D&D 5E The Fighter Extra Feat Fallacy

[Prism]

I'm not sure why you would have the fighter making a persuasion check, rather than the paladin or bard, unless the stakes were so low that failure was meaningless (in which case contributing to that check is equally meaningless).

Why do you think a paladin is better with social skills than a fighter? Fighters are set up to be better than a paladin socially if that player wants them to be due to the ASI/Feat benefit.

A bard is of course good in social situations but in fact they might be even better off lending bardic inspiration to the other characters as dong it themselves.

Why would the fighter take point in social situations, when they know that doing so is likely to cause serious problems when they fail?The paladin has high charisma, which the fighter does not.

The fighter doesn't have a high charisma? Says who? Which other stats are they investing in that the paladin doesn't also need to?

The bard has high charisma and expertise. That's just the way the system is designed. You're never going to have a fighter with higher charisma than the paladin or bard, because they would be a liability on the battlefield, and then everyone dies and it's entirely your fault.

We have a fighter with a high charisma in one of our campaigns and there has been no TPK yet. In another campaign I am playing a fighter with INT as his second highest stat - again no TPK. Your game sounds odd that if a character has stat in an ability score beyond their primary ones the game breaks and everyone dies

 

[DaviMMS]

Okay, but if they fail and the party dies, then it's entirely your fault and everyone at the table will hold that against you forever. You chose to kill the party, and waste months of time for everyone at the table, because you didn't want to let someone else take their turn in the spotlight after they've explicitly declared their intent ahead of time (by building a character that is competent at the task). You just had to hog the spotlight, even though you knew that you might fail. I can't imagine such an inconsiderate player would be welcome at any table for long.

How many times does a single ability check determines of the party lives or dies?
That never happened to me and it would look like the attitude of a terrible DM, IMO.
Even if a bard or rogue with max stat and expertise rolls can still roll low, fail "and waste months of time for everyone at the table."
A "party dies if you fail" situation should only happen after multiple failed rolls and/or bad decisions.

Most checks don't have such a dramatic results and only result in minor inconveniences of you fail. There is absolutily no problem in letting even the character that dumps cha and have no proficiencies talk with the guard once in a while.

A fighter who increases their Charisma instead of a useful stat is a liability to the party, and they're going to get everyone killed. Don't be that player, who puts their own character quirks ahead of their responsibility as part of the team. Either build a functional character who is competent at their job, or go play a video game so you're not dragging down everyone else.

The fighter is SAD. Raise Str or Dex and you are good to go. Sure, the higher your Con the better, but that applies to everyone, put a 14 in there and you're good to go.
That leaves more than enough points to raise the mental stat you want to 16 or at least 14.

An optimized paladin will also have a 14 or 16 in Cha, and will probably only raise after he maxes Str, that means 12th level or 16th, if you want a feat.

A fighter with a 14 in cha will only be 1 point behind the Paladin with 16 for almost all levels. Even he does not uses any of his 7 ASIs to raise Cha.

A -1 is a check is enough for you to forgo your whole participation on 1 pillar of the game?

And even if you do have some selfish, self-absorbed player who increases their Charisma up to 16 (because they don't care who else suffers from their poor choices), they will still never be able to reliably hit DC 11. I don't know what kind of game you're running where anything that really matters to a level 17+ character will still be hinging on a DC 10 check.Sure, you can always invoke obscure optional rules, or make up new rules of your own, to address shortcomings within the system. That doesn't excuse the system, itself, for being faulty.

Once the fighter maxes his attack stat (Level 6 or 8, if he chooses a feat), he can put his ASIs anywhere without much damage with his effectivity.

And one of the principles of Bounded Accuracy is that check DCs do not increase with levels.
A Hard check is DC 20 whether you are level at 1st or 20th, the difference is the 20th level character is much more competent and will be able to achieve it more often.
The same applies to easy checks (DC 10) and medium checks (DC 15).

Sent from my SM-G900M using EN World mobile app

 

[Prism]

Okay, but if they fail and the party dies, then it's entirely your fault and everyone at the table will hold that against you forever. You chose to kill the party, and waste months of time for everyone at the table

A fighter who increases their Charisma instead of a useful stat is a liability to the party, and they're going to get everyone killed. Don't be that player, who puts their own character quirks ahead of their responsibility as part of the team. Either build a functional character who is competent at their job, or go play a video game so you're not dragging down everyone else.

And even if you do have some selfish, self-absorbed player who increases their Charisma up to 16.

These statements amaze me. You seriously think like that? That if I turn up to the table with a Cha 16 fighter that I'm a selfish, self-absorbed player that's going to get the party killed and then you will hold it against me forever? Wow, I'm just glad the guys I play with are a little more reasonable

 

[Sadras]

I'm not going to go too much into it, since we have already established we have differing styles even though you still seem to have not accepted that others have fun playing the game differently to you.

