D&D 5E Why does 5E SUCK?

[Erechel]

Hey, you are again missing my point. You are making a straw man. Be bored all what you want about fighters. It doesn't matter. I didn't even discuss you about the "new, interesting things fighters can do that no one can". I don't know why you keep explaining to me something I've never ever negate. Although I could say that the customization (ASI, fighting styles and action surge) possibility of fighters is their main source of versatility, and skills are the main way to interact with the game, so even without feats, as you have better stats, you are better than average classes (barring rogues and bards), without needing to sacrifice combat prowess nor possible tactics: rogues and bards are much more shoehorned into certain roles: stealthy guy and face guy, whereas a fighter could choose between 2 main stats, freeing them to choose whatever they want that fits their character. Freedom, options. Feats are great ways to adapt to other roles, and they come quicker. Prodigy is my Lvl 6 option, and gives me a lot of versatility, and as a fighter I don't resignate combat prowess.

I really never gonna multiclass nothing. You said 'you can't bring anything new, your skills are average, etc. You need a shiny rule that say what you can do.

I see a different approach to the RPGs. I see the rules as a mainframe to improvise actions and freely think a more ¿creative? action. Skills are the way to interact with the world, the mainframe to decide. I don't really need a specific feature to bring something to the table.

 

[Guest 6801328]

What is the FIGHTER bringing to those pillars that any other class couldn't?

Nothing.

And....so what? Why does it matter? Yes, a Paladin might be equal in combat AND better in the social pillar. But then I'd be playing a Paladin not a Fighter, and maybe the character concept I have in mind works better as a Fighter, not a Paladin.

In fact, the Fighter I just rolled up for a new campaign is exactly that: he's a Lawful Good Half-orc fighter with the Soldier background and 8 Charisma, and he's pissed off and bitter because he really wanted to be a knight not just a grunt but he faced (as he sees it) discrimination from those who thought he just wasn't "knight material". But he's still going to go all tank-y (Cavalier at 3rd) and spend all his time jumping in front of bullets for his ungrateful companions because, as he sees it, THAT'S JUST WHAT KNIGHTS DO (in his mind).

Explain to me why I should have made him a Paladin? How would that have made any sense at all?

Wait...what's your point?

 

[MichaelSomething]

I hate that people can end up spending dozens of posts arguing about "contests" and "initiative"

 

[Hussar]

Hey, you are again missing my point. You are making a straw man. Be bored all what you want about fighters. It doesn't matter. I didn't even discuss you about the "new, interesting things fighters can do that no one can". I don't know why you keep explaining to me something I've never ever negate. Although I could say that the customization (ASI, fighting styles and action surge) possibility of fighters is their main source of versatility, and skills are the main way to interact with the game, so even without feats, as you have better stats, you are better than average classes (barring rogues and bards), without needing to sacrifice combat prowess nor possible tactics: rogues and bards are much more shoehorned into certain roles: stealthy guy and face guy, whereas a fighter could choose between 2 main stats, freeing them to choose whatever they want that fits their character. Freedom, options. Feats are great ways to adapt to other roles, and they come quicker. Prodigy is my Lvl 6 option, and gives me a lot of versatility, and as a fighter I don't resignate combat prowess.

I really never gonna multiclass nothing. You said 'you can't bring anything new, your skills are average, etc. You need a shiny rule that say what you can do.

I see a different approach to the RPGs. I see the rules as a mainframe to improvise actions and freely think a more ¿creative? action. Skills are the way to interact with the world, the mainframe to decide. I don't really need a specific feature to bring something to the table.

Why does your fighter have better stats?

I'd say that you actually have had to "resignate combat prowess". You're only 1 feat ahead of anyone else. And you spent that feat on Prodigy. The ONLY thing that your class has brought to the table is that feat and one tool proficiency. To me, that's not enough to differentiate my character mechanically from other characters. The thing is, I can be JUST as creative, just as improvisational, with any other character. That's not based on your CLASS.

You don't care, and that's fair enough. It doesn't change the fact that the class brings nothing to the table. YOU might bring all sorts of gold to the table, but, unless I can clone you for my table, that doesn't really have anything to do with the game does it?

Nothing.

And....so what? Why does it matter? Yes, a Paladin might be equal in combat AND better in the social pillar. But then I'd be playing a Paladin not a Fighter, and maybe the character concept I have in mind works better as a Fighter, not a Paladin.

In fact, the Fighter I just rolled up for a new campaign is exactly that: he's a Lawful Good Half-orc fighter with the Soldier background and 8 Charisma, and he's pissed off and bitter because he really wanted to be a knight not just a grunt but he faced (as he sees it) discrimination from those who thought he just wasn't "knight material". But he's still going to go all tank-y (Cavalier at 3rd) and spend all his time jumping in front of bullets for his ungrateful companions because, as he sees it, THAT'S JUST WHAT KNIGHTS DO (in his mind).

