[5E] Un-hate my hate of classes

macd21

Registered User
Validated User
That's a bunch of baloney in any campaign other than a high magic campaign where the Fighter (and Barbarian and Rogue) don't have access to magic items because the DM is terrible. In any other campaign they are fine even if they aren't the best at specific things.
In any other campaign they are fine if the fighter player doesn’t mind being able to contribute less than the other PCs.

And that’s fundamentally what it comes down to: players having fun. If a player doesn’t mind taking a backseat, the Fighter isn’t a problem. For anyone else, they’re better off taking a different class.
 

Siphonaptera

up to no good
Validated User
In any other campaign they are fine if the fighter player doesn’t mind being able to contribute less than the other PCs.

And that’s fundamentally what it comes down to: players having fun. If a player doesn’t mind taking a backseat, the Fighter isn’t a problem. For anyone else, they’re better off taking a different class.
You seem to think competition between characters is a huge deal for most people, but in three decades of gaming I have met one person who actually cared. As mentioned, the fighter in 5e is the most popular class, so maybe most people aren't as competitive about classes as you seem to be projecting on them.
 

macd21

Registered User
Validated User
You seem to think competition between characters is a huge deal for most people, but in three decades of gaming I have met one person who actually cared. As mentioned, the fighter in 5e is the most popular class, so maybe most people aren't as competitive about classes as you seem to be projecting on them.
No, it’s not about competition at all. The players aren’t in competition with each other. It’s about fun. And most people find meaningful contribution fun. They like to accomplish stuff with their character. They like helping the party advance its goals. And outside of combat, the fighter is probably the worst class for that (and inside of combat it’s merely’ok’).
 

Manitou

Emperor of the Americas
Validated User
I think in 5e some of that is helped by backgrounds and roleplaying. That is, you fighter is of most use in a fight, sure, but maybe he/she is the party's strongman, or is good looking(back charisma doesnt' have to mean ugly), or has hooks from their Background or backstory that can help(they should have one kit proficiency, perhaps they are proficient with an herbalism kit and can spend downtime making healing potions, for instance, not exciting, but very useful, and perhaps another PC will think of some way their PC RP's "rewarding" the Fighter).
Or maybe they are good at gameing sets, so the GM has a tournament they can join(problably handled with dice rolse instead of actually playing chess/go/etc, but combined with some RP too).
The FIghter might not be super easy to contribute stuff out of combat, but there is stuff they can do.
 

Siphonaptera

up to no good
Validated User
🚫 Seven Day Ban + Threadban
And is harvesting the traditional responses from 5E fans.
I see you snipped out the line that would show your snarky comic doesn't apply to my comment.
Or a bow and arrow!

Yeah, the fighter could have had a little more utility outside combat, but the fact that a terrible DM can include things that can't be overcome without magic in a game where the fighter does not have magic doesn't make the worthless in general.

Well, this thread has gone full 'if the class isn't the best then it is absolutely useless all the time' as is tradition.
Clearly 'it isn't broken' is the same as perfect, yeah, that's the ticket.
 

Tanka

We See You
Staff member
Moderator
Validated User
And is harvesting the traditional responses from 5E fans.

Moderator Text:

Don't threadcrap. Leave the thread.

I see you snipped out the line that would show your snarky comic doesn't apply to my comment.

Clearly 'it isn't broken' is the same as perfect, yeah, that's the ticket.

Moderator Text:

You have a really, really long history of raising the hostility of a thread, then getting upset when people respond in a way you don't like.

You know the correct course of action is to report a post. That does not mean you also get to take a shot at the person you have an issue with.

Take a week off, don't post in this thread again, and tone down the ceaseless hostility of your posts before you catch a permaban for it.
 

Poisson Resistance

Registered User
Validated User
I think in 5e some of that is helped by backgrounds and roleplaying. That is, you fighter is of most use in a fight, sure, but maybe he/she is the party's strongman, or is good looking(back charisma doesnt' have to mean ugly), or has hooks from their Background or backstory that can help(they should have one kit proficiency, perhaps they are proficient with an herbalism kit and can spend downtime making healing potions, for instance, not exciting, but very useful, and perhaps another PC will think of some way their PC RP's "rewarding" the Fighter).
Or maybe they are good at gameing sets, so the GM has a tournament they can join(problably handled with dice rolse instead of actually playing chess/go/etc, but combined with some RP too).
The FIghter might not be super easy to contribute stuff out of combat, but there is stuff they can do.
But, as with the use of magical weapons,, anyone could take the background in question, and with Artificers creeping up on their final form for publishing, mixing together potions might be a choice that ends up getting them super overshadowed by said class.
 

yalborap

Well, that’s just Prime.
Validated User
So, I’ve been kicking around some thoughts lately on the class quality debate.

And I’m noticing a very stark divide, the more I think on it.

First, especially given we’re in the d20 forum and the history of such things, I want to be very clear I am not edition warring, and I am not calling any of what I’m going to theorize bad. These are all incredibly valid approaches, and merely suggest a different angle. Cool? Cool.

So what I notice is, the biggest divide I’m seeing seems to be, for lack of better terminology, fiction-layer-first versus mechanics-layer-first.