Sure, you can always invoke obscure optional rules, or make up new rules of your own, to address shortcomings within the system. That doesn't excuse the system, itself, for being faulty.

A DM awarding a bonus or advantage on a check based on the in-game fiction is obscure or made up new rules?
Utilising Inspiration on a check is obscure or made up new rules?

 

[Sacrosanct]

These statements amaze me. You seriously think like that? That if I turn up to the table with a Cha 16 fighter that I'm a selfish, self-absorbed player that's going to get the party killed and then you will hold it against me forever? Wow, I'm just glad the guys I play with are a little more reasonable

I made a comment earlier to someone else who had said that anyone who doesn't come to the table with an optimized PC is selfish and a bad person. It's like they don't even recognize the hypocrisy there with those statements lol. All I know, is if any player chose to play a PC they way the wanted (not optimized) and something happened like a TPK, and if any other player held that against them like it was their fault the party died, that player (the one blaming) would be asked to leave the table and never come back.

There is no room for that at my table. This is a game. Where people should have fun, not be blamed for failing to meet the ridiculous expectations of another player.

 

[Mort]

I made a comment earlier to someone else who had said that anyone who doesn't come to the table with an optimized PC is selfish and a bad person. It's like they don't even recognize the hypocrisy there with those statements lol. All I know, is if any player chose to play a PC they way the wanted (not optimized) and something happened like a TPK, and if any other player held that against them like it was their fault the party died, that player (the one blaming) would be asked to leave the table and never come back.

There is no room for that at my table. This is a game. Where people should have fun, not be blamed for failing to meet the ridiculous expectations of another player.

I think everyone (DM and players) need to agree what kind of characters are expected beforehand. It's a very different scenario when everyone agrees to make optimized characters and someone just doesn't. Like most things, communication is the key to a good play experience.

That said, I do think a basic level of competence is expected in any character brought to the table. If for example, a player brings in a high CHA fighter decent in diplomacy that can hold their own in a fight (not optimized but just fine) that's great. But if the player has the high CHA fighter that is an actual liability in combat (not talking non-optomized, but actually a liability) , that's not OK.

Sent from my SM-G930V using EN World mobile app

 

[Sacrosanct]

I think everyone (DM and players) need to agree what kind of characters are expected beforehand. It's a very different scenario when everyone agrees to make optimized characters and someone just doesn't. Like most things, communication is the key to a good play experience.

That said, I do think a basic level of competence is expected in any character brought to the table. If for example, a player brings in a high CHA fighter decent in diplomacy that can hold their own in a fight (not optimized but just fine) that's great. But if the player has the high CHA fighter that is an actual liability in combat (not talking non-optomized, but actually a liability) , that's not OK.

Sent from my SM-G930V using EN World mobile app

Obviously communication is super important, yeah. But I don't know how, with the way 5e is designed, any class is really a liability. I mean, someone would have to REALLY go out of their way to make their PC a liability for the role that class typically plays because the core class features are effective. A fighter, with no bonuses from STR or DEX, is still an effective fighter because of things like heavy armor, action surge, etc. And since combat is only 1/3 of the game, if they chose to use ASIs or feats for all non combat related stuff, they'd still be able to contribute quite a bit to the overall game.

The problem is that some folks seem to think that non-optimized (or near optimized) means not effective. That's simply not true. Effective just means "successful in producing a desired or intended result." (that's literally the dictionary definition) It doesn't mean are you the best at it.

 

[Stalker0]

I think one of the disagreements we are having is the following:

Mechanically Forgiven Choices vs Mechanically Re-Enforced Choices

Again we will use the Fighter vs Paladin as an example. Many have argued that there is nothing stopping a fighter from putting some points in Charisma and picking up Persuasion without seriously compromising his fighting prowess. This is the notion of Mechanically Forgiven Choices. The fighter can make what at first glance is a non-optimal choice, but he "gets away with it" because the rules are forgiving enough or the base class is strong enough.

Some in this thread though are arguing the need for mechanical reinforcement. In other words, don't just allow my option, but actually encourage it.

So in looking at the paladin, a high charisma gives them strong spells and very nice saves (that they can share with the party). If a player brought in a paladin with maximized charisma but sacrificed some strength and/or con....well he is still optimized in his own way. The party will appreciate his strong social skills as well as his incredible defensive benefits (that again they get to share in too).

In this arena, the fighter doesn't offer much innately. There are some feats to encourage this (like the inspiring leader feat as one example).


So I think this is where a lot of debate is occurring. Some players say "as long I can do X with my character but still look pretty good in my main job, that is enough", while others say "if a class doesn't give you a benefit for doing X than that class cannot be considered good at X...its just pulling away from optimized play".

