Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MostlyHarmless42" data-source="post: 7609317" data-attributes="member: 6845520">Respectfully, ALL characters receive a great benefit from a high charisma. When we are specifically talking about what makes a good party leader and hero who inspires others through words, the most important thing *IS* perficiency in persuasion and a high charisma.Except that the fighter shouldn't *have* a low charisma first place if you are actually rolling a character of the sort we are talking. Charisma should be the second highest stat of not equal to strength or dexterity. His stats should be treated *exactly* like a paladin, which you seem to think is perfectly reasonable to have a high charisma. The difference being that a fighter will end up with two extra feats or ability score increases the paladin *doesn't* have and will have a fighter core class instead of the paladin. I definitely agree that by base classes alone the fighter falls short of the paladin in terms of being a party leader or party face, but once again, the extra ability score increases mean getting inspiring leader and whatever other feats you need (i.e. shield master, sentinel, great weapon master, etc.) *without* sacrificing increasing your strength/dexterity or charisma from leveling up like the paladin or even bars does. And if you are in a game without feats, they gain bumps to their strength and charisma faster than the paladin OR bard, something which can actually  matter when you remember most games dont reach past level 10 anyway. Even after ALL of that,  the fighter has few distinct advantages over the paladin: the subclasses not included in the poll allow the fighter to gain expertise in persuasion (something a hero/face does a lot), and the fighter has an option to be a dexterity based fighter (or used ranged combat) if they so choice. We can debate if dex or strength fighters are "better", but it's a character option paladins dont have, and dexterous heroes do exist in fiction.No. It isn't. The question of what is "best" for d&d is subjective and entirely dependent what someone finds appealing and fun, and even minmaxing can have different goals in mind. To argue otherwise reeks of "One True Fun". The other options, bard and paladin, both come with either being a full caster with less health/lower ac, and being one of the most complex character classes in the game alongside (mostly due to previous editions) religious baggage and oaths that must be followed in character. You might not balk at complex character builds, but some players actually prefer a simpler character with less fiddly bits to keep track up (it's why stuff like the champion and warlock exist and for them the word "best" doesn't mean suffering from decision paralysis or having to look up spells mid fight), or their concept might not work well with being forced to be a spellcaster or in service of a God in order to play a brave leader. I would not discount the cavalier or samurai as both subclasses get persuasion and for some being a "hero" could be protecting their allies (cavalier) or surviving great odds (samurai). Yes, they would require their own spot, and perhaps they should be on the poll. Or perhaps, maybe they are all under one class, what was it called again? Oh yeah! Fighter. And this is not even being up college of glamour bard being a FAR better leader than Valor...also in xanathar's. You also seem to be under the misconception that charisma is useless to fighters, despite like 75% of being a party face is merely rolling charisma (persuasion) checks and having a high charisma being *literally the point* of the character builds you are debating. My point is that by not allowing feats and those subclasses you are neutering the fighter unfairly and underestimating what it is capable of. Feats are one thing as they are a varient rule, but the poll should at the very least be changed to allow all official material or all Adventures League legal material.</blockquote>

Verification