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

[FormerlyHemlock]

If you have a party that already has a Life Cleric focused solely on healing, you shouldn't bother playing as a Bard that is focused solely on Healing, or you'll feel overshadowed. That role is covered.

Nitpick: it's the other way around actually. The Lore Bard will overshadow the Life cleric once they both hit 6th level and he steals Aura of Vitality, which is 250% as efficient as clerical healing.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

when do you ever have a challenge where a single roll determines whether or not you will take 20d6 damage?

Fighting on the edge of a cliff, trying to grapple a gargoyle before he flies off the edge with your buddy whom HE has grappled. I'm AFB but the gargoyle will roll 19+ on his check about a quarter of the time, which means you need 20+ to grab him. Fly and Spider Climb won't help, no time to cast them, but Lucky will.

 

[Hussar]

I'd point out that Feather Fall would fix this problem too. But, let's be honest here Hemlock, that's a pretty tiny corner case. For the vast majority of the time, Ashkelon is right.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I'd point out that Feather Fall would fix this problem too. But, let's be honest here Hemlock, that's a pretty tiny corner case.

If your game has no environmental threats, it's going to be a pretty boring game tactically. Not only is fighting on cliff faces a classic fantasy trope (included in video games like IWD I and II, novels like Promise of Blood and IIRC The King's Buccaneer, movies like Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, etc.), it's also a strategically smart place for enemy humanoids to build their fortresses. Tucker's Kobolds are going to seek out all the high places they can, and they will preferentially engage on bad ground near cliffs, precisely because 20d6 is a lot of damage. 10 orcs are theoretically Easy prey for 4 7th level characters--but my personal estimation is that on a narrow 2' pathway leading along the edge of a cliff, those orcs are a Deadly threat to those PCs. Therefore the orcs will preferentially fight on the edges of narrow cliffs. They're dumb but not stupid.

RE: Feather Fall, yes it would prevent death and that's great! Yet another reason to use this scenario, so the Feather Fall guy benefits from learning it. However, Feather Fall doesn't prevent you from being taken hors de combat at the bottom of the cliff, but winning the Athletics check will.

 

[Imaro]

I kind of wish feats had been split into combat feats and expert feats (like they were in one of the play test packets), and that characters got a specific number of each type of feat.

So a level 20 fighter might have 6 combat feats (including + STR, Dex, or Con) and 4 expert feats (including + Int, Wis, or Cha). A level 20 rogue might have 4 combat feats and 4 expert feats. A
level 20 wizard or cleric might have 4 and 4.

I really think it was a huge mistake having combat character creature resources share space with noncombat character creation resources. Combat is such a large part of D&D; it has the most rules, takes up the most time at the table, and often has the most severe consequences for failure.

The feats that provide noncombat utility don't actually do all that much. Seriously, compare what those feats do to what 3 levels of bard, warlock, wizard, cleric, or rogue provide. Those 3 levels easily provide 5x more non combat capability than any of the feats. Even 1 level of most of those classes provide more utility than those feats.

Then we have certain feats that are way too good in combat compared to other feats. Great Weapon Master increases your damage by 25-45%. That is way too good to pass up.

These factors combine to make non combat feats significantly less appealing than combat feats. Having players get to take both combat and utility feats would help even the playing field a little. It would ensure that all classes can gain some unique and interesting non combat options.

Yeah I don't really need or want this type of separation/rigidness...

I have no problem with a character choosing to go all in for combat with his feats, that may be necessary for his concept, how he derives fun from the game or whatever... but don't then complain about a lack of non-combat abilities, especially if you're one of if not the most proficient class in combat already. You want to be a combat god... well there's a trade off... especially since the fighter already starts off pretty much ahead of everyone when it comes to combat. With bounded accuracy and the fighter's already ample combat prowess there really isn't a necessity to go all in when it comes to combat... unless that's what you choose to do.

 

[Ashkelon]

I'd point out that Feather Fall would fix this problem too. But, let's be honest here Hemlock, that's a pretty tiny corner case. For the vast majority of the time, Ashkelon is right.

And of course, let us not forget that at level 9 the Bard has +11 Athletics to the fighters +8, narrowing the advantage that the lucky reroll gives.

Also, let us not forget that lucky is 3 times per day only. And as Hemlock would have us believe, the fighter would need to use the feat all 3 times outside of combat in order to make the fighter decent in non-combat situations.

Also, the situation Hemlock proposed is a combat situation, which really has nothing to do with the non-combat potential of the fighter, so isn't actually relevant to the discussion at all.

Also, it is important to remember that the bard has Bull's Strength cast upon himself which gives him advantage to every strength check he makes (aka permanently lucky for Strength rolls). Making the bard more desirable in the situation Hemlock proposed anyway.

