D&D 5E yes, this again: Fighters need more non-combat options

I feel like this is a DM issue... the rules state that another attribute can be substituted in an ability check with the DM's permission if it makes sense. If the fighter is flexing and breaking things to intimidate why wouldn't this be based on his Str score vs. Cha?
That's an optional rule which adds a great deal of complexity and shifts character balance in unpredictable ways; but even if the DM is willing to consider using that rule, it's not a slam dunk that it would apply in the situation you describe. Even if you demonstrate great strength in your display, it's not necessarily a given that you could get your point across when you utterly lack the body language or force of personality to convey that.

It's a lot like the problem with paladins using Charisma to swing swords in 4E. It's not that your grace shouldn't factor into the equation, but it's hard to justify your physical strength being completely irrelevant, and the d20 system math only allows you to add one or the other. Who should hit harder: a paladin with 400 Strength and 2 Charisma, or a paladin with 2 Strength and 400 Charisma?

A fighter with 400 Strength and 2 Charisma is basically a tractor, and farm equipment will never coerce me into divulging anyone's secret lair.

Other games have solved this issue by letting you apply two stats at once, so Intimidation might be a combined Strength+Charisma check, but the d20 system math only lets you add one stat per check.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Or more fun would be to just give them some out of combat options IMO.
The problem is that, aside from combat, the fighter base class has no identity. It's only defined by its not being a barbarian, paladin, or ranger.

Fortunately, the fighter sub-classes each have a strong identity, and they have stuck a couple of ribbons and RP aids into those. Except for the Champion, I mean.
 

Sacrosanct

Legend
The problem is that, aside from combat, the fighter base class has no identity. It's only defined by its not being a barbarian, paladin, or ranger.

Fortunately, the fighter sub-classes each have a strong identity, and they have stuck a couple of ribbons and RP aids into those. Except for the Champion, I mean.

And I don't know if I really agree with that. The fighter does have an identity. It has the most well known identity in fantasy--the fighting man. The warrior. The soldier. The knight. And each of those does have an identity outside of combat. It all depends on what you as a player want that to be. The gruff mercenary who hangs around in taverns or does boxing on the side, or the famous athlete, or the knight who is charismatic and spreads his or her ideals to the world. Just because it isn't narrowed down into a much more specialized archetype like every other class doesn't mean it doesn't have an identity.
 
Last edited:

GlassJaw

Hero
And I don't know if I really agree with that. The fighter does have an identity. It has the most well known identity in fantasy--the fighting man. The warrior. The soldier. The knight. Just because it isn't narrowed down into a much more specialized archetype like every other class doesn't mean it doesn't have an identity.

Well the fighter base class might have an "identity", but it's certainly the loosest and stretched the thinnest of the classes. That the core subclasses don't narrow the focus of its identity exacerbates the problem.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
@Mistwell dndbeyond and wotc have stated that all of their extensive data shows that most players don’t use feats, by a significant margin. I know humans were called out as a surprising non-exception, but I don’t recall if fighters were, as well.

But, if most fighters, the most popular class, take feats, I doubt that the numbers would favor no-feats in general.

More importantly, even if only 1/4 of players don’t use feats, that’s plenty to make the intended discussion of the OP perfectly legitimate.

And no, writing out some feats as optional abilities at level 6 wouldn’t change anything.
 
Last edited:

Sacrosanct

Legend
Well the fighter base class might have an "identity", but it's certainly the loosest and stretched the thinnest of the classes. That the core subclasses don't narrow the focus of its identity exacerbates the problem.

I think it has to be that way though, since the fighter encompasses the broadest number of archetypes. It has to cover the most, and doesn't have the luxury of focusing on a very narrow specialization like every other class with the exception of maybe the rogue.
 

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
[MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION] end beyond and wotc have stated that all of their extensive data shows that most players don’t use feats, by a significant margin. I know humans were called out as a surprising non-exception, but I don’t recall if fighters were, as well.

But, if most fighters, the most popular class, take feats, I doubt that the numbers would favor no-feats in general.

More importantly, even if only 1/4 of players don’t use feats, that’s plenty to make the intended discussion of the OP perfectly legitimate.

And no, writing out some feats as optional abilities at level 6 wouldn’t change anything.

I think your dataset needs narrowed down. Of characters that are level 4 or above and are fighters do they use feats?
 

Quickleaf

Legend
And I don't know if I really agree with that. The fighter does have an identity. It has the most well known identity in fantasy--the fighting man. The warrior. The soldier. The knight. Just because it isn't narrowed down into a much more specialized archetype like every other class doesn't mean it doesn't have an identity.

