There is truth to your statement about fighters. In 1E & 2E they could gain followers. In 1E they specifically mentioned that fighters could collect taxes as could clerics. Paladins could build keeps and collect fair taxes whatever that means because they could only have LG henchmen and followers. I imagine that their domains would be rather small due to this alignment restriction. Rangers were always written up as mobile and restless. Rangers as landed lords were generally discounted because 1E rules stipulated that at most three rangers were allowed to work together.
D&D 5E What non-combat abilities should fighters have?
There is truth to your statement about fighters. In 1E & 2E they could gain followers. In 1E they specifically mentioned that fighters could collect taxes as could clerics. Paladins could build keeps and collect fair taxes whatever that means because they could only have LG henchmen and followers. I imagine that their domains would be rather small due to this alignment restriction. Rangers were always written up as mobile and restless. Rangers as landed lords were generally discounted because 1E rules stipulated that at most three rangers were allowed to work together.
I really don't think fighters need anything to help them in any other pillar. They are combat kings. If you want to dabble in social or exploration just multiclass. Fighter subclasses like ranger, paladin and monk are different takes on fighter themes. No reason to keep diluting that pool further by creating additional classes
Combat Kings.........are you aware that in most played levels other classes outclass fighters in DPR and survivability (Levels 3-11) after which fighters pull slightly ahead by a very small about. The fact they had to sacrifice ability in the other two pillars of play to fail at being the best at fighting is a design failure, multiclassing should not be required to cover a design failure.
They really aren't combat kings though. Oh, don't get me wrong; they are solid at combat, but all the classes are at least OK at combat. Having a Fighter-less party is easily within the bounds on normal play.
Can't you make that same point about any class though really? I mean you need certain archtypes such as healer but you really don't need a specific class such as cleric to have an effective healer In your group.
They really are good at combat. They can hit as hard as rogue and have much more survivability at any level. Only paladins really outshine them and that is because smite is OP. Wizards have been nerfed in a major way. The only thing that keeps them competitive is the poor saving throw mechanic that Hasbro seems wedded to. Fighters outshine many classes such as monk, druid, ranger and warlock in combat.
Tony Vargas
Legend
In the classic sense of the 4 iconic classes, sure! Cleric-less party? A Bard, Druid, or even Paladin can step in and supply the traditional band-aids. No fighter? No problem, a barbarian, paladin, ranger, or warlock (among others) can take care of DPS for you. A barbarian, paladin or moon druid could tank for you, too (or you could summon things). No Rogue? Anyone can be a criminal, a Bard can have expertise. No Wizard? The other casters cover many of the same spells, someone could take ritual caster... (OK, wiz is probably the hardest, it's the single class with the most unique spells, that is, those found on no other list, but it's not exactly the highest priority, either).
That's not terribly new, though. In 4e classes with the same role could fairly neatly fill in for eachother, in 3e barbarians, self-buffing clerics, Druids (and/or their animal companions), paladins or rangers among others could fill in for the fighter, Clerics & Druids (and maybe favored soul, and Bard at the outside) could fill in for eachother - really, anyone with CLW on their list (or enough UMD) & a wand could supply the band-aids - and Wizards and Sorcerers shared virtually the exact same spell-list, before that, a lot of classes started as 'sub-classes' that could fill in for the main class, more or less...
Thing is, if you have Sorcerer filling in for you wizard, or a Druid for your life Cleric, or a criminal bard for your Rogue, you might not be dealing with everything quite as well, but a barbarian or paladin might raise the bar when filling in for the fighter - or not, YMMV.
FrogReaver
As long as i get to be the frog
Well, in all fairness, the barbarian and paladin don't exactly offer a lot of out of combat utility either...
In many ways, but if a class is considered a 'king' of a pillar then I would expect a party with one or more must have an easier experience than a party with none when engaging that pillar. It's not the case with Fighter and combat. If you take a functional party that contains a Fighter and replace that character with almost any other combat-prepared character, the party's experience in combat will be about the same. Tactics may change to take into account the differing class strengths, but the experience of what challenges the group and how much challenge is presented will remain the same.
In other words, the Fighter is good at combat, but not so much better than average that it is a game changer. I don't think it's a flaw of the Fighter design so much as a problem with the design decision that every class must be competent in combat.
Or the flaw is that the Fighter sacrifices so much for no gain.