Explain to me why I should have made him a Paladin? How would that have made any sense at all?

Wait...what's your point?

Again, TOTALLY missing the point. Why does your LG fighter with a soldier background have to bring zero to the table mechanically out of combat? EVERY OTHER class brings a shopping list of goodies to the table when it comes to exploration or social pillars. Why does "I'm a fighter" mean that you are pretty much contributing very little outside of combat. Look at your own description. Nothing about social or exploration - your character spends "all his time jumping in front of bullets".

Guess what? I can do that with any class. Don't make him a paladin. You're right. That doesn't sound much like a paladin. But, why are you being penalized for making a perfectly viable, interesting character? What's the justification for fighters gaining largely nothing outside of combat?

This is the question that is interesting to me. This is what no one ever seems to be able to answer. In earlier editions, fighters didn't gain a lot outside of combat but they were hands down the best IN combat of any class. Nothing else came even close. Percentile Strength, weapon specialization or a boatload of feats (depending on edition) or a shopping list of unique powers that no one else actually got (4e).

5e, you're a beatstick and pretty much nothing else.

 

[mortwatcher]

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]
You get 2 extra ASIs as fighter, it is not much but 2 extra feats are something that can help you improve in certain pillars.
Fighter gets most extra attacks, so he is the best I beat you with a stick of the melee fighters. As D&D is largely combat oriented, this seems to be significant advantage over others. (if your campaign is not, I would advise to play a system better suited to the other pillars)
I also wonder what i.e. Barbarian does bring extra in non-combat pillars. Sure, wizard can make "friends" with spells, but that usually has a large downside. The classes who main stat charisma will have advantage is social pillar, but that is only a selected group.
So I don't really see what the big problem with fighter is for you, as you only provide generic statements with not much support.

 

[Hussar]

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]
You get 2 extra ASIs as fighter, it is not much but 2 extra feats are something that can help you improve in certain pillars.
Fighter gets most extra attacks, so he is the best I beat you with a stick of the melee fighters. As D&D is largely combat oriented, this seems to be significant advantage over others. (if your campaign is not, I would advise to play a system better suited to the other pillars)
I also wonder what i.e. Barbarian does bring extra in non-combat pillars. Sure, wizard can make "friends" with spells, but that usually has a large downside. The classes who main stat charisma will have advantage is social pillar, but that is only a selected group.
So I don't really see what the big problem with fighter is for you, as you only provide generic statements with not much support.

Yup, you get 2 extra ASI's. The second one is at FOURTEENTH level. Gimme a break. You're going to compare 2 ASI's to fourteen levels of paladin or ranger casting? FFS, at 14th level, your barbarian is FLYING. How's that for an exploration pillar ability. Sure, it's 5 times per day, but, sheesh.

Again, the extra attacks don't kick in until 11th level. Most campaigns end before this (or cap out around here). The vast, vast majority of play is in the single digit levels. I have to wait 75% of play time just so I can finally get that 3rd attack - something the monk has been doing since 3rd level? Again, whoopee.

For me, there's a couple of reasonably easy fixes to this. Could go either way.

1. Fighters gain additional attacks earlier. 2nd attack at 4th level and 3rd attack at 8th would go a huge way towards actually making the fighter "king of combat".

or

2. Fighters gain a couple of extra skills. Say a bonus skill at 3rd and 5th. Again, that would pretty much do it. Makes the fights actually decent skill monkeys and let's them be reasonably effective outside of combat.

Either one would be fine by me. But the way it is now, fighters are just so vanilla and boring. There's so little actually there. And I don't really understand it. If the argument is that fighters are trading combat effectiveness for out of combat ability, fine and dandy, actually MAKE them the best at combat. Or, don't penalize players for choosing to play a fighter just so you can be "balanced" against the other fighty classes but, not really because while you do equivalent effectiveness in combat, you are far less effective out of combat.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Why does your LG fighter with a soldier background have to bring zero to the table mechanically out of combat?

He brings an entertaining persona. Exploration pillar? He volunteers to carry others' packs when rations start to run low. Social pillar? His prickly nature and fervent desire to do the right thing gets the party into amusing situations.

Don't worry, I do get what you're saying. You keep saying mechanical. You seem to want him to bring numerical bonuses that others don't provide. And what I am saying (and others are saying) is that many/most of us simply don't care. We think the tabula rasa nature of the Fighter lets us bring greater concept variety to the table. My suspicion is that if the Fighter did have those bonuses you want, it would color the class and give it a more defined personality. No thanks. It's (roleplaying) strength lies in its general nature.