Finally, we must also realize that there are a number of ways to prevent such a situation above and beyond simple athletics checks. For one, only stupid PCs fight near the edge of cliffs. It's s very simple rule to not stand near the edge of a cliff. For another, you can break a grapple with forced movement. A warlock with repelling blast for example can do wonders for this, though many spells can do the trick here. Also, players who can fly (air elementals are pretty fun for the Druid). Also spells that incapacitate enemies are very useful against flying creatures. The bard has used hideous laughter to cause enemies to literally die from laughter as they plummet to their deaths.

 

[Quajek]

Also, the situation Hemlock proposed is a combat situation, which really has nothing to do with the non-combat potential of the fighter, so isn't actually relevant to the discussion at all.

He was directly asked *BY YOU* to name a situation where a single d20 roll would determine whether or not someone would take 20d6 of damage. Don't be purposely obtuse.

Also, it is important to remember that the bard has Bull's Strength cast upon himself which gives him advantage to every strength check he makes (aka permanently lucky for Strength rolls). Making the bard more desirable in the situation Hemlock proposed anyway.

And again, why is no one in your party EVER willing to cast Bull's Strength on the Fighter? Is it because of your constant complaining?

Finally, we must also realize that there are a number of ways to prevent such a situation above and beyond simple athletics checks. For one, only stupid PCs fight near the edge of cliffs.

If you never get pulled into a tactically disadvantageous position, you have a terrible DM. What if a cartload of orphans are teetering over the edge of said cliff and they're surrounded by your hated enemies? What if the precious MacGuffin is dangling over the edge, and the enemies are closing in? What if you need to get from point A to point B and don't have time to check for a cliffside ambush?

Heroes don't always get to choose where and when they fight.

It's s very simple rule to not stand near the edge of a cliff.

A five-foot wide path winds along the cliff's edge...

For another, you can break a grapple with forced movement. A warlock with repelling blast for example can do wonders for this, though many spells can do the trick here.

It's pretty hard to cast a spell with verbal and somatic components when a gargoyle has one hand over your mouth and the other around both arms, you low-strength warlock or wizard. Looks like you need a FIGHTER to PUSH the grappler off the caster to inflict that forced movement.

Also, players who can fly (air elementals are pretty fun for the Druid). Also spells that incapacitate enemies are very useful against flying creatures. The bard has used hideous laughter to cause enemies to literally die from laughter as they plummet to their deaths.

So is a net. Throw a net, Fighter.

You don't seem to actually enjoy playing a mundane character. You're hella jealous of the casters. And your mind seems to only work in a way that responds to challenges by thinking of all the spells for that situation instead of how your character who has to operate within the bounds of reality can still overcome the challenges.

I only play mundane characters. I love showing up the casters. You just have to approach it from a position of "I can do whatever I want," instead of "the character I built from level one is optimized for DPR and not mechanically optimized to make me the best at everything, boo-boo-bee-boo."

 

[Ashkelon]

He was directly asked *BY YOU* to name a situation where a single d20 roll would determine whether or not someone would take 20d6 of damage. Don't be purposely obtuse.

Which still isn't relevant when the discussion was problems with the fighter's non combat capability. We already know the fighter is capable in combat. It seems disingenuous to mention a combat oriented situation in a discussion about non combat capability.

Besides, there are plenty of ways a single roll can lead to 20d6 damage in combat near a cliffs edge. A warlock eldritch blasting you off a cliff only needs to hit your AC. A spellcaster can thunderwave, grease, gust of wind, or use any number of spells that cause forced movement.

Saying a fighter with lucky is good because in a certain edge situation he has a decent chance to not fall off a cliff as long as the enemy is using an Athletics related method to push him off said cliff, really doesn't really seem all that relevant to me.

And again, why is no one in your party EVER willing to cast Bull's Strength on the Fighter? Is it because of your constant complaining?

Why cast it on the fighter? It would be a waste. The bard is the one who can shove people as a bonus action without giving up an attack to do so. the fighter's attacks are better put to use attacking the creatures the bard has knocked prone utilizing Great Weapon Master. It is merely an added bonus that Bull's Strength benefits the bard outside of combat and has an hour long duration. Also, the bard has a higher base Athletics check anyway, making the bard the more obvious choice for the buff.

If you never get pulled into a tactically disadvantageous position, you have a terrible DM. What if a cartload of orphans are teetering over the edge of said cliff and they're surrounded by your hated enemies? What if the precious MacGuffin is dangling over the edge, and the enemies are closing in? What if you need to get from point A to point B and don't have time to check for a cliffside ambush?

Heroes don't always get to choose where and when they fight.

A five-foot wide path winds along the cliff's edge...

