D&D 5E Why does 5E SUCK?

[Erechel]

It's simple. Virtually nothing about the fighter class contributes to social or exploration pillars. It's unlikely that the fighter will have the Int or Wis scores to make him very useful at exploration, and, heavy armor means that most of his useful skills will be done at disadvantage. At least, he's useless at stealth at a minimum. Even with a reasonable Cha, his Intimidate likely isn't all that good either. Not compared to the other characters. Never minding that he has nothing to actually improve those checks - no Guidance spells, no Bardic stuff, and whatnot.

It's not that the fighter is bad at skills, it's that virtually every other class is as good or better. Same as the fighter generally actually. Sure, a fighter is effective at whatever schtick you want to give him, but, there's always another class that is as good at that schtick and most often better.

Just as a note, have you ever actually seen the Battlemaster "scan" ability used at the table? I haven't. Not once. AFAIC, it might as well not even exist.

Sigh, let's go again. He said that the fighter can't contribute in a social or exploration pillars, NOT that the fighter isn't the best at those pillars. Yes, fighters aren't "da best" in those pillars, barring Athletics*, which is a darn useful skill for exploration, and tied to Strength, and Stealth, for Dexterity fighters.

But it is very different to say that they can't contribute effectively. Furthermore if you have in mind that fighters have better stats than average, so they can actually improve their average skills, without harming their battle prowess. Yes, he hasn't the Expertise of the rogues (although he could buy it with one of their free ASI, see Prodigy), but doesn't *suck*. Bards are great in SI, but they can't support their own efforts with Bardic Inspiration. Druids are broken, so I don't count them (actually they are my main beef against 5e, see above).

Also, did anyone ever played a fighter, really? You don't have disadvantage other than in Stealth, and you can always doff your armor and keep the breastplate. You'll have less AC (16 with a shield and no dex), but no disadvantage on Stealth if you need it. If you expect to fight, you could become the obvious threat, and grant advantage to your pals Stealth. And if you really need a stealthy party, cast Pass without trace and everyone in the party will have +10.

About the scan skill, I actually haven't seen a level 7 or above battlemaster. The fighters that I've DMed where Champions and Eldritch Knights (and they were far from useless in Exploration or social interaction -the champion Remarkable athlete feature is pretty great) But I'm playing a level 6 one, and I'm already demanding info of every important NPC, so I'm eager to have the scan. And I'm the skill monkey of the group (6 skills, 3 tools and languages, Expertise in Athletics, no multiclass needed)

*Athletics also involve: swim, climb, jump, and any prowess of strength (like rescuing a falling character, stop a massive boulder, breaking a barred door, etc). So, pretty useful.

 

[Hussar]

You're missing my point.

It's not that the fighter has to be the best. That's fine. But, the fighter brings zero to the table that another class doesn't and that other class brings a heck of a lot more to the table than any fighter possibly could.

Whoopee, by level 6, you've got one extra feat. Wow. Color me impressed. The ranger or the paladin by that point have 6 spells per day. There is no feat that's going to come anywhere near the versatility of that. Never minding all the other goodies either class gets.

From what I see, fighter is the dip class. You take a couple of levels of fighter to buff up your fighting, but, your actual class? Naw that's almost always something else.

And, btw, how do you get Expertise in Athletics? Where is that from? Is that an Unearthed Arcana thing? I seem to recall a bunch of feats UA some time ago, but, we haven't actually used any of them. But, in any case, of your 6 skills, 3 tools and languages, only TWO of those skills actually came from your class and one tool. It's always difficult to have this conversation when people start mixing their race/background packages into the mix to try to make fighters sound better than they are.

I mean, look at it like this. If you changed your class to ranger or paladin, would you have more or less skills than you have currently?

 

[Erechel]

Are we really going to discuss this again? About three years ago we had the same discussion. And goes beside my points. You quoted my response to another post, and make a straw man.

a) The other guy said: Fighters can't contribute to social and exploration pillars.
b) I said: false, they can, although they aren't "da best", as they still have skills and well rounded numbers.
c) you said: you are wrong! you are missing my point! They can't offer much to the other pillars!
D) I say: I wasn't discussing with you, nor your new arguments "that were your point". I wasn't wrong: fighters can contribute effectively to a party in any pillar, based on their skills. Although they usually don't bring that much besides skills to a table. Obviously, other classes are more versatile because of spells/features (although, power wise, they vary)

About your dip class, etc, ok, you can. I simply don't mind dips, I abhor the idea of dipping classes. And you actually admit that they can bring power to any other class. So, no consequences here.