I personally fall a bit in the middle. I personally think the fighter (especially the BM) is a fine class. That said...I do think it was a really missed opportunity not to allow certain maneuvers to utilize int, wis or cha...to give just a bit of mechanical perk to those fighters who want to play a more "mental" style.

 

[James Gasik]

In general, I agree that Charisma is an unusual choice for a Fighter, and it probably shouldn't be an ability score given priority since it does a lot less for a Fighter than it does, say, a Sorcerer. SOME Fighter builds can benefit from Charisma, though to a lesser degree than other classes. My first 5e character was a Battlemaster Fighter with Rally who also picked up Inspiring Leader, so I began play with a Charisma of 16. Despite the fact I was trained in Persuasion, I was rarely asked to make that check, and if the opportunity came up, there was usually some other Charisma-based character who was better than me who would make the check instead- I don't think I've encountered a high DC ability check that wasn't a saving throw in 5e (anecdotal evidence, but it's all I have to draw on).

A better way to rephrase this argument is that it's more likely that other classes will be better at the Fighter with Persuasion. Yes the Fighter can be a 16 Charisma Noble like mine was, but there's less benefit for Charisma on a Fighter. I was certainly never going to have Charisma 20- too many better uses for my ASI's. Contrast and compare with a Sorcerer, who is very likely to decide the benefit of 20 Charisma outweighs most other choices. And let's not forget the Rogue, who could decide to Expertise Persuasion and get a better check at level 20 with 12 Charisma than most anyone else with a 20 Charisma.

I feel this thread has derailed a bit. We are discussing the fact that other classes DO have more opportunities to be useful in the Exploration and Interaction Pillars than the Fighter, either because they have access to abilities that allow this, or have a natural affinity for these tasks. The Fighter has, INNATELY, very little in either case. A Fighter CAN be built to be useful outside of combat, but I don't feel that someone picking up and playing the class would be steered in that direction in the same way that a Warlock player would be. The argument that a meager amount of bonus ASI's entirely bridges this gap seems weak, especially if Feats are on the table, as there are a great many good Feats that most characters won't take if it's more useful to have better stats- even if a Fighter player realizes he can get by with 16-18 Strength or Dexterity, and he's fine with his other ability scores, he's still probably going to be better served by niche Feats like Charger than he would with making a run for 20 Charisma or taking Skulker.

 

[smbakeresq]

In general, I agree that Charisma is an unusual choice for a Fighter, and it probably shouldn't be an ability score given priority since it does a lot less for a Fighter than it does, say, a Sorcerer. SOME Fighter builds can benefit from Charisma, though to a lesser degree than other classes. My first 5e character was a Battlemaster Fighter with Rally who also picked up Inspiring Leader, so I began play with a Charisma of 16. Despite the fact I was trained in Persuasion, I was rarely asked to make that check, and if the opportunity came up, there was usually some other Charisma-based character who was better than me who would make the check instead- I don't think I've encountered a high DC ability check that wasn't a saving throw in 5e (anecdotal evidence, but it's all I have to draw on).

A better way to rephrase this argument is that it's more likely that other classes will be better at the Fighter with Persuasion. Yes the Fighter can be a 16 Charisma Noble like mine was, but there's less benefit for Charisma on a Fighter. I was certainly never going to have Charisma 20- too many better uses for my ASI's. Contrast and compare with a Sorcerer, who is very likely to decide the benefit of 20 Charisma outweighs most other choices. And let's not forget the Rogue, who could decide to Expertise Persuasion and get a better check at level 20 with 12 Charisma than most anyone else with a 20 Charisma.

I feel this thread has derailed a bit. We are discussing the fact that other classes DO have more opportunities to be useful in the Exploration and Interaction Pillars than the Fighter, either because they have access to abilities that allow this, or have a natural affinity for these tasks. The Fighter has, INNATELY, very little in either case. A Fighter CAN be built to be useful outside of combat, but I don't feel that someone picking up and playing the class would be steered in that direction in the same way that a Warlock player would be. The argument that a meager amount of bonus ASI's entirely bridges this gap seems weak, especially if Feats are on the table, as there are a great many good Feats that most characters won't take if it's more useful to have better stats- even if a Fighter player realizes he can get by with 16-18 Strength or Dexterity, and he's fine with his other ability scores, he's still probably going to be better served by niche Feats like Charger than he would with making a run for 20 Charisma or taking Skulker.

Yes. If you are using point buy you simply can’t afford to do anything to branch out, it’s too limiting. If you roll though, and put a good a score into an off stat like CHR I would certainly reward you at my table.


Sent from my iPhone using EN World mobile app