Fiction-layer-first would be primarily focused on the conversation, with the actual game rules being the...last resort sounds far too negative. More that, the rules get turned to when the conversation is insufficient. I’m thinking of all the times we’ve heard of those sessions where “we didn’t roll the dice even once”. And I think these are interesting, because they suggest that the names and implications of things, as understood by those at the table, carry a lot more weight. In this scenario, a Fighter might be able to do a lot of things the rules don’t say they can do, because they’re a Fighter so it’s just assumed they can.

Mechanics-layer-first would, not so much be focused on the rules instead of the conversation, but be focused on using the rules to facilitate the conversation. What the rules say a Fighter can do, and what the Rules say a Fighter is guaranteed to do in particular, become far more important in this scenario...But the character, even if they’re a weaponed ass kicker, also need not be a Fighter if the rules for something else make more sense. The names and implications become secondary to the raw data.

The whole back and forth here reminds me a lot of an argument I used to see get discussed a lot, about people’s resistance to reskinning. It was basically along the lines of:
“I want to be a fast, dexterous Fighter with two knives. Lots of run and gun.”

“The Fighter’s not really great at that, you’re better off taking [I think it was Ranger, or maybe Rogue, but it’s been a while] and focusing on the melee combat options.”

“But then I’m not a Fighter. I don’t want to be a [Class that starts with R], I want to be a Fighter.”

“But you’ll be worse at your concept if you make it as a Fighter.”

“But my concept is a Fighter.”

And round and round it goes. And I feel like this is a core philosophical divide, one perhaps as core and deep as the old actor-stance versus author/director-stance issue. Perhaps one that explains a lot, as well.

Or, I don’t know, maybe I’m full of shit. What do you all think?
 

Morty

Registered User
Validated User
You can be a monk or a rogue.
I did play a rogue. She has plenty of skill proficiencies, but in combat she was even duller than a fighter. Of course, she was an explorer who used a crossbow. It wouldn't really help me if I wanted to play someone who uses an axe and a shield (it might, if not for 5E's insistence that rogues must use finesse weapons and that an axe can't be finesse).

So, I’ve been kicking around some thoughts lately on the class quality debate.

And I’m noticing a very stark divide, the more I think on it.

First, especially given we’re in the d20 forum and the history of such things, I want to be very clear I am not edition warring, and I am not calling any of what I’m going to theorize bad. These are all incredibly valid approaches, and merely suggest a different angle. Cool? Cool.

So what I notice is, the biggest divide I’m seeing seems to be, for lack of better terminology, fiction-layer-first versus mechanics-layer-first.

Fiction-layer-first would be primarily focused on the conversation, with the actual game rules being the...last resort sounds far too negative. More that, the rules get turned to when the conversation is insufficient. I’m thinking of all the times we’ve heard of those sessions where “we didn’t roll the dice even once”. And I think these are interesting, because they suggest that the names and implications of things, as understood by those at the table, carry a lot more weight. In this scenario, a Fighter might be able to do a lot of things the rules don’t say they can do, because they’re a Fighter so it’s just assumed they can.

Mechanics-layer-first would, not so much be focused on the rules instead of the conversation, but be focused on using the rules to facilitate the conversation. What the rules say a Fighter can do, and what the Rules say a Fighter is guaranteed to do in particular, become far more important in this scenario...But the character, even if they’re a weaponed ass kicker, also need not be a Fighter if the rules for something else make more sense. The names and implications become secondary to the raw data.

The whole back and forth here reminds me a lot of an argument I used to see get discussed a lot, about people’s resistance to reskinning. It was basically along the lines of:
“I want to be a fast, dexterous Fighter with two knives. Lots of run and gun.”

“The Fighter’s not really great at that, you’re better off taking [I think it was Ranger, or maybe Rogue, but it’s been a while] and focusing on the melee combat options.”

“But then I’m not a Fighter. I don’t want to be a [Class that starts with R], I want to be a Fighter.”

“But you’ll be worse at your concept if you make it as a Fighter.”

“But my concept is a Fighter.”

And round and round it goes. And I feel like this is a core philosophical divide, one perhaps as core and deep as the old actor-stance versus author/director-stance issue. Perhaps one that explains a lot, as well.

Or, I don’t know, maybe I’m full of shit. What do you all think?
You're deliberately using an example that works as a rogue and doesn't work as a fighter. There's many more examples that don't work with a rogue any better than a fighter. Do you want to play an archer who's not particularly stealthy and doesn't use magic? Fighter. A knight without paladin powers? Fighter. A duellist? Well, a rogue can work here, with the swashbuckler subclass. Unless, again, you want to use something that's not a rapier. An aggressive vanguard-type warrior who's not a raging berserker? Fighter. A heavily armed dwarven slayer of conveniently evil humanoids? Again, fighter. A pike-wielding tactician?

To cut this overly-long list short, every martial class that's not a fighter comes with baggage. So many martial concepts are stuck with it. Of course, the existence of rogues and rangers is part of the problem. Because when you have a concept that doesn't just fight, someone will ask "isn't that a rogue/ranger?".

So I guess what I'm saying is that the poor performance of fighters is a symptom, not the cause, and that the entire marital class roster needs to be erased and started from scratch. Starting with "what do we want those classes to even do?". I've really come to dislike rogues, in particular.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom