded accuracy, anyone can accomplish a DC 20 Strength check if they have a 10 or higher strength. It is exceedingly rare that you are face DC 25 Strength checks. And even then, if the party has anyone who can cast the guidance cantrip and someone with a 14 Strength, it still becomes doable.

Also, what happens when you have a 30 foot chasm you need to cross or a 100 ft wall with a 20 DC. The fighter can't jump that far. And there is a very high likelihood the fighter would fall half way up the wall. But a spellcaster could use a low level slot and automatically pass such challenges with no chance of failure. Aka, when the task is really important, the one who is supposedly best at overcoming physical challenges has to play second fiddle to the casters.

Social interaction? The Fighter is no worse at social interaction than the Wizard, Cleric, Ranger, Monk, or Barbarian just at its base level. But give him a decent Charisma score and a background with a social skill or two, and you've got yourself a smooth-talking fighter. And don't forget that the Fighter gets the most Feats and Stat Increases of anyone. Make your Fighter a Face. Why not?

A few issues here as well. Sure a fighter with a 14 charisma and proficiency in charisma based skills is just as good at social interactions as a number of other classes...when those classes don't devote any of their spells or other class features toward being good at social interactions. A druid or ranger can speak with animals and gain information a fighter never could. A warlock can use one of his 8 invocations to gain proficiency with Persuasion and Deception. A wizard or cleric can utilize charm person, suggestion, or even domination to overcome social encounters. The fighter is stuck with only using his background and proficiency, which everyone also gets. Oh, and lets not forget that the fighter gains very little from charisma compared to classes like the Bard, Sorcerer, Rogue (Swashbuckler), Paladin, and Warlock. That means those classes are far better suited to being the party face as charisma gives them more than just a small boost to charisma based checks.

As to having more feats, well yes the fighter does have more feats. 1 more at level 6 and 2 more at level 14. Compare a level 10 fighter to a level 10 warlock, paladin, bard, wizard, cleric, druid, or rogue. That 1 bonus feat the fighter has cannot compete with the non-combat capabilities of those classes. For example, just from invocations a warlock can disguise self at-will, cast jump at-will, and gain proficiency in both Deception and Persuasion. Also, many non-combat feats are far more situational and far less useful than class features like expertise, reliable talent, or spells.

So what's the problem? Am I missing something?

You seem to be missing a lot. Sure, a fighter is just capable outside of combat, but they are the least capable class in the game outside of combat. Every class gains significantly more features that can benefit their utility outside of combat. Fighters don't. Sure, some class has to be the lowest rung on the ladder in terms of non-combat utility, and that class is the fighter (especially STR based fighters).

Some people wish that there would be times where having a fighter around would cause the party to go, "woah, I'm glad we have a fighter to help us overcome this (non combat encounter)". Instead of saying, "oh well, we don't have a fighter, but bob the 15 Str cleric with the guidance cantrip can do everything he could and more for noncombat encounters without ever using a spell slot."

 

[Tony Vargas]

What the Fighter gets that other classes don't get is options for customization: more feats and stat increases than anyone else, which can be used to make him into whatever you want.

Feats are optional, and the fighter gets two ASIs, on at 6th, the other at 14th. Most campaigns don't go much past 10th, so you're talking a +1 mod in one stat. That doesn't even stack up well compared to a guidance cantrip, let alone Expertise. OR, if the DM opts into it, a single feat (your second-choice feat, since you got one at 4th), in the second half of the campaign (and, at 8th, everyone gets another feat, and your advantage is your third-choice feat).

Contrast that to the 3.x fighter: Bonus feat at 1st level, another every even-numbered level, for a total of 18 vs the 7 everyone else got. That 157% more feat power for the 3.5 fighter, vs 33% more for the 5e, if feats are even allowed.

While I'm at it, it's a horrible fallacy to make the argument that since people are willing to accept disassociation with magic, then they should accept disassociation in mundane/marital acts as well or they are somehow inconsistent or illogical. Hello! It's magic. That's why reality bending things are accepted. Heck, it's the entire point of it.

Magic is part of the fantasy genre and of they myths & legends that inspire that genre, but so are super-human feats performed by heroes without magic. So, for that matter, are beliefs that magic permeates reality, that nothing is really mundane.

The 'horrible fallacy' is the double-standard some gamers want applied to a fantasy game in which some aspects are allowed to follow genre, while others are limited to some modern standard of realism, or even to the dreaded reality-isn't-real trope, in which not even real, documented things are 'realistic' enough. And, further, taking it not only to the point of failing to model genre, but to and well past the point of wrecking game balance, as well.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Magic is part of the fantasy genre and of they myths & legends that inspire that genre, but so are super-human feats performed by heroes without magic. So, for that matter, are beliefs that magic permeates reality, that nothing is really mundane.

The 'horrible fallacy' is the double-standard some gamers want applied to a fantasy game in which some aspects are allowed to follow genre, while others are limited to some modern standard of realism, or even to the dreaded reality-isn't-real trope, in which not even real, documented things are 'realistic' enough. And, further, taking it not only to the point of failing to model genre, but to and well past the point of wrecking game balance, as well.

You can have a fantasy world where magic exists as well as the mundane. Been happening for decades now. With hundreds of thousands of players.

It's also not a double standard to accept magic but also want mundane classes to stay mundane. Your claims of double standards and "wrecking the game" to justify your badwrong fun argument has gotten old. And yes, that's basically what you're doing by using phrases like that. If I don't play the game the way you want, I am engaging in badwrong behavior because I'm wrecking game balance and applying a double standard.