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

[CleverNickName]

Anyway, I'm bringing this up because during our last session, of the players said he felt like he didn't have much to do out of combat. While my bard and the warlock were sneaking and scouting, listening at doors, searching bookshelves, and translating tomes, he was looking for options to contribute. In another group we play in, this player is a wizard and feels like he has more versatility in and out of combat.

When I first started playing 5E, I rolled up a fighter...and this was my exact experience. Unless initiative had been rolled, my character was in the way. We already had a Face in the party to handle social interactions, we already had a Sneak to handle the scouting and locks, we already had a Healer and a Buffer, etc., etc. My fighter basically just sat around watching everyone do everything else except fight.

Sure, once initiative had been rolled everyone shoved me to the front of the line and kept me propped up with magic and cover fire, and that could be really fun. But for the other 90% of the session, I was bored. So,

If someone has difficulty understanding how to have fun with a class, sometimes the best option is to ask them if they want to play a different class.

This. I talked to the DM about my options, and in the end I decided to play a Warlock (Hexblade) instead. It had just enough of the Fighter class in it to let me fill my old role in the group and keep me from becoming useless on the battlefield, but it had lots of other options in the way of spells and invocations that I just couldn't get with a Fighter...even a Fighter with the Eldritch Knight subclass.

[MENTION=22103]GlassJaw[/MENTION], I think your suggestions would make for an interesting houserule, and I'd love to hear how well they test. [MENTION=6799753]lowkey13[/MENTION]'s advice was what I ended up going with back in the day, and I'm 100% satisfied with the result.

 

[BacchusNL]

This will probably rub some people the wrong way, but I think the warrior class should be almost entirely revamped. The base-line combat features and execution\ wording on the OoC abilities are just so spartan that even if you RP it up you are still doing it with a much more limited bag of tricks then any other martial class. Even if I would consider an ability fluff I would still like to use it from time to time and really feel like (my idea off) a fighter. "I can jump far" does not really do that for me, for any character build, ever.

Milage may vary per DM on how much good RP will buy you, but even in a purely social game without combat the second dice are required for some kind of persusasion\ sleight of hand\ investigate, whatever the scene requires,-roll you bring nothing to the table while a Paladin\ Rogue\ Ranger would have actual written text and numbers to affect those dice. This, to me atleast, ussualy makes those classes always a more interesting pick for any campaign that isn't based in Forgotten Realms either, when the classes and sub-classes just serve as raw stat-sheet for whatever you try your character to represent in that world and re-flavoring what suits the setting when it comes to gods\ races ect.

The fact that in-combat almost their entire kit consists of "more stats" and feats also makes for pretty poor design I think. Leading too, even at higher levels, an entire night where the biggest decision you made was when to use your action surge. The rest was just "Great weapon attack x3, go", and maybe use some superiorety dice, which I like as a feature but should define the (sub) class more then just another limited recource that resets on a short rest.

In a perfect world I would like to see the Fighter get some of the extra feats and some of their useless fluff removed and get some sub-class features as base-line (the superiority dice or crit and size-up). Maneuvers and their scaling would need to get toned down and re-worded, and the Battle Master subclass re-imagined, but a good start would be to make maneuvers in-combat choices for the class I think. The champion esspecialy needs just a complete overhaul imo. There should also be a true shield-specialist sub class for the fighter, I think. Some more str or con related skills, and a re-work of the tool proffeciencies and their ingame uses, would also go a long way.

Another option would be, and I can understand how some people would strongly disagree with me here since it's more "magic doesn't feel magical", but I can also see fighters get a limited spell list of sorts, a bit like domain spells. Also giving them something akin to spell slots, but more flavoured like a monk's Ki, to use on things that essencialy work like Aid\ Shield\ Hunter's Mark\ whatever spell works flavour-wise, or the afore mentioned maneuvers.

 

[CubicsRube]

Whilst that method has some pros it does not change the issue that it is the same base as everyone else who gain abilities/spells to back it up and the fighter does not.

It is a fairly simple yet incomplete port.

