D&D General The Crab Bucket Fallacy

[Oofta]

Good grief. If someone wants to make a fighter that is useful outside of combat there are plenty of options. It's not like they're locked out of anything, if they want proficiencies that's what backgrounds are for. If you really want you can always take a human fighter and get expertise.

The only thing stopping a fighter from being competent in skills outside of combat is the player of the fighter. No, he can't cast charm person but that's only an issue if the DM never enforces the penalties associated with such spells.

As far as combat, fighters are simply more effective. Difficulty? Combat is as difficult as the group wants it to be.

 

[Minigiant]

Good grief. If someone wants to make a fighter that is useful outside of combat there are plenty of options. It's not like they're locked out of anything, if they want proficiencies that's what backgrounds are for. If you really want you can always take a human fighter and get expertise.

The only thing stopping a fighter from being competent in skills outside of combat is the player of the fighter. No, he can't cast charm person but that's only an issue if the DM never enforces the penalties associated with such spells.

As far as combat, fighters are simply more effective. Difficulty? Combat is as difficult as the group wants it to be.

It's fixed now but it wasn't there at release. Prodigy feat in 2017 and Skill Expert in 2020.

And it still requires a feat slot that was not tied to base game design, doesn't become available until level 4 or up, and/or restricts race options.

The game was printed without support for the charming knight, historian general, or scary thug in it's base assumption. And it was patched in years later in a overall unsatisfying manner.

What if I wanted to be a charismatic elf knight of the elf king? Nope. Not until level 4. And you halt your combat power massively doing so. Because low level d&D is a matter of inches with little leeway to tweak.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The answer to all the fighters issues - not doing enough damage, not doing well in social/interaction, not having adequate saves - is to spend his two bonus ASIs on them.

 

[Minigiant]

The answer to all the fighters issues - not doing enough damage, not doing well in social/interaction, not having adequate saves - is to spend his two bonus ASIs on them.

The answer to the half orc's issues and halfling issues is to do the same. Or wait for the 2024 revision.

The answer to the bad spells issues is to do nothing, import powercreeping 3PP spells, hope the DM can redesign everything, or wait for the 2024 revision.

 

[Oofta]

It's fixed now but it wasn't there at release. Prodigy feat in 2017 and Skill Expert in 2020.

And it still requires a feat slot that was not tied to base game design, doesn't become available until level 4 or up, and/or restricts race options.

The game was printed without support for the charming knight, historian general, or scary thug in it's base assumption. And it was patched in years later in a overall unsatisfying manner.

What if I wanted to be a charismatic elf knight of the elf king? Nope. Not until level 4. And you halt your combat power massively doing so. Because low level d&D is a matter of inches with little leeway to tweak.

So you take the noble background and don't min max totally focused on combat. My first PC in 5E was a fighter. He didn't focus on being charismatic, he was an investigator, and it worked just fine.

If you want a fighter that contributes (mechanically, you can always contribute in other ways) you can make it happen. Is he going to be as good as a rogue who has the same focus? No. Then again the rogue can't go toe-to-toe with the bad guys either.

 

[Minigiant]

So you take the noble background and don't min max totally focused on combat. My first PC in 5E was a fighter. He didn't focus on being charismatic, he was an investigator, and it worked just fine.

If you want a fighter that contributes (mechanically, you can always contribute in other ways) you can make it happen. Is he going to be as good as a rogue who has the same focus? No. Then again the rogue can't go toe-to-toe with the bad guys either.

Medium DC is 15. With a 14 and proficiency, that is a coinflip. Which is find for combat skill checks which are minor is penalty or skill challenges.

But default flow as the game describes is a single check with major stakes.

And again, the rogue gets 2 Expertises and eventually 4. The Fighter has 0.

Oh and the Rogue can go Toe to Toe with the bad guys. They only deal slightly least damage and have slightly less HP.

That's essentially my point. The Rogue get 2 Expertise for 1 less HP per level, -1 or 2 AC, and 2-4 less damage a turn. That's a great tradeoff for the rogue.

That's my point. They made the classes too close for simplicity's sake. And Customization ruined it by not being factored in from the start.

 

[Mort]

Good grief. If someone wants to make a fighter that is useful outside of combat there are plenty of options. It's not like they're locked out of anything, if they want proficiencies that's what backgrounds are for. If youac really want you can always take a human fighter and get expertise.

ANY class can do that.

And casters can do so without sacrificing how effective their spells are. Fighters generally have to give up a bit of combat effectiveness. Which, since that's what they're supposed to be good at, seems unfair.

The only thing stopping a fighter from being competent in skills outside of combat is the player of the fighter. No, he can't cast charm person but that's only an issue if the DM never enforces the penalties associated with such spells.

Under the current system, the fighter simply cannot match a caster's effectiveness outside of combat (with the exception of the Echo Knight which can truly rock at exploration).

As far as combat, fighters are simply more effective. Difficulty? Combat is as difficult as the group wants it to be.

Fighters are great at DPR, sure. But ALL classes are fine at combat. And if the DM is throwing curve balls (say enemies immune to standard damage) fighters tend to get overly hosed. Unless the curve is anti-magic, but that seems extraordinarily rare in most campaigns.

There are plenty of steps DMs can take to minimize these issues - but the game ignores this and has nothing to say about it. That's my issue.

 

[Clint_L]

The answer to all the fighters issues - not doing enough damage...

Fighters are currently one of if not the highest DPR classes in the game at high levels.

Fighters are a strong class overall, with some specific weaknesses, but we spill more metaphorical ink over them and wizards than the rest of the classes combined.

 

[Mort]

Fighters are currently one of if not the highest DPR classes in the game at high levels.

Sure, but the game isn't played all that much at high levels.

And the levels fighters are dominant at DPR? casters are literally altering reality.

Fighters are a strong class overall, with some specific weaknesses, but we spill more metaphorical ink over them and wizards than the rest of the classes combined.

Fighters are strong IN COMBAT, one of three pillars. Granted it's often (even usually) the dominant pillar, but not always.

Out of combat, fighters (with a few exceptions such as the Echo Knight in exploration) are not much better then the average commoner. There have been baby steps in recent supplements (such as maneuvers that add to exploration or social skills) and 1D&Ds use of second wind to add bonuses out of combat. But overall, they lack far behind the casters in the other pillars (far more then casters lag behind fighters in combat).

 

[Clint_L]

Out of combat, fighters (with a few exceptions such as the Echo Knight in exploration) are not much better then the average commoner.

Really? Your claim is that, out of combat, a fighter is not much better than:

Commoner

Club. Melee Weapon Attack: [rollable]+2;{'diceNotation':'1d20+2','rollType':'to hit','rollAction':'Club'}[/rollable] to hit, reach 5 ft.,...

www.dndbeyond.com

Hmmm.

Well, leaving hyperbole land behind, fighters are the most customizable class, by design, leaving the choice of how to tailor them to your specific desire in the hands of the player. You want a dex-based, super stealthy fighter, you can make it. You can make a fighter who is pretty good at exploration, or, as you point out yourself, roll an Echo Knight and be among the best in the game at it. And so on.

Can they be among the best at every pillar? No. Nor should they be. You can roll a fighter that will be a good face, but if you want to be a great one, roll a bard, just like you can be a bard that is good in melee combat, but if you want to be great at it, roll a fighter.