D&D 5E What non-combat abilities should fighters have?

[Sacrosanct]

Whenever we have these discussions, there is one question that always seems to get overlooked. The question behind the question (I'm sure all of you that work in corporate america just cringed a little inside). I.e., "Does every class have to have X, Y, and Z features?" Most of the complaints about the fighter is that it doesn't do enough. It doesn't have as many class features as other classes. Even if you ignore how the 2 extra feats can mitigate this tremendously, I think an earlier question needs to be asked; the one above.

Because I don't think the answer is yes. I don't think it's a problem to have one class not have all the features of every other class. I don't think every class needs to appeal and be played by every player. In fact, I'd posit that if you design every class along very similar templates, it's exclusionary to some players. One of the core design goals was to have someone who likes basic fighters and no fiddly bits to worry about be able to play at the same table as someone who does. And many of these suggestions I see to the champion fighter, flies directly in the face of that design goal. I get it. The champion doesn't appeal to you as written. But it does to other people, and why take away what they want so you can have every class be the way you prefer? That seems...a bit selfish to me for lack of a better word. Especially since looking at polls and surveys, the number of people who want a basic fighter is not a small amount, but pretty substantial. If you don't like the champion fighter (because you don't want to use extra feats for out of combat things, and don't like how there's little out of combat features built in), who says you have to play a champion fighter to begin with. I really don't like the bard class (and the bard in general), but I'm not going to demand they rewrite the class to fit my preferences. It's just a class I won't play.

.

I am completely, and utterly, devoid of shock at these results and the difference between here and RPG.net.

 

[Quickleaf]

Whenever we have these discussions, there is one question that always seems to get overlooked. The question behind the question (I'm sure all of you that work in corporate america just cringed a little inside). I.e., "Does every class have to have X, Y, and Z features?" Most of the complaints about the fighter is that it doesn't do enough. It doesn't have as many class features as other classes. Even if you ignore how the 2 extra feats can mitigate this tremendously, I think an earlier question needs to be asked; the one above.

I want to clarify that even though I was using a tally of certain class features as a point of comparison, number of features is not my primary point of focus. Unique identity is what I was interested in with that example. For example, I discounted the repeated appearances of the Bard's Magical Secrets because – even though it's just as useful as the fighter's 2 bonus feats – it's not unique to the class. IMHO, unique identity is something valuable to include in D&D class design. YMMV.

Because I don't think the answer is yes. I don't think it's a problem to have one class not have all the features of every other class. I don't think every class needs to appeal and be played by every player. In fact, I'd posit that if you design every class along very similar templates, it's exclusionary to some players. One of the core design goals was to have someone who likes basic fighters and no fiddly bits to worry about be able to play at the same table as someone who does. And many of these suggestions I see to the champion fighter, flies directly in the face of that design goal. I get it. The champion doesn't appeal to you as written. But it does to other people, and why take away what they want so you can have every class be the way you prefer? That seems...a bit selfish to me for lack of a better word. Especially since looking at polls and surveys, the number of people who want a basic fighter is not a small amount, but pretty substantial. If you don't like the champion fighter (because you don't want to use extra feats for out of combat things, and don't like how there's little out of combat features built in), who says you have to play a champion fighter to begin with. I really don't like the bard class (and the bard in general), but I'm not going to demand they rewrite the class to fit my preferences. It's just a class I won't play.

Speaking personally, I think the fighter could use a rewrite similar to what they're doing for the ranger. However, I absolutely would not want to make it have excessive fiddly bits. I agree it's essential for the fighter to have a simple basic option, probably more so than other classes.

Again, speaking personally, I've always advocated for inclusionary design (well, redesign) of the fighter. And I don't think that adding more features necessarily makes a class more fiddly or complex. In fact, if a feature is well designed even just 1 or 2 features can capture the spirit of a class.

