D&D 5E The Fighter Extra Feat Fallacy

[Tony Vargas]

Putting supernatural abilities onto the core fighter would eliminate a lot of character concepts.

Nod. As the EK illustrates, though, supernatural abilities could always be tossed in a sub-class.

Superhuman abilities, OTOH, would be fine in the core fighter.

The simplicity is not a flaw, it's a feature.

Each class having a simple build would be a feature.

 

[Azzy]

Which is exactly what I said about the stable boy possibly being a level 1 rogue, but definitely not a fighter. Fighters are proficient in heavy armor and greatswords, and a stable boy can't be a fighter because they never had that training.

Tika is a case of a legacy character not translating well outside of the edition they were created. She can be a fighter now if the whole barmaid thing is in her past, and she has since moved on to being a veteran warrior, but she can't start out as a fighter while she's currently still just a barmaid. That is inconsistent with the description of what a fighter is.

And, yet, fighters in 1e could also wear any armor, the character was a fighter while still a barmaid well before adventuring, and you also ignore the fighter's description that the character can be self-trained or a farm boy, and you're also using the examples of the fighter's description as some sort of restriction when it isn't. It's a bad argument all the way around.

 

[Satyrn]

Superhuman abilities, OTOH, would be fine in the core fighter.

Nope.

 

[Mistwell]

Of course, no one will be able to give you an example of a non-magical fighter performing magical feats non-magically, because you you're asking for a paradox.

[video=youtube;ZDEmqJhlD2A]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDEmqJhlD2A[/video]

 

[Pauln6]

And, yet, fighters in 1e could also wear any armor, the character was a fighter while still a barmaid well before adventuring, and you also ignore the fighter's description that the character can be self-trained or a farm boy, and you're also using the examples of the fighter's description as some sort of restriction when it isn't. It's a bad argument all the way around.

No that's silly. Tanis wore leather. Kurt wore studded leather despite 'gasp' having no dex bonus. Just because one can wear any armour doesn't mean one has to.

I suggested converting the 1e Dragonlance PCs to 5e because there were 6 fighters and one multiclass fighter plus a few other classes. There are some interesting non-optimised builds in there and Laurana could end up being one of the more optimisable builds due to her higher than average stats. Gilthanas might be the toughest with 12 and 14 in his class stats and a strength based melee weapon. The challenge for the optimisers is to build the least worst build using the original stats and equipment with 5e subclasses and feats.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

And, yet, fighters in 1e could also wear any armor, the character was a fighter while still a barmaid well before adventuring, and you also ignore the fighter's description that the character can be self-trained or a farm boy, and you're also using the examples of the fighter's description as some sort of restriction when it isn't. It's a bad argument all the way around.

Fighters in AD&D at least had the excuse that they weren't all necessarily proficient in greatswords.

Fifth edition leaves open the possibility that you taught yourself on the streets, but it still demands a sufficient level of training before you can call yourself a fighter, and it is disingenuous of you to ignore that. The description of the fighter class is every bit as much of a restriction as the description of the paladin class or the druid class. This isn't 4E, where the fluff was mutable as long as you didn't change the numbers involved. A class is a very specific thing in D&D, even if some represent slightly broader categories than others.

 

[Pauln6]

Fighters in AD&D at least had the excuse that they weren't all necessarily proficient in greatswords.

Fifth edition leaves open the possibility that you taught yourself on the streets, but it still demands a sufficient level of training before you can call yourself a fighter, and it is disingenuous of you to ignore that. The description of the fighter class is every bit as much of a restriction as the description of the paladin class or the druid class. This isn't 4E, where the fluff was mutable as long as you didn't change the numbers involved. A class is a very specific thing in D&D, even if some represent slightly broader categories than others.

A player can play a dagger wielding fighter in leather armour if he wants to. Hopefully the new weapon feats will make fringe building more fun.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Superhuman abilities, OTOH, would be fine in the core fighter.

Nope.

I really don't need anymore help illustrating the double-standard, but thanks anyway. ;P

Yes, a Wuxia fightr woukd be cool. "wuxia fighters would be awesome - but keep the non-magical fighter in the game."

To be clear, the implication here is that a wuxia fighter would necessarily be magical.

Certainly, in the 5e paradigm of Ki = Magic, it would seem to be.

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon - Restaurant Fight

Called out as 'magic' before you could even post it.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

A player can play a dagger wielding fighter in leather armour if he wants to. Hopefully the new weapon feats will make fringe building more fun.

Certainly! Fighters are proficient in both daggers and leather armor.

That fighter is also a highly trained warrior who is trained in both greatswords and heavy armor, but there are plenty of reasons why they might still choose to use a dagger and leather armor, either some or all of the time.

 

[Satyrn]

I really don't need anymore help illustrating the double-standard, but thanks anyway. ;P

Clarification, please. Are you telling me I have a double standard?