D&D 5E The Fighter Extra Feat Fallacy

[Greg Benage]

Items? Nah. Items in 5e range from lily-gilding to game-breaking, and are rightly the province of the DM.

A major item can be well-used in a campaign-defining way, but it probably shouldn't be character-defining, and certainly shouldn't be necessary just to make a character competitive or even just viable.

Yeah, I disagree with all this.

First, while items are the DM's province, it's my experience that it's most fun for everyone when the DM works with the player to allow them to earn items that define their character, especially at high level.

And second, I very much do think the base fighter chassis should be highly gear-leveraged.

Different strokes.

 

[Tony Vargas]

And second, I very much do think the base fighter chassis should be highly gear-leveraged.

So the fighter class should only be usable in one specific style of campaign? Be magic-item-dependent in a game that assumes, by default, no magic items? Yeah, I'll agree to disagree on that one.

...while acknowledging that targeting magic items to shore up under-performing PCs is a perfectly viable and legitimate DMing technique. I just don't think it should be the /first/ resort for any sort of PC.

 

[Greg Benage]

So the fighter class should only be usable in one specific style of campaign? Be magic-item-dependent in a game that assumes, by default, no magic items? Yeah, I'll agree to disagree on that one.

Yes, exactly! The baseline rules shouldn't assume magic items, just as the baseline fighter chassis shouldn't assume superpowers. Now, a vanilla D&D game, and all published adventures/campaigns, is going to feature magic items -- they're a core part of the traditional D&D experience. But it's much better design to allow DMs to add them to that baseline, as opposed to having to figure out how to strip them out of a baseline that does assume them.

If I were going to run a D&D game with no or rare magic items, it'd be a game with no or rare spellcasting. This is how I'd run a S&S campaign, for example.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The baseline rules shouldn't assume magic items, just as the baseline fighter chassis shouldn't assume superpowers. ...it's much better design to allow DMs to add them to that baseline, as opposed to having to figure out how to strip them out of a baseline that does assume them.

If I were going to run a D&D game with no or rare magic items, it'd be a game with no or rare spellcasting. This is how I'd run a S&S campaign, for example.

So the base-line game having tons of casting is OK, you'll just strip it out of the 10 classes that have it, but stripping comparably-effective non-magical 'superpowers' off the hypothetical fighter (and Rogue & Barbarian, presumably) when it feels inappropriate to a campaign would be beyond the pale?

 

[Greg Benage]

So the base-line game having tons of casting is OK, you'll just strip it out of the 10 classes that have it, but stripping comparably-effective non-magical 'superpowers' off the hypothetical fighter (and Rogue & Barbarian, presumably) when it feels inappropriate to a campaign would be beyond the pale?

Yeah, I can just strip out whole classes for a S&S game. I can't imagine any D&D game in which I'd want to strip out the fighter. Super easy.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Yeah, I can just strip out whole classes for a S&S game. I can't imagine any D&D game in which I'd want to strip out the fighter. Super easy.

Nod. Banning a sub-class like the EK or hypothetical 'superhero' (class or sub-class) I guess we're alluding to, is easy enough. I can see that. OTOH, I could also see 'banning' fighter PCs in a given campaign, if the PCs were all going to be wizards, or all going to be divine classes in service to the same deity, or whatever....

 

[Mort]

I guess the DM could also "set up" a high-level scenario in a dead magic zone, sending the spellcasters to the corner in tears, but I'm not sure why we'd build our design philosophy around edge cases.

Item dependency is hardly an edge case and the results of losing the items are usually permanent. Anti-magic zones tend to present a short term challenge (and I see nothing wrong with use of them either - when appropriate to the story).

It just irks me that fighters (not paladins, not rangers, kind of but not as much barbarians) are so dependent on the Christmas tree and the largess of the DM.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for fun, flavorful, items that can 1) accessorize a character 2) add to their play experience. I just don't like the fact that fighters are more dependent on this than other characters and that it's used as an excuse to shore up design.

 

[Greg Benage]

Item dependency is hardly an edge case and the results of losing the items are usually permanent. Anti-magic zones tend to present a short term challenge (and I see nothing wrong with use of them either - when appropriate to the story).

Okay. I've never lost items permanently or long-term in 5e (or any "e" since item saving throws were a thing, but in those Es you tended to have plenty of backups at high level ). Maybe it's more than an edge case with some DMs. I'd say it doesn't even qualify as an edge case in the games I run and play in.

It just irks me that fighters (not paladins, not rangers, kind of but not as much barbarians) are so dependent on the Christmas tree and the largess of the DM.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for fun, flavorful, items that can 1) accessorize a character 2) add to their play experience. I just don't like the fact that fighters are more dependent on this than other characters and that it's used as an excuse to shore up design.

More dependent, but also gaining more leverage from them. But yeah, I think this is a feature, others think it's a major bug. That's cool. For the record, I don't have a problem with people getting the martial classes with superpowers they want (whether existing ones, such as the paladin, or through multiclassing, or through future class releases). I just don't want the base fighter class to have such powers.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I just don't want the base fighter class to have such powers.

That shades pretty close to "the fighter must be inferior." :shrug: I've sometimes observed that the fighter class acts like something of a baseline for D&D. All other classes are defined by the areas in which they are superior to the fighter, and what they 'give up' (hps, armor/weapons useable, etc) relative to the fighter, to justify it.

If balance were a greater concern in 5e, I'd argue that the fighter 'needs' such so-called superpowers just to keep up. But there's no mandate for any class to keep up with any other. :shrug:

 

[Alexemplar]

Yeah, I can just strip out whole classes for a S&S game. I can't imagine any D&D game in which I'd want to strip out the fighter. Super easy.

Every 5e sub class in the PHB except battlemaster, champion, theif, assassin, and berserker has explicitly supernatural powers/casts spells. I mean it's certainly conceivable in theory but I don't see many D&D players buying in on a game with that many classes removed.