For example, Cunning Action and Sneak Attack do wonders to define the rogue because of the quality of their design that facilitates the play style of rogues – moving about the scene, slipping out of a foe's reach, ducking into the shadows, backstabbing distracted enemies. I consider Second Wind and Action Surge as being less successful at capturing the fighter's spirit than Cunning Action and Sneak Attack capture the rogue's. Part of it is that they're limited-use powers, when the fighter feels like he should be "the all-day strong" guy. The other part is...a bit more nebulous...Second Wind is anemic and passive....Action Surge, though unquestionably useful, is so broad as to lack identity.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

But how will he find them without exploration abilities?

You don't need abilities to explore. Just feet.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Yes, that may be true in AD&D.

However, in OD&D, taxes were only for a fighter: Base income for a Baron is a tax rate of 10 Gold Pieces/inhabitant of the barony/game year. (Men & Magic p. 6)

What I was trying to illustrate is that, over the history of D&D (even from the very beginning of edition changes), there has been a tendency to cut things away from the fighter and make them more broadly accessible, but nothing is added to fill that gap. Thus, the fighter's identity is whittled away.

Fair enough, except that why in game-world terms would a fighter be the only one capable of being a leader and such. If your world is a feudal society then it makes perfect sense. One of the key aspects of granting land was that they were responsible for mustering an army to help defend the kingdom and fight wars. In a pseudo-medieval (and almost never feudal) society, why couldn't a wizard or some other class meet the same requirement?

On the other hand, why limit the fighter's options as well?

The thing that fighters do well, better than anybody else, is fight.

A knight or cavalier is a mounted warrior (and trained with all of the martial arts of the land - archery, polearms, swords, wrestling, even swimming). So athletics certainly makes sense, and giving them expertise for athletics skills would be a good option. Leadership abilities also make sense for them.

But many fighters aren't highly trained knights. They might just be strong and spend a lot of time in combat. So they probably wouldn't have the leadership, riding, or even the breadth of training.

Of course, some fighters are more dexterity based, so not quite the same as your standard athletic and strength-based knight.

OD&D/AD&D fighters were clearly modeled after the medieval knight concept. But that's a narrow view of what is perhaps one of the broadest classes.

I guess that's where I get stuck.
What abilities should all fighters have?; and
What abilities could a fighter have that other classes shouldn't?

 

[Ilbranteloth]

There are small balance/design issues, but mostly yes, for me the problem has to do with lack of identity & lack of non-combat features.

For me, the first problem I have with the fighter class is that, unlike nearly every other edition (don't know 4e well enough to include that), the fighter was always better at hitting things than other classes.

With the proficiency bonus system, every single class has the same chance to-hit, assuming they have the same ability modifier.

I've made a lot of changes, in part because of that, and also because I don't like they way they designed the battle master. But all of my changes are almost entirely in the realm of combat abilities.

There really aren't any non-combat abilities that I can think of that all fighters should have. In part because along with rogues, I think fighters are just base "people" in the world. That could be pretty much anything.

In fact, one of the things I don't like are a couple of abilities (proficiency in thief's tools and thieves' cant) that push a rogue towards being a thief. I'd prefer they remain optional, as part of an archetype instead of the core class.

Rogues then have a niche of being quick and skillful. If fighters had expertise and Strength-based abilities similar to the core rogue, it would be more of a Strength-based person vs. Dexterity-based person. In fact, I kind of like that idea myself and might explore that a bit more.

 

[Salamandyr]

The name Fighter only exists because it became declasse to call him a fighting man. It has no place, no story.

So change his name...call him a Warrior.

Now ask yourself, what should warriors be good at?

Perception. There's a reason drill sergeants beat "Stay alert! Stay alive!" into their Privates' heads. Situational awareness is the key to survival on a battlefield, and it's also pretty darn useful in the exploration phase of the game.

Command. A grizzled veteran with one epithet can bring an entire platoon to their feet or their knees. "Command Voice" can turn even the most lopsided social situation into a cakewalk. Those guards won't let you pass? Who are they to question me! Quit breathing my air!

