D&D 5E The Charismatic Fighting "Hero" - Which Core Class does it Best?

[Xeviat]

Agree with the basic premise, but I voted valor bard. The charismatic leader is rarely the best straight-up fighter in the group. He usually wins by either having great will/resolve (which favors the paladin), by being creative and cunning (which favors the bard), or by being able to inspire his companions to be better than they thought they could be (which also favors the bard).

Either answer could work, but I prefer playing bards.

I've been pitching rebranding the Bard as a "Hero". They're a great 5th member and they fit in really well with the leader type. Fluffing their magic as inspirational stuff (I've build a Warlord with the Valor Bard), or just explaining it as people can learn magic because it's a magical world, works really well for me.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

They don't random-roll them, either.
They don't have numeric stats, at all. It's numeric stats (and classes &c) in the game that are /trying/ (often unsuccessfully) to model them.

When you're trying to model an archetype with a character class, though, everything that class choice touches comes up. What benefits you get from which stat, and the trade-offs that creates becomes very relevant. So if you're trying to model a concept that's pretty good in melee, and "inspiring" to a significant degree, a class that gives lots of benefits for STR or DEX, but virtually none for DEX wouldn't be great. While one that gives benefits for STR & DEX both - though still not able to 'afford' maxing both, at least faces a more practicable trade-off when balancing the two.

(I assume you mean STR and CHA?)

The point: if you random roll, there IS NO TRADE OFF. Ergo, Random Roll is much better at modelling fictional heroes than Point Buy. The reason you feel the rules are "unsuccessfully" trying to model them is you are making an invalid assumption - Random Roll is not a core rule. But it is, along side point buy and default array.

IF you impose the Point Buy requirement, then the core rules can struggle to recreate certain heroes because of MAD. But WotC already addressed this issue by creating the Swashbuckler subclass, and putting it in two supplements because of it's importance.
​

 

[Pauln6]

I wonder if a prestige class that can be bolted onto fighter, paladin, Rogue, or bard might be a way to go. I realise they dropped the notion as it did not prove popular but it might work.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I wonder if a prestige class that can be bolted onto fighter, paladin, Rogue, or bard might be a way to go. I realise they dropped the notion as it did not prove popular but it might work.

PrCs would open up quite a lot. They'd be a powerful setting tool for the DM, since a player who takes a setting-tie-in PrC has bought into the setting in a big way. The DM could also use them to gate status - like the old 1e Lord - behind preqs, rather than just class/level or, as it currently stands in 5e, Background.
The PDK-pretty nearly every sub-class on SCAG really - and the samurai,cavalier,etc all would've been better PrCs.

What was problematic in 3.x was PrCs as a player build tool, in a system with too many such crosspollenating, system-mastery-over-rewarding, player-side build tools.

5e should be able to avoid that issue, by keeping PrCs DM options, and setting-specific.

 

[Fenris-77]

I don't know about PrCs. The current MC rules already have a lot of min-max type synergy built in, adding PrCs could just make that worse. That's a design issue though, not a barrier to service. In fact, in a lot of ways, a 3-5 level MC dip functions a lot like a PrC anyway.
[MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] - the player controlled part is a potential issue. Maybe put the whole PrCs thing in the GMs hands and tie them in to the specific world and story. If there is a knightly order that has certain standards and whatever, then make the player work for it in character, rather than just choosing a knightly PrC based on pre-reqs.

 

[Tony Vargas]

(I assume you mean STR and CHA?)

Yes!
but my phone, in its silicon wisdom, had deduced - probably from my participation in way too many DEX is das Uberstat threads - that when it type CHA, I mean DEX.

- technology: making our lives easier!

The point: if you random roll, there IS NO TRADE OFF.

Oh, there's still a tradeoff, it's just in choice of class, and even concept. Want or play a charismatic warrior? Too bad you CHA is 5 and your STR 9 - Maybe with that 16 INT you should go MU, instead...?

Even if you have good STR & CHA, say, you still face the trade-off: play a class that gets benefits from both, or only one?

Random Roll is much better at modelling fictional heroes than Point Buy.

Not specific heroes, one at a time, no. Because you are likely to get entirely the wrong stats.

Now, if you want to generate a population of tens of thousands, from which you will select a handful of exceptional individuals to become heroes, sure.
But, at that point you might as well assign stats arbitrarily.

 

[Fenris-77]

There is also a huge range of what "point buy" can mean beyond the system provided in PHB. I tend to favour straight 1-1 buy systems with a point total in the 70's somewhere, depending on where I want characters to start. The characters don't end up looking a ton different than the PHB version but they do tend to have less dump stats at 8, which I like. Int is a dump stat for so many classes that a lot of whole parties end up looking like they just got off the short bus with the wizard in charge to make sure they don't swallow their tongues. It doesn't have the "heroic" feel I'm looking for.

 

[Pauln6]

I dunno. Min maxed characters don't feel that well rounded to me. My Tome Warlock/Rogue with Int17, Dex15, and Cha14 is still great fun to play.

 

[Fenris-77]

I dunno. Min maxed characters don't feel that well rounded to me. My Tome Warlock/Rogue with Int17, Dex15, and Cha14 is still great fun to play.

I do set minimums and maximums for the point buy. I usually use the same 16 max before mods cap that the PHB version does and a soft bottom of 8. The main result of the 1-1 point buy is usually a better second/third tier stat and less really bad stats unless the player wants one for role playing purposes. You can't start too high or the purpose for and satisfaction derived from ASIs gets marginalized.

 

[Pauln6]

I don't know about PrCs. The current MC rules already have a lot of min-max type synergy built in, adding PrCs could just make that worse. That's a design issue though, not a barrier to service. In fact, in a lot of ways, a 3-5 level MC dip functions a lot like a PrC anyway.

[MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] - the player controlled part is a potential issue. Maybe put the whole PrCs thing in the GMs hands and tie them in to the specific world and story. If there is a knightly order that has certain standards and whatever, then make the player work for it in character, rather than just choosing a knightly PrC based on pre-reqs.

I think it's true, there are great dangers with prestige classes. They broke many combinations in 3e but a few limited options designed with only a few levels might work if synergies are kept under control. There's always a risk of new sub classes breaking the game but that applies equally to multiclassing.

My view has always been if you've got players complaining that a a combination is too MAD then you've probably got it about right overall.