 

[Sadras]

For me, there's a couple of reasonably easy fixes to this. Could go either way.

1. Fighters gain additional attacks earlier. 2nd attack at 4th level and 3rd attack at 8th would go a huge way towards actually making the fighter "king of combat".

or

2. Fighters gain a couple of extra skills. Say a bonus skill at 3rd and 5th. Again, that would pretty much do it. Makes the fights actually decent skill monkeys and let's them be reasonably effective outside of combat.

or

3. You could trade in your additional ASI for the Skilled feat and pick up 3 skills instead.

 

[mortwatcher]

Yup, you get 2 extra ASI's. The second one is at FOURTEENTH level. Gimme a break. You're going to compare 2 ASI's to fourteen levels of paladin or ranger casting? FFS, at 14th level, your barbarian is FLYING. How's that for an exploration pillar ability. Sure, it's 5 times per day, but, sheesh.

Again, the extra attacks don't kick in until 11th level. Most campaigns end before this (or cap out around here). The vast, vast majority of play is in the single digit levels. I have to wait 75% of play time just so I can finally get that 3rd attack - something the monk has been doing since 3rd level? Again, whoopee.

For me, there's a couple of reasonably easy fixes to this. Could go either way.

1. Fighters gain additional attacks earlier. 2nd attack at 4th level and 3rd attack at 8th would go a huge way towards actually making the fighter "king of combat".

or

2. Fighters gain a couple of extra skills. Say a bonus skill at 3rd and 5th. Again, that would pretty much do it. Makes the fights actually decent skill monkeys and let's them be reasonably effective outside of combat.

Either one would be fine by me. But the way it is now, fighters are just so vanilla and boring. There's so little actually there. And I don't really understand it. If the argument is that fighters are trading combat effectiveness for out of combat ability, fine and dandy, actually MAKE them the best at combat. Or, don't penalize players for choosing to play a fighter just so you can be "balanced" against the other fighty classes but, not really because while you do equivalent effectiveness in combat, you are far less effective out of combat.

yes, you design classes for the whole way, not for the first half of levels - you cannot just assume that players will end before max level. If we are just talking about up to level 8, the barbarian brings no such thing in your restricted level range, so they bring what exactly?
paladin and ranger castings? from experience, paladins and rangers use 99% of their castings to enchance their damage or do better in the combat pillar and they have very little to enchance the other pillars. Paladins do have charisma as one of their main stats, so that helps
Monks get extra attack but that is limited resource and it's only unarmed.
Fighters can get extra skills, by level 4 if you take prodigy instead of ASI, of by level 6 for free - compared to other classes.
And fromt he statistics, fighter is the most played/popular class. If it was so terrible, not so many ppl would enjoy it (or you are simpy exaggerating how much of an impact does and extra +2 in a stat has when rolling a d20)

 

[Hussar]

yes, you design classes for the whole way, not for the first half of levels - you cannot just assume that players will end before max level. If we are just talking about up to level 8, the barbarian brings no such thing in your restricted level range, so they bring what exactly?
paladin and ranger castings? from experience, paladins and rangers use 99% of their castings to enchance their damage or do better in the combat pillar and they have very little to enchance the other pillars. Paladins do have charisma as one of their main stats, so that helps
Monks get extra attack but that is limited resource and it's only unarmed.
Fighters can get extra skills, by level 4 if you take prodigy instead of ASI, of by level 6 for free - compared to other classes.
And fromt he statistics, fighter is the most played/popular class. If it was so terrible, not so many ppl would enjoy it (or you are simpy exaggerating how much of an impact does and extra +2 in a stat has when rolling a d20)

By level 8, the barbarian is still bringing Speak with Animals and possibly, say, Eagle Eyes - ability to see a mile away is very handy and has certainly come up numerous times in our games. Hardly bringing nothing to the table.

Sure, yup, you can take Prodigy or Skilled Feat. Sure. No problem. But, why is the fighter getting penalized for trying to be good at another pillar? No other class has to give anything up in order to be good in other pillars. It's not like you have to choose between Speak With Animals (as a barbarian) and, say, 2 rages a day. No, you get both.

Look, I get that people are happy with the tabula rasa nature of the fighter. Fair enough. I'm not. I consider the fighter to be probably the poorest designed class outside of beast master rangers. There's just nothing there that another class doesn't do better.

And, I agree that fighters are the most played class. Absolutely. Heck, out of the last four campaigns, about 25 PC's, 12 have had fighter levels. Virtually half the PC's in my group have fighter levels. Two or three fighter levels then multi classed into something that actually creates a well rounded character, but, yeah, half of the characters have fighter levels.