Animal Handling. Riding isn't just about skill in the saddle, it's care and love of the animals that keep you alive in combat. Great warriors often have rapport with beasts, from warhorses to wild animals.

Gear: From where to find the best tempered mail to spotting the flaw in an otherwise perfect blade, the warrior knows his gear. For the treasure seeking warrior, this kind of appraisal skill gets quickly extended to gold and jewels. The warrior can also maintain his gear, and modify it to work better. A weapon, or other object, like a saddle or cloak, customized to his own specifications is just better than the alternative. Wouldn't everyone want to take the warrior along when choosing field gear? I know I would.

Tactics: The warrior not only knows how best to utilize his own abilities, but how to utilize others. He can tell strengths and weaknesses at a glance. This isn't just physical; he can spot the weak point in a social lineup with equal facility. The warrior isn't just a weapon user, he's a force multiplier that makes everyone better, in nearly every situation.

Sage: Warriors learn things. They travel all over, learning new languages and habits with every new master. They study, they cross train. What you don't know can kill you, so warriors try to know everything.

Healer: Warriors get hurt, and they see their friends get hurt. So learning the basics of healing is often the first cross training a warrior does. This might be sutures and bandages, but in a magical world, it could be as much as how to identify a healing potion by sight and smell.

Unarmed Expert: One can't learn weapons without learning how to use one's body, and eventually, you're really going to need a sword and no sword is going to be available. So the warrior spends time learning the grapple, the strike, the takedown...all the ways to do harm with the body when the body is all you have to do harm with.

Physical Excellence: Every drop of sweat is one less drop of blood spilled. Warriors train...a lot. Physical strength, agility, endurance, it's all one to the warrior, a means to overcome their opponent. Naturally, that physical excellence has applicability outside of combat, from the ability to carry more gear, to the ability to master difficult dance steps in time for the court ball, and attracting the queens attention with your broad shoulders and well turned calves.

So there it is...the question isn't what should they be able to do but what shouldn't a warrior be able to do?

I don't think this is really fixable in a class based system; they've created different classes to cover all of these aspects of the warrior (most of which could also be descriptors of "adventurers") and because combat is such a major focus to the game, all of those classes got combat abilities that rival if not surpass the dedicated warrior class, who can do all that above, if built for it, but can't do it any better than the tertiary abilities of other classes.

 

[jgsugden]

My speculation for 5e fighters addressed the non-combat role by having the character either gain superior trained athletic abilities, leadership abilities that were in line with a 4e warlord outside combat, or investigative abilities like a detective would have (Batman). Those all work.

 

[Quickleaf]

Fair enough, except that why in game-world terms would a fighter be the only one capable of being a leader and such. If your world is a feudal society then it makes perfect sense. One of the key aspects of granting land was that they were responsible for mustering an army to help defend the kingdom and fight wars. In a pseudo-medieval (and almost never feudal) society, why couldn't a wizard or some other class meet the same requirement?

On the other hand, why limit the fighter's options as well?

The thing that fighters do well, better than anybody else, is fight.

A knight or cavalier is a mounted warrior (and trained with all of the martial arts of the land - archery, polearms, swords, wrestling, even swimming). So athletics certainly makes sense, and giving them expertise for athletics skills would be a good option. Leadership abilities also make sense for them.

But many fighters aren't highly trained knights. They might just be strong and spend a lot of time in combat. So they probably wouldn't have the leadership, riding, or even the breadth of training.

Of course, some fighters are more dexterity based, so not quite the same as your standard athletic and strength-based knight.

OD&D/AD&D fighters were clearly modeled after the medieval knight concept. But that's a narrow view of what is perhaps one of the broadest classes.

I guess that's where I get stuck.
What abilities should all fighters have?; and
What abilities could a fighter have that other classes shouldn't?

I've answered this question several times on ENWorld and would direct you to my Warrior homebrew as one example; TLDR is "camp talents."

