D&D 5E The Fighter Extra Feat Fallacy

[Satyrn]

I honestly don't count the rituals as overt magic. They seem more like a vision quest or something and wouldn't worry about them. Point 2 I also wouldn't include as overtly magical. I'd I'd have to have another look at the fly ability.

Aye. It's a line each of us will draw in different places.

 

[Erechel]

I agree with most of the first answers to this thread: fighters don't really need to shine on the other pillars, and they contribute just OK to anything. Skills give a lot of mileage (specially Intimidation and Athletics), and only diehard battle optimization fanatics are stupid enough to not invest in Charisma and Wisdom. Backgrounds are great to interact with the other pillars: in my table we have 2 fighters, I myself, a Strength shield-and-sword folk hero battlemaster, and a Dex based elf two-weapons Scout champion. We don't even have a rogue in our group, nor do we need it. The locks the elf can't pick, I destroy with my smithy tools. I rise people against the tyranny of the FR gods, and my companion keeps us well fed. We have as few fights as possible, and we never felt useless- I'm even the leader of our party.

 

[CapnZapp]

Yep.

The notion you're "useless" in social or exploration just because you don't have means for automatic success I will never understand.

Often a challenge in those two pillars hinges on a single roll. Anyone rolling good succeeds in this game, and anyone rolling a natural 20 is a hero.

With one significant exception: combat. D&D is much more about combat; its procedures and mechanisms are much more involved.

This is not up for argument - it is immediately apparent how a single good roll almost never wins you an entire fight.

Therefore the conclusion is clear: all you need to participate in social or exploration is a skill and a non-dumped ability score. Unlike previous editions, Fighters can easily make meaningful contributions thanks to backgrounds.

Only the most hardened roll-player would argue a Fighter is a waste just because it didn't dump both Wisdom and Charisma. And this notion is easily ignored.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[Hussar]

You keep missing the point though.

It's not that the fighter can't contribute. That's obvious that a fighter can. It's that the fighter class brings absolutely nothing to the table in those two pillars. EVERY other class brings something to the table. Whether it's spells or skill bonuses, or abilities, EVERY SINGLE CLASS, other than fighters brings something unique to the situation that no other class can.

Fighters, OTOH, bring NOTHING to the table that you can't get from another class. Even the fighting isn't really any better than another class.

Can you participate? Sure, that's not in question. The question is, what are you bringing to the table in that participation that any other class cannot and likely cannot do better than you can?

 

[Imaro]

You keep missing the point though.

It's not that the fighter can't contribute. That's obvious that a fighter can. It's that the fighter class brings absolutely nothing to the table in those two pillars. EVERY other class brings something to the table. Whether it's spells or skill bonuses, or abilities, EVERY SINGLE CLASS, other than fighters brings something unique to the situation that no other class can.

Fighters, OTOH, bring NOTHING to the table that you can't get from another class. Even the fighting isn't really any better than another class.

Can you participate? Sure, that's not in question. The question is, what are you bringing to the table in that participation that any other class cannot and likely cannot do better than you can?

Eh... I'm a little confused here let me see if I can parse this. Are you saying that whatever the fighter can do is superseded by every other class (irregardless of what the party makeup is)... or are you saying anything the fighter can do is superseded by a specific class if said class happens to be in your party... also is this with or without feats (because IMO thsat right there is something the fighter can do that is unique, he can devote a slot to something non-combat related and still have the same number of feats as everyone else). Yes I know they are optional but more and more I'm getting the feeling that the majority of DM's allow them, though I could be wrong.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Eh... I'm a little confused here let me see if I can parse this. Are you saying that whatever the fighter can do is superseded by every other class (irregardless of what the party makeup is)... or are you saying anything the fighter can do is superseded by a specific class if said class happens to be in your party... also is this with or without feats (because IMO thsat right there is something the fighter can do that is unique, he can devote a slot to something non-combat related and still have the same number of feats as everyone else). Yes I know they are optional but more and more I'm getting the feeling that the majority of DM's allow them, though I could be wrong.

If there are feats in the game and the fighter does not use them to boost his fighting but instead choosing to expand into non-combat pillars, he will likely be behind in fighting to the other classes as well, as they can spend their ASIs to boost their fighting with feats and stats while still getting their non-combat pillar abilities.

That may not be a problem for you. It's really not one for me, as my players still play fighters and enjoy them. But I understand the argument that the fighter class is the only class that doesn't at least ribbon in non-combat abilities and instead relies entirely on the player making choices to shore up those abilities at the cost of focusing on fighting. And, to be perfectly fair, it's not like the fighter is a real standout in the combat arena, either -- they hang, and at very high levels exceed, but if you're not playing to 17th, it's just not that apparent.

 

[Imaro]

If there are feats in the game and the fighter does not use them to boost his fighting but instead choosing to expand into non-combat pillars, he will likely be behind in fighting to the other classes as well, as they can spend their ASIs to boost their fighting with feats and stats while still getting their non-combat pillar abilities.

He can spend the same amount on fighting... And I don't think it's ever been shown that he has to spend his extra feats on combat as well to stay competitive.

That may not be a problem for you. It's really not one for me, as my players still play fighters and enjoy them. But I understand the argument that the fighter class is the only class that doesn't at least ribbon in non-combat abilities and instead relies entirely on the player making choices to shore up those abilities at the cost of focusing on fighting. And, to be perfectly fair, it's not like the fighter is a real standout in the combat arena, either -- they hang, and at very high levels exceed, but if you're not playing to 17th, it's just not that apparent.

