D&D 5E The Fighter Extra Feat Fallacy

[FlyingChihuahua]

Wuxia stuff?

That's a Monk.

 

[Satyrn]

That's a Monk.

And so it is.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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

I'm not telling you anything about yourself, you'll have to engage in some deep introspection or hire a qualified therapist for that. I'm obviously not telepathic, so I'm making no assertion that I have any special knowledge of your mental state.

I am highlighting the fact that you emphatically applied a double standard in a one-word reply. Maybe you applied someone else's to make a point? Maybe your reply was too terse to make it's intended point? I don't know. But, unless you're advocating the removal of all superhuman abilities from all classes, denying the fighter such abilities would seem to line up perfectly with the double-standard in question.

 

[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. Not anymore than an Omnipotent God can create a stone He can't lift.

That's a Monk.

And because I am in love with this scene (and not monks):

[video=youtube_share;-Nj5n9u2fEU]https://youtu.be/-Nj5n9u2fEU[/video]

 

[Lehrbuch]

I think the real problems of the Fighter class stem from having to carry a few unfortunate burdens. One, that there needs to be a "simple" class, and that's normally the Fighter's job. Few complicated abilities, a lot of "always on" stuff, resource management is minimal, etc..

The other is a variant of the "guy at the gym" fallacy that drives me up the wall. Some people want the Fighter to be Conan or John McClane- a regular human who persists and wins despite not having cool magic powers. They don't want Cú Chulainn or Achilles- who can perform superhuman feats in battle.

Stuck between these two burdens, the Fighter has always felt like he's wearing a straitjacket...

That's what archetypes is the solution to. The basic core is a non-magical warrior (albeit with arguably "superhuman" attributes such as extra attacks at higher levels, but these can as easily be plausibly attributed to high skill/training). Archetypes are the mechanic that can be (and is) used to add various versions of fighter either with or without "magical" powers.

Rogue pretty much takes the same approach. A non-magical core with various archetypes that either do or do not add "magical" powers.

Ranger and Bard would have been much better if this approach was taken for them too. Well, actually, (IMHO) Ranger and Bard would be *much* better as archetypes of Fighter and Rogue, respectively, and not classes at all. Likewise Paladin would have been great as a Fighter archetype, and Barbarian would have been better as a background. But that's a different discussion

 

[BookBarbarian]

That's what archetypes is the solution to. The basic core is a non-magical warrior (albeit with arguably "superhuman" attributes such as extra attacks at higher levels, but these can as easily be plausibly attributed to high skill/training). Archetypes are the mechanic that can be (and is) used to add various versions of fighter either with or without "magical" powers.

Rogue pretty much takes the same approach. A non-magical core with various archetypes that either do or do not add "magical" powers.

Ranger and Bard would have been much better if this approach was taken for them too. Well, actually, (IMHO) Ranger and Bard would be *much* better as archetypes of Fighter and Rogue, respectively, and not classes at all. Likewise Paladin would have been great as a Fighter archetype, and Barbarian would have been better as a background. But that's a different discussion

Barbarian as a background already exists as the Outlander. It's works far better to represent someone form a Tribal culture or someone with a wilderness background better than the Barbarian class ever did.

Though I can certainly see the Rager, and Totem Warrior being sublcasses of non-barbarian classes and then the removal of the Barbarian class altogether.

 

[Satyrn]

I am highlighting the fact that you emphatically applied a double standard in a one-word reply. Maybe you applied someone else's to make a point? Maybe your reply was too terse to make it's intended point? I don't know. But, unless you're advocating the removal of all superhuman abilities from all classes, denying the fighter such abilities would seem to line up perfectly with the double-standard in question.

Okay.

Yes, I want some classes (like the wizard) to have magical powers but not other classes(like the fighter)

Likewise, I want some classes (like the monk) to have superhuman powers but not other classes (like the fighter, again).

And that's because I want the option to play characters without magical or superhuman powers.

Not all classee need to be equal like that. It's not a double standard in any meaningful sense to my mind.


Specifically, my "nope" was telling you your thought that superhuman abilities on the fighter class are not acceptable to me, because they close off the nonmagical normal character concepts.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Okay.

Yes, I want some classes (like the wizard) to have magical powers but not other classes(like the fighter)

Likewise, I want some classes (like the monk) to have superhuman powers but not other classes (like the fighter, again).

And that's because I want the option to play characters without magical or superhuman powers.

Not all classee need to be equal like that. It's not a double standard in any meaningful sense to my mind.


Specifically, my "nope" was telling you your thought that superhuman abilities on the fighter class are not acceptable to me, because they close off the nonmagical normal character concepts.

Yep. I find the argument that it's a double standard to want some classes with superpowers but others without to be pretty disingenuous. They are different classes, of course you're going to want different things from them. That's not a double standard. And powers or not powers is not mutually exclusive. D&D has been doing it since 1974 pretty effectively.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Specifically, my "nope" was telling you your thought that superhuman abilities on the fighter class are not acceptable to me, because they close off the nonmagical normal character concepts.

I'm sorry, I'm not sure I've parsed this sentence correctly. Is your point that superhuman abilities are necessarily magical and would thus spoil the non-supernatural option for the base fighter, or that the base fighter must be /both/ non-magical, and incapable of exceeding normal human abilities, regardless of the means or rationale thereof?

Not all classee need to be equal like that. It's not a double standard in any meaningful sense to my mind.

Some classes need to be better than others isn't setting up one standard for the superior classes and one for the inferior ones? In the sense that it's more than two separate standards? Or in the sense that there is no standard?

 

[Azzy]

Nope.

Yep.