In shadow for example, people can have more than one background (profession). With such a proficiency system in place a fighter could gain an extra background to represent a more doverse array of skills. Maybe they were an acolyte in a temple for tyr, but they dropped out and became a pirate.

That way, they have a more rounded skill set to reflect their worldly knowledge.

The other viable option imo requires creating class features. This requires more work, but also a vision of what a fighter is. Are they a mercenary? A noble knight? A lone soldier? The fighting features of a fighter work in most themes of the class, but it's hard to create a social feature without giving the fighter a true identity.

Honestly d&d in general is sorely lacking compared to some other rpgs in the social department, so there's not much of a skeleton to work with.

 

[Hussar]

Well, as you noticed, at 7th level the Champion gets Remarkable Athlete, the Battlemaster gets Know Your Enemy, and the Eldritch Knight gets a known spell from any school at 8th level. So all PHB Fighters do in fact get at least some out-of-combat ability.

In addition, all Fighters get 7 ASI/feats rather than the base 5, so they could use the extra 2 to earn more out-of-combat feats than anyone else.

Sure, that's true. By FOURTEENTH level.

Are you seriously going to claim that Know your Enemy and 2 Feats grants the same versatility as 14 levels of casting? Even half casters like rangers and paladins? What feat lets you FLY like a 14th level Barbarian? Yay, you get a great Athletics check. Meanwhile, I can Fly and talk to animals. And that's just a plain jane PHB barbarian. Oh, and I have Commune With Nature as a ritual.

Two feats are going to contribute as much to exploration as that?

See, this I what I don't get. Sure, we get the extra feats. But, we have to compare what the other classes get instead of two feats. EVERY other fighter type - Barbarian, Ranger or Paladin get some pretty serious magical enhancements that let them do things that no skill bonus will ever let you do. At 6th level, when you get your extra feat, I get low light vision and the ability to see clearly for a mile. Kinda useful in exploration, no? No feat comes even close to that.

Well, no, that's not true. Ritual caster does. The standard 5e solution to everything, make everyone a caster.

 

[CubicsRube]

Ok. Here's a go at a class feature.

This replaces the extra feat at 6th level. Choose either inspiring presence or menacing presence

INSPIRING PRESENCE at 6th level you exude a natural air of confidence and bravery that inspires others to your cause. When making a persuasion roll to convince someone to ally with your cause you may make the roll with advantage. If you are not proficient in persuasion, you are considered proficient for this roll.

One you use this feature you cannot use it again before you finish a long rest

MENACING PRESENCE at 6th level your demeanour overpowers others and instills instinctive fear should you choose it to. When making an intimidation roll to convince someone to do as you say you may make the roll with advantage. If you are not proficient in persuasion, you are considered proficient for this roll.

One you use this feature you cannot use it again before you finish a long rest

 

[Gladius Legis]

The problem with this is that the fighter despite this sacrifice is not the best at combat and is a bit behind till 11th level where it pulls ahead by a small amount.

Depends which Fighter subclass you're talking about. The Champion, this is maybe true, though Action Surge is hard to top by anyone. The Battle Master, this is definitely not true. A Lv. 3+ Battle Master is the best at combat thanks to wonderful things like the maneuvers Precision Attack and Riposte, on top of the usual Action Surge.

XGTE has also made the Battle Master's Student of War out-of-combat feature a lot more useful by making tool proficiency a lot more useful. And I've actually seen Know Your Enemy used to pretty good effect, lately.

 

[KenNYC]

I think too many see high or low bonuses and take that to mean some character is better at something than another. In a typical session intimidation is likely to come up relatively few times. It's conceivable that the fighter with 8 charisma could roll high on every one of those checks and the sorcerer roll low and thus in the in-game fiction the fighter would actually be more intimidating than the high charisma sorcerer. Character stats don't tell the story. Player choices and die rolls do. In fact it's conceivable that the fighter could roll better intimidation checks than the sorcerer for the whole campaign despite the sorcerer having a higher intimidation. Who would you say was better at intimidation if this occurred?