Sure sometimes bad situations happen. I get that. But arguing that a fighter who spent his bonus feat feat on lucky is better off than others in such situations is ludicrous. I would much rather be a warlock with at-will levitation, at-will knockback on a ranged attack, darkness, and teleportation. Or a druid who can turn into an air elemental. Or a bard who has a massive bonus to athletics checks and bulls strength, and the ability to shove as a bonus action. Or a raging barbarian with advantage on all STR rolls while raging. Or a wizard who can use gust of wind to knock all enemies off the cliff at once. Etc.

In a tactically disadvantageous position, many PCs have abilities that can shape the battlefield around them. The fighter is still mostly stuck with dealing and taking damage.

It's pretty hard to cast a spell with verbal and somatic components when a gargoyle has one hand over your mouth and the other around both arms, you low-strength warlock or wizard. Looks like you need a FIGHTER to PUSH the grappler off the caster to inflict that forced movement.

Too bad for you grappling doesn't work like that in 5e. A caster can cast spells while grappled just fine. Maybe a better understanding of the rules would help you grasp the situation better.

So is a net. Throw a net, Fighter.

Nets are good, but their range is short and their accuracy is low (disadvantage beyond 5 ft and a low DEX bonus means it is hard to hit things as a strength based fighter). Besides, if the flying enemy is more than 15 feet away, you can't even hit it with a net. It is generally better to to let others throw nets or otherwise incapacitate flying enemies then you can pound on them when they are grounded.

You don't seem to actually enjoy playing a mundane character. You're hella jealous of the casters. And your mind seems to only work in a way that responds to challenges by thinking of all the spells for that situation instead of how your character who has to operate within the bounds of reality can still overcome the challenges.

I love playing martial characters. They are my favorite types of characters to play. I really enjoyed my warblade in 3e, my fighter in 4e, my fighter in 13th Age, and my non-magical warriors in Savage Worlds. So clearly you don't know what you are talking about...

I only play mundane characters. I love showing up the casters. You just have to approach it from a position of "I can do whatever I want," instead of "the character I built from level one is optimized for DPR and not mechanically optimized to make me the best at everything, boo-boo-bee-boo."

Lol...you really need reading comprehension. When did I ever ask to be best at everything. Hell,w hen did I ever even ask to be best at anything? I never once asked for parity with the spellcasting classes. That is simply an impossible goal. There is no way a martial character will ever be able to achieve the variety of effects or utility provided by spells.

All I want is a martial warrior who has a variety of interesting options in combat and enough utility outside of combat to actually feel like they contributed significantly to overcoming some non-combat challenge every now and again.

 

[Corpsetaker]

All I want is a martial warrior who has a variety of interesting options in combat and enough utility outside of combat to actually feel like they contributed significantly to overcoming some non-combat challenge every now and again.

It's already there, you just refuse to admit it.

Currently I am playing an 8th level drow Battlemaster and I can do the following.

1: Parry
2: Trip
3: Riposte
4: Commander's Strike
5: Rally
6: Feinting Attack
7: Evasive Footwork
8: 6d8 Superiority Dice (Martial Initiate)
9: Magic Initiate: (Blade Ward, Eldritch Blast, Armour of Agathys)
10: Duel Wield longswords (Duel Wielder)
11: Criminal Background: (I can Sneak, Pick locks, disarm traps, and deceive 18 Dex & 16 Cha)
12: Drow abilities: Superior Darkvision, Dancing Lights, Darkness, and Faerie Fire.
13: 3 attacks
14: Student of War
15: Know your Enemy

Like I said, the class you are describing is already here.

 

[tyrlaan]

It's already there, you just refuse to admit it.

Currently I am playing an 8th level drow Battlemaster and I can do the following.



Like I said, the class you are describing is already here.

Speaking from the complaint that the fighter is lacking in distinct non-combat options...

1: Parry -- combat
2: Trip -- combat
3: Riposte -- combat
4: Commander's Strike -- combat
5: Rally -- combat
6: Feinting Attack -- combat
7: Evasive Footwork -- combat
8: 6d8 Superiority Dice (Martial Initiate) -- combat
9: Magic Initiate: (Blade Ward, Eldritch Blast, Armour of Agathys) -- combat, could have been non-combat though, but everyone has feat access so not distinct
10: Duel Wield longswords (Duel Wielder) -- combat
11: Criminal Background: (I can Sneak, Pick locks, disarm traps, and deceive 18 Dex & 16 Cha) -- non-com, but everyone has access to the background so not distinct
12: Drow abilities: Superior Darkvision, Dancing Lights, Darkness, and Faerie Fire. -- mix, but race is not tied to fighter so not distinct
13: 3 attacks -- combat
14: Student of War -- combat
15: Know your Enemy -- combat


I realize of course that these are the choices you elected to take, but it serves to demonstrate the point nonetheless that the fighter is lacking in distinct non-combat options.

I also realize that there are other gripes being levied against the fighter, but I'm not addressing those here (nor am I personally sure I prescribe to those gripes, but I understand the points).