That's true, but not the entire truth.

Dating all the way back to Chainmail/OD&D the fighter has had a role as a leader. However, this role eroded as the editions advanced – or more properly it became diluted (see 3e's Leadership feat), giving away the fighter's stuff to other character types, and nothing was introduced to fill that conceptual void. 5e had the opportunity to use Martial Archetypes to fill that void, but for whatever reason the designers were fixated on using Martial Archetypes to assign a complexity dial to the fighter – this is one of the regrets Mike Mearls mentioned having about how 5e was designed in a TomeShow interview; instead, he wished they'd created Martial Archetypes with greater identity.

To quote Men & Magic, page 6 (emphasis added):

[SECTION]Fighting-Men: All magical weaponry is usable by fighters, and this in itself is a big advantage. In addition, they gain the advantage of more “hit dice” (the score of which determines how many points of damage can be taken before a character is killed). They can use only a very limited number of magical items of the nonweaponry variety, however, and they can use no spells. Top-level fighters (Lords and above) who build castles are considered “Barons,” and as such they may invest in their holdings in order to increase their income (see the INVESTMENTS section of Book III). Base income for a Baron is a tax rate of 10 Gold Pieces/inhabitant of the barony/game year.[/SECTION]

To quote 1978 AD&D Player's Handbook, page 22 (emphasis added):

[SECTION]The principal attribute of a fighter is strength. To become a fighter, a character must have a minimum strength of 9 and a constitution of 7 or greater. A good dexterity rating is also highly desirable. If a fighter has strength above 15, he or she adds 10% to experience points awarded by the Dungeon Master. Also, high strength gives the fighter a better chance to hit an opponent and causes an increased amount of damage. Fighters.have a ten-sided die (d10) for determination of their hit points per level. No other class of character (save the paladin and ranger (qq.v.) subclasses of fighters) is so strong in this regard. Fighters are the strongest of characters in regards to sheer physical strength, and they are the best at hand-to-hand combat. Any sort of armor or weapon is usable by fighters.

Fighters may be of any alignment - good or evil, lawful or chaotic, or neutral. Although fighters do not have magic spells to use, their armor and weapons can compensate. They have the most advantageous combat table and generally have good saving throw (q.v.) possibilities as well. Fighters can employ many magical items, including potions; "protection"scrolls; many rings; a few wands; one rod; many other magic items; and all forms of armor, shields and weapons.

When a fighter attains 9th level (Lord), he or she may opt to establish a freehold. This is done by building some type of castle and clearing the area in a radius of 20 to 50 miles around the stronghold, making it free from a11 sorts of hostile creatures. Whenever such a freehold is established and cleared, the fighter will:
1. Automatically attract a body of men-at-arms led by an above average fighter. These men will serve as mercenaries so long as the fighter maintains his or her freehold and pays the men-at-arms; and
2. Collect a monthly revenue of 7 silver pieces for each and every inhabitant of the freehold due to trade, tariffs, and taxes.
[/SECTION]
 

Dex based fighter don’t have problems to use dexterity skill for exploration/scouting.
They won’t beat a rogue with expertise on a skill but certainly a warlock or a mage.

Otherwise it is not a problem to have a honest 13 or 14 in wisdom.
It give access to decent skill check in social or exploration. ( survival, insight, perception, ...)

There is also the Skilled feat for game that focus heavily on skill check.
 

Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
@Mistwell dndbeyond and wotc have stated that all of their extensive data shows that most players don’t use feats, by a significant margin. I know humans were called out as a surprising non-exception, but I don’t recall if fighters were, as well.

But, if most fighters, the most popular class, take feats, I doubt that the numbers would favor no-feats in general.

I disagree. Fighters are the most popular class, but they were still only 12.5% of the classes taken. Which means if a majority of Fighter players use feats, that would be only 7% of the players. Which is why that data does not prove what you're trying to prove with it.

More importantly, even if only 1/4 of players don’t use feats, that’s plenty to make the intended discussion of the OP perfectly legitimate.

Strawman. I never said or implied anything about the legitemacy of this discussion. It's a perfectly legitemate discussion. Additionally...ability score increases ALSO change skill checks out of combat, so I am not even sure a no-feats game has any more of an argument than a feats-game in this context.

And no, writing out some feats as optional abilities at level 6 wouldn’t change anything.

Why not? If Expertise for a rogue is a specific ability that helps them out of combat, why is expertise as an option (because you could have taken it as a feat) not helpful to see?
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Top