The fighter gets a few ribbons like the fact that he can complete many non-combat activities (especially in the exploration pillar) more quickly than others (using action surge) as well as the Champion getting Remarkable Athlete, BM getting Student of War and the EK getting spells. I also disagree, again, that it's an either or choice. The fighter doesn't fall behind (unless you can show me where someone has proven this out) if he devotes his regular feats to combat and only the bonus ones to non-combat.

 

[Ovinomancer]

He can spend the same amount on fighting... And I don't think it's ever been shown that he has to spend his extra feats on combat as well to stay competitive.

Again, most games to make it to the top, so we're mostly talking about 1 extra feat. And it's at 6th, where other classes are getting nice spells/abilities that help in combat, so, yeah, the fighter is likely burning his early extra feat to improve stats (STR, CON, DEX, WIS, all for combat purposes) or picking up a feat to improve combat output. If the fighter gets the opportunity to play into higher levels, sure, they can spread things out, but that's not exactly good design OR something most games are going to see.

Meanwhile other classes are picking up ribbon or primary abilities that enable out of combat pillar competence.

The fighter gets a few ribbons like the fact that he can complete many non-combat activities (especially in the exploration pillar) more quickly than others (using action surge) as well as the Champion getting Remarkable Athlete, BM getting Student of War and the EK getting spells. I also disagree, again, that it's an either or choice. The fighter doesn't fall behind (unless you can show me where someone has proven this out) if he devotes his regular feats to combat and only the bonus ones to non-combat.

The EK spell list is going to be almost all abjuration and invocation, with the opportunity for few non-blast/defense spells open to them. The BK student of war really only helps deal with combat pillar, although it does encourage a bit of social before kicking the door in (metaphorically). That doesn't occur very often - that you get a social encounter with a foe you plan to fight immediately after. The Champ does get a bit of boost on athletics, but that's not a skill that other's don't get better boosts on (looking at you rogue) or can't trivialize with spell selections. So, yeah, a handful of ribbion abilities that mostly don't even match up to other classes.

As for falling behind, yeah, he does. To the paladin that takes polearm master at 4th. To the barbarian that takes GWM at 4th. To the ranger that takes SS at 4th. If the fighter picks up Actor at 4th, he's behind the other fighty classes. That he now picks up one of those at 6th really doesn't help things, as the other classes have gained nice abilities to boost their combat effectiveness even more (spell slots, etc).

The fighter stays on par if he follows along with other classes at low levels. The raw combat power of the fighter is really locked up behind 11th+ play, when extra attack becomes decisive. Which is the crux of the OP, really, and a good argument. Again, this might not bother you, but it's there. If the fighter is going to be so focuses on the combat pillar that they only get options to branch if the DM is using an optional rule (feats) and then only a little bit and late in the game, they should be clearly the best at martial fighting. They really aren't, again, until higher level. For a class focused so narrowly on a single pillar, they need to be at least half again as good at that pillar as any other class. Fighters are on par in the combat pillar - slightly behind at low levels and then slightly ahead at 11+ and finally really good at 17+. That's not remotely great. Might not be a problem for eveyone, but I can clearly see it being a problem for some.

 

[Alexemplar]

Eh... I'm a little confused here let me see if I can parse this. Are you saying that whatever the fighter can do is superseded by every other class (irregardless of what the party makeup is)... or are you saying anything the fighter can do is superseded by a specific class if said class happens to be in your party... also is this with or without feats (because IMO thsat right there is something the fighter can do that is unique, he can devote a slot to something non-combat related and still have the same number of feats as everyone else). Yes I know they are optional but more and more I'm getting the feeling that the majority of DM's allow them, though I could be wrong.

More like...

Rogue is supposed to be the skills-focused class that focuses more on exploration/social pillars, but also gets Sneak Attack to contribute in combat. All spellcasters get combination of spells that contribute in combat as well as wide selections of spells that allow them to contribute significantly in the exploration/social pillars.

Fighters class gets features that let them contribute in the combat pillar, but nothing for the exploration/social pillars. Barbarian is in a similar boat, although Danger Sense and the strength bonus/damage resistance from Range gives some limited exploration utility.

No other class's abilities revolves so entirely around one pillar, and they all get features that explicitly allow them to contribute in all if not at first level, then very shortly therafter. The Fighter gets nothing for the first couple levels to contribute in anything but its single pillar. The unique extra option for a feat doesn't come up until 6th level.

 

[akr71]

What kind of bonuses are people expecting for the fighter to be good in the exploration and social pillar? Like, if I take the noble background (history, persuasion skills) and throw a 14 in Charisma, how am I not good at the social pillar? Do I need to have something to charm someone or automatically adjust their reaction to me from hostile to friendly? Why is it that fighters need specific abilities to enhance these areas to be considered good when skills and abilities will accomplish most of what they need? Maybe that feat, gained early at level 6, would help to round them out but I really don't see fighters failing at the social/exploration pillars. Part of me thinks it might be the players failing.

Exactly! If a character - any character, regardless of class - is poor at the social pillar (or exploration pillar, or combat pillar) it is 100% on the player for making choices that make the character poor at it. If you choose Charisma as your dump stat and don't invest in any Charisma based abilities, don't lament that you suck at it - you made that choice.

When I create a character, I typically stay clear of the background suggested by the Quick Build section in the PHB. Those backgrounds usually give you access to skills you get with your class anyway and leads to a more one dimensional character, IMO.