D&D 5E The Fighter Extra Feat Fallacy

[CapnZapp]

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.

Yes.

"Staying competitive" is a very pessimistic evaluation of the Fighter. Said by someone that has spent considerable time to nerf the feats that make the fighter (or any martial with the "good" weapons) too good...



Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[CapnZapp]

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+.

Fighters are excellent in the combat pillar from level 1 onwards.

That they edge out other martials at very high levels is much less noticeable than the way casters edge out martials at those levels (but that is only to be expected, and not something I consider a flaw, since the tendency is much reduced since d20)


Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[CapnZapp]

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.

And that I'd because social/explore is decidedly second-rate pillars in many games.

If you're playing in a social-heavy game, how about not choosing Fighter...?

The complaint reminds me about "The Champion is too simple mechanically" when that's actually a feature, not a bug.

I have crunch-hungry players. We're fine with the fact the Champion isn't for us.

The entire Fighter class is like that, for social and explore. And that's supposed to be a feature, not a bug.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[Ovinomancer]

I am having trouble understanding you. At least unless you're truly arguing the fighter is weak except at levels 17+

...In which case I'm completely baffled. At low levels martials are significantly sturdier than casters. With feats, it's not even a contest.
(Martials, not just Fighters)

But level 17 is the level where the Wizard gets her level 9 spell; if not before, that is the spot where they leave martials behind for good.


Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

I'm company the fighter to the other martials, where they're on par until high level and then exceed. Absent strong contributions to other pillars, the fighter should excel from the start against the other martial. Or near the start, don't want to make an obvious 2 level dip.

 

[Satyrn]

Wait... when you climb, swim, etc... movement is halved, right? So with action surge you can move twice as far while doing one of these non-combat actions in half the time... right? In other words non-combat things still take actions and action surge grants extra actions.

Wellmost of the time, I don't ever think about action economy and the like when out of combat.

For example, while reading your post I was picturing a scene where the party is beside a river, above a waterfall, and they see a child fall in and get swept quickly towards the falls. So assuming someone dives in to rescue the plothook:

I still wouldn't care about the player's swim speed. Rather, I'd be calling for athletics checks to see if they get to the kid in time. Action surge would be phenomenally useful here, in the way I play - assuming the fighter's player leverages it by saying they use it to get to the child as quick as they can. That use of a heroic would be automatic success. They'd get to the child before anyone could blink!


So I'm agreeing with you on the greater point that action surge is absolutely useful outside of combat, even when movement isn't tracked, even when time isn't measured in turns and rounds.

 

[Alexemplar]

And that I'd because social/explore is decidedly second-rate pillars in many games.

Then you should probably be asking for MORE simple classes with few features outside of the combat pillar instead of piling that onto a single class. Seems rather odd that your desire for simplicity begins and ends with the guy who's approach to combat is fighting like your usual fantasy hero, without spells and magic.

If you're playing in a social-heavy game, how about not choosing Fighter...?

Because my character concept in a social game might involve being an aristocratic warrior that doesn't have supernatural powers? Actually, in 3e I would have selected a Swashbuckler or Swordsage and in 4e, I would have definitely gone with a Warlord.

But can you not see the issue with that statement? It's like saying, "Well if you're playing in a combat heavy game, then you shouldn't choose >insert other class here<." D&D has been moving away from that kind of thinking for a while in regards to the other classes.

The complaint reminds me about "The Champion is too simple mechanically" when that's actually a feature, not a bug.

I'm not talking about the Champion being simple mechanically. I understand that option and have no problem with it in and of itself. I mean I do also feel that D&D rcould benefit from the inclusion of a "combat focused simple caster" that automatically gives you a selection of automatic magic attacks without having to deal with dozens of spell effects or mess around with spell slots....

It's that the Fighter at low levels doesn't have much to do other than fight and even when it does eventually get something else, it gets a lot less than the other classes already got and continue getting.

I have crunch-hungry players. We're fine with the fact the Champion isn't for us.

The entire Fighter class is like that, for social and explore. And that's supposed to be a feature, not a bug.

I know not giving the non-magical fighting classes as many or as useful non-combat abilities is a feature. I think it's a bad feature.

My games involve more social and exploration- even in 4e where everything was supposedly about combat and I expect classes to be serviceable in all of them. No individual character has to excel in all of them, but I expect basic character archetypes of warrior/rogue/priest/mage to be workable in all of them.

I modified the Fighter (it had a host of other issues) in 3e and welcomed the introduction of the Swashbuckler and was even more excited about the Bo9S classes- WotC responding to people who thought lack of the option was a bad feature. I didn't mind the Fighter being so straightforward in 4e because it also introduced the Warlord to fill that archetype- and was introduced as WotC's response to people who felt the lack of the option was a bad feature.

And that's just in D&D. When I get to play and run other games, you had better believe there are all kinds of non-magical warriors with varied and utilitarian abilities all over the place.

It is my hope that- just like they did in previous editions- WotC will realize that it's a bad feature -or at least see peoples' desire for more- and introduce more. Until then I'll discuss how to modify the Fighter with others who also seem to be having the same issue and not remain silent on whether or not I consider it an issue.

 

[Azzy]

And that I'd because social/explore is decidedly second-rate pillars in many games.

If you're playing in a social-heavy game, how about not choosing Fighter...?

This is about the most daft response I've seen in this thread.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Seems rather odd that your desire for simplicity begins and ends with the guy who's approach to combat is fighting like your usual fantasy hero, without spells and magic.