If I am DMing it and the player playing the fighter gives an honest attempt at 1st person roleplaying, I will just say he successfully intimidated the NPC and roleplay back in 1st person. I just can't see that Luke Cage can't intimidate people, but Alfred The Butler can. I won't even let the dice mess up whatever the player is trying to run with from a roleplaying perspective and will just go along saying "yes" to everything the player does and see where he takes me. That's my improv background coming to the fore, to always say "yes, and..." because nothing can happen if you say no. So if the player playing the fighter wants to woo the princess I will roleplay it right back and see his romance, and up it by throwing in a father demanding he marry her. Then let's see what he does. I try to not roll any dice when I DM--or as little as possible, and as a player if after all my roleplaying the DM still insists I roll a die I just sort of look for a new DM. Dice should be used sparingly, when you honestly don't know what would or should happen. If you are playing a 12th level fighter I am not going to let some dumb roll of a 1 send your plans and story into some wacky, banana peel laden, yuck-fest.

 

[BacchusNL]

If I am DMing it and the player playing the fighter gives an honest attempt at 1st person roleplaying, I will just say he successfully intimidated the NPC and roleplay back in 1st person. I just can't see that Luke Cage can't intimidate people, but Alfred The Butler can. I won't even let the dice mess up whatever the player is trying to run with from a roleplaying perspective and will just go along saying "yes" to everything the player does and see where he takes me. That's my improv background coming to the fore, to always say "yes, and..." because nothing can happen if you say no. So if the player playing the fighter wants to woo the princess I will roleplay it right back and see his romance, and up it by throwing in a father demanding he marry her. Then let's see what he does. I try to not roll any dice when I DM--or as little as possible, and as a player if after all my roleplaying the DM still insists I roll a die I just sort of look for a new DM. Dice should be used sparingly, when you honestly don't know what would or should happen. If you are playing a 12th level fighter I am not going to let some dumb roll of a 1 send your plans and story into some wacky, banana peel laden, yuck-fest.

That's fair, and probably an approach a lot of DM's that appreciate the rule of cool will take, but when a player is rolling up a Luke Cage character and going through his options I think many will rather take the Paladin toolbox over the Fighter, just because it offers more tangible skills (on top of the benefits for good RP, which should be equal for both paladins and fighters anyway, I think). For me atleast it's a lot more feasable to re-skin a paladins vows and auras to the kind of codes and presence a character like Luke Cage has. Not to mention the floating POW!'s in mid-air I immediatly imagine when he uses smite. I really don't see those kind of easilly translated ideas in the Fighter class.

...I do kinda want to play a Luke Cage paladin now though.

 

[Imaro]

One of the issues with 5E is that, for most of the game, your ability modifier is more important than your proficiency bonus.

If the fighter wants to intimidate something, and they have a +3 bonus because they're actually trained in it, then they're still better off letting the untrained warlock do it, because the warlock is at +5 from Charisma.

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?

 

[Imaro]

Sure, that's true. By FOURTEENTH level.

Are you seriously going to claim that Know your Enemy and 2 Feats grants the same versatility as 14 levels of casting? Even half casters like rangers and paladins? What feat lets you FLY like a 14th level Barbarian? Yay, you get a great Athletics check. Meanwhile, I can Fly and talk to animals. And that's just a plain jane PHB barbarian. Oh, and I have Commune With Nature as a ritual.[

Two feats are going to contribute as much to exploration as that?

See, this I what I don't get. Sure, we get the extra feats. But, we have to compare what the other classes get instead of two feats. EVERY other fighter type - Barbarian, Ranger or Paladin get some pretty serious magical enhancements that let them do things that no skill bonus will ever let you do. At 6th level, when you get your extra feat, I get low light vision and the ability to see clearly for a mile. Kinda useful in exploration, no? No feat comes even close to that.

Well, no, that's not true. Ritual caster does. The standard 5e solution to everything, make everyone a caster.

You're complaining you don't have magical abilities but if you want that as a fighter then play an Eldritch Knight.

EDIT: It just seems silly to say as a fighter I can't do stuff like fly or talk to animals or cast rituals when there is a specific subclass that opens the door for abilities like this and a feat that allows you to do much more in the area of casting rituals.