About my character:
*2 skills 1 tool for fighter
*2 skills 1 tool for folk hero
*1 skill, 2 languages for human
*1 skill, 1 tool, 1 language and 1 expertise from Prodigy feat (XGTE)... Level 6 is great.

It is actually a "rounded" feat, as it has both combat and out of combat application, at least for strength characters (Athletics expertise is great for shield or grappling fighting). Other classes aren't that lucky, because they don't have feats to spare and the only skill with direct combat application is Athletics (The others are passive). So, without harming my combat skills, I still have lots of versatility.

Am I the king of Exploration and Social Interaction? No. Am I useful? Definitely. Are there enough space for my skills? Yes. Is a group game. Many skills don't overlap, and the thief or bard can't know everything, even if when they do, they can be better.

 

[Guest 6801328]

You're missing my point.

It's not that the fighter has to be the best. That's fine. But, the fighter brings zero to the table that another class doesn't and that other class brings a heck of a lot more to the table than any fighter possibly could.

Whoopee, by level 6, you've got one extra feat. Wow. Color me impressed. The ranger or the paladin by that point have 6 spells per day. There is no feat that's going to come anywhere near the versatility of that. Never minding all the other goodies either class gets.

From what I see, fighter is the dip class. You take a couple of levels of fighter to buff up your fighting, but, your actual class? Naw that's almost always something else.

And, btw, how do you get Expertise in Athletics? Where is that from? Is that an Unearthed Arcana thing? I seem to recall a bunch of feats UA some time ago, but, we haven't actually used any of them. But, in any case, of your 6 skills, 3 tools and languages, only TWO of those skills actually came from your class and one tool. It's always difficult to have this conversation when people start mixing their race/background packages into the mix to try to make fighters sound better than they are.

I mean, look at it like this. If you changed your class to ranger or paladin, would you have more or less skills than you have currently?

And yet somehow when I play a Fighter I manage to have fun.

 

[Satyrn]

And yet somehow when I play a Fighter I manage to have fun.

It's my favorite class, even!

Well, it's tied with cleric, which is what I tend to play when I want to be a spellcaster

 

[Guest 6801328]

It's my favorite class, even!

Well, it's tied with cleric, which is what I tend to play when I want to be a spellcaster

It's great, isn't it? Extreme optimizers still have a bunch of classes to choose from, and the rest of us also get Fighters.

 

[Satyrn]

It's great, isn't it? Extreme optimizers still have a bunch of classes to choose from, and the rest of us also get Fighters.

Yeah, it's definitely one of the things that makes 5e the opposite of Suck.

 

[cmad1977]

If your fighter isn’t capable of contributing in social or exploration pillars and you want your fighter to do so then you’re doing it wrong.

The battle master in my game is constantly involved in the social/exploration pillars. How? How can a fighter possibly contribute? The player made a character and not a build. Easy.

 

[Hussar]

Again, you're missing my point.

What is the FIGHTER bringing to those pillars that any other class couldn't? EVERY other class contributes as well or better to every social or exploration pillar event AND fights as well as the fighter.

Sure, you can tag along all your like, but, at the end of the day, you're always second best. At everything. Whoopee.

Look, I like 5e. I just think that the fighter is probably the weakest class design in the game. It has no niche protection whatsoever. It brings nothing to the table that no one else can't and probably those other characters will do it better.

And, hey, I played fighters. So, it's not like I didn't. Made it all the way to about 7th level Battlemaster before finally giving it up and multi classing so I could actually play an interesting class.

 

[TwoSix]

Again, you're missing my point.

What is the FIGHTER bringing to those pillars that any other class couldn't? EVERY other class contributes as well or better to every social or exploration pillar event AND fights as well as the fighter.

Sure, you can tag along all your like, but, at the end of the day, you're always second best. At everything. Whoopee.

Look, I like 5e. I just think that the fighter is probably the weakest class design in the game. It has no niche protection whatsoever. It brings nothing to the table that no one else can't and probably those other characters will do it better.

And, hey, I played fighters. So, it's not like I didn't. Made it all the way to about 7th level Battlemaster before finally giving it up and multi classing so I could actually play an interesting class.

I appreciate your sentiment (I don't care for 5e fighters myself), but I think there's a niche in the game for a "blank canvas" type of class. A lot of players are uncomfortable with the idea of reskinning the more complex classes, which I think is why the "paint on your personality" aspect of the fighter and rogue are so appealing.