There is some degree of sense to making the most common sort of fantasy character the simplest, it'll mean more people can play it. There's also a degree of sense to making it over-powered - more people would want to play it. Then there's a degree of sense to making it under-powered - lots of people playing it will be less disruptive. Then there's also a degree of sense to it being perennially broken - lots of people play it, so that popularity must meant it's 'fine' as-is.
;P

Because my character concept in a social game might involve being an aristocratic warrior that doesn't have supernatural powers? Actually, in 3e I would have selected a Swashbuckler or Swordsage and in 4e, I would have definitely gone with a Warlord.

Sure. Those should be perfectly valid. It should also be reasonable, in such a campaign, to have a non-warrior, with no particular combat prowess either martial or supernatural ... (Something D&D doesn't readily do).

But can you not see the issue with that statement? It's like saying, "Well if you're playing in a combat heavy game, then you shouldn't choose >insert other class here<." D&D has been moving away from that kind of thinking for a while in regards to the other classes.

What other class would you insert? No 5e class is actually /bad/ at combat, once you factor in using combat cantrips & spells.

My games involve more social and exploration- even in 4e where everything was supposedly about combat...

Oh, sure, that's why it had those big ol' 'Skill Challenges,' to focus more on cobmat ... and why 5e got rid of them, to focus less on combat... ;|

and I expect classes to be serviceable in all of them. No individual character has to excel in all of them, but I expect basic character archetypes of warrior/rogue/priest/mage to be workable in all of them.

An individual character can certainly excel in all pillars. It might depend on preparing the right spells that morning...

I modified the Fighter (it had a host of other issues) in 3e and welcomed the introduction of the Swashbuckler and was even more excited about the Bo9S classes- WotC responding to people who thought lack of the option was a bad feature. I didn't mind the Fighter being so straightforward in 4e because it also introduced the Warlord to fill that archetype- and was introduced as WotC's response to people who felt the lack of the option was a bad feature.

5e has so far concentrated very heavily on accomplishing the feel of the classic game, so bringing in a 3e feel, let alone a hint of 4e, is incumbent upon the DM, and includes adding optional material, or outright creating it, yourself.

It makes some sense, from the point of view of consolidating brand identity. But, at some point, they really should bite the bullet and carry through on supporting '3e feel' better, and '4e feel,' at least a bit.

And that's just in D&D. When I get to play and run other games, you had better believe there are all kinds of non-magical warriors with varied and utilitarian abilities all over the place.

Sure, other systems don't have D&D's baggage.

It is my hope that- just like they did in previous editions- WotC will realize that it's a bad feature.

When a bad feature has been standard equipment for 40+ years, your customer base will have come to consist primarily of people who can stand it being bad, and people who won't stand for any attempt to fix it. Any alternative feature will have to be after-market and marketed... carefully.

 

[Alexemplar]

There is some degree of sense to making the most common sort of fantasy character the simplest, it'll mean more people can play it. There's also a degree of sense to making it over-powered - more people would want to play it. Then there's a degree of sense to making it under-powered - lots of people playing it will be less disruptive. Then there's also a degree of sense to it being perennially broken - lots of people play it, so that popularity must meant it's 'fine' as-is.
;P

I think that a simple caster could gain a lot of traction. People often hand the new guy a Fighter first as they're the simplest and suggest that magic is for when you understand the rules better.

But there are lots of people who would like to play a spellcaster of sorts and spend every round going, "I blast the enemy with fire/lightning/ice/energy" and maybe perform a magical trick or two without having to sort through the back half of the PHB for an explanation of their abilities or deal with limited spell slots. I think that's one of the reasons why Evocation is one of the most popular schools- it's the most straightforward and blasty even though a person who understands the game realizes that the most powerful/versatile/disruptive spells don't revolve around blasting.

5e has so far concentrated very heavily on accomplishing the feel of the classic game, so bringing in a 3e feel, let alone a hint of 4e, is incumbent upon the DM, and includes adding optional material, or outright creating it, yourself.

It makes some sense, from the point of view of consolidating brand identity. But, at some point, they really should bite the bullet and carry through on supporting '3e feel' better, and '4e feel,' at least a bit.

Sure, other systems don't have D&D's baggage.

When a bad feature has been standard equipment for 40+ years, your customer base will have come to consist primarily of people who can stand it being bad, and people who won't stand for any attempt to fix it. Any alternative feature will have to be after-market and marketed... carefully.

Pretty much. WotC has a habit of eventually correcting the "all Fighters must be combat focused" trend by eventually releasing another warrior class that combines non-magical fighting with some utility inside and outside combat. Usually by having more skills, mechanics that utilize stats other than Dex/Con/Str, and a wide selection of optional utilitarian features- some rather fantastic in nature. While the classes tend to be relatively popular, they also have a tendency to deeply alienate people who dislike them and decry D&D turning into an anime/super-hero game.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Part of the problem with these comparisons is that other classes (the Rogue was provided as an example) can contribute meaningfully to combat, even if it may be less than the Fighter does.

But very often with social or exploration challenges, it’s not a case of the whole party contributing. It’s one character...whoever is the best at what the situation calls for. Persuasion? Get the Bard over here...what? A high CHA Fighter with the Actor feat? Go secure the area while the Bard takes care of this, sport.

The only way to “contribute meaningfully” to those encounters is to be the star of the show.

To me that’s more about a flaw in encounters design or in running the game than it is about one class. In that scenario, the Bard is the ONLY one who contributes. Everyone else is sitting on the sidelines next to the Fighter.

So the question seems to be, is there an example of a non-combat challenge at which the Fighter will excel over the other classes? And the answer is no. Mostly, this is because there’s no non-combat encounter for which only one class will be the clear leader...it doesn’t really exist.

But what the Fighter does bring is the ability through the additional ASI/Feats to excel at an area the party might need. I think more than other classes the Fighter has the ability to shore up a shortcoming present in the party. They have more ASI/Feats to spare, so they can indeed take a non-combat feat or improve a non-combat stat without hampering their combat ability.