[SBLOCK=Examples of "camp talents"]Camp Guard (camp)
During a long rest you can keep watch without sleep, and if you are attacked you automatically awaken your allies even if you are surprised. You suffer no disadvantage from lack of sleep for a number of nights up to your Constituion modifier (minimum 1). Thereafter, you accrue exhaustion as normal.
When used during a short rest, it doubles the range at which you would spot creatures (i.e. doubling starting encounter distance).

Forced March (camp)
After a short or long rest during which you tend to journey preparations, your, your companions, and pack animals following your lead can add your proficiency bonus to their Constitution checks during overland travel (e.g. to stave off exhaustion). Additionally, you and your companions suffer no detriment from the first level of exhaustion incurred by travel conditions.

Light-Bearer (camp)
After a short or long rest during which you wrap a torch or fill a lantern with oil, while you hold the light source it burns for twice as long, has advantage to resist being snuffed out, and the radius of its light is doubled (e.g. a torch would illuminate 40 feet radius bright light, and 40 feet radius dim light beyond that).

Mentoring (camp)
During a short or long rest, you can introduce the basics of handling a specific martial weapon (e.g. longsword), a specific suit of medium or heavy armor (e.g. chain mail), or shields to one companion. That companion gains proficiency in the corresponding weapon, armor, or shields until their next short or long rest.

Mount Care (camp)
During a short rest, you can care for up to 8 mounts, allowing the mounts to spend hit dice to heal during a short rest. They regain extra hit points equal to your proficiency modifier for every hit die spent.
When used during a long rest you can procure mounts for yourself and up to 7 companions.

Under Duress (camp)
During a short or long rest, you can offer good cheer, fortifying ale, or galows humor to allow yourself and your companions to benefit from the rest even when performing more strenuous actions like overland travel at a slow pace, watching the ramparts, or casting rituals. Each character benefitting from a rest under duress loses any temporary hit points at the end of the rest as well as taking 1d6 psychic damage.

Warrior’s Guidance (camp)
During a short or long rest, you can spar and share defensive tips with your companions, granting any of your companions heeding your guidance a number of temporary hit points equal to your proficiency modifier. This represents them keeping up their guard better after your guidance.

Whet the Blade (camp)
During a short or long rest, you can use a whetstone and water to hone the edge on a number of bladed weapons equal to your proficiency modifier. A blade whetted by you grants the following:
If the blade was in good repair, it gains a +1 damage bonus on its next successful hit.
If the blade was damaged or rusty, remove the “broken” condition from the blade.

Wound Binding (camp)
During a short rest, you can expend one use of a healer’s kit to expertly bind your wounds or the wounds of a willing creature. You or that creature gains advantage on any hit dice spent to heal at the end of the short rest.
When used during a long rest, it allows you or the creature whose wounds you bind to regain 1 extra hit die (normally a long rest restores half your hit dice).[/SBLOCK]

And I fully stand behind [MENTION=40233]Salamandyr[/MENTION]'s examples of non-combat unique things fighters could do. Speaking from personal experience being taught Apache stick fighting blindfolded, awareness is absolutely the first fighting skill. Actually, in OD&D I think something like this was represented there where "Superheroes" could detect invisible creatures (or something like that, I forget the specifics).

For me, the first problem I have with the fighter class is that, unlike nearly every other edition (don't know 4e well enough to include that), the fighter was always better at hitting things than other classes.

With the proficiency bonus system, every single class has the same chance to-hit, assuming they have the same ability modifier.

I've made a lot of changes, in part because of that, and also because I don't like they way they designed the battle master. But all of my changes are almost entirely in the realm of combat abilities.

There really aren't any non-combat abilities that I can think of that all fighters should have. In part because along with rogues, I think fighters are just base "people" in the world. That could be pretty much anything.

In fact, one of the things I don't like are a couple of abilities (proficiency in thief's tools and thieves' cant) that push a rogue towards being a thief. I'd prefer they remain optional, as part of an archetype instead of the core class.

Rogues then have a niche of being quick and skillful. If fighters had expertise and Strength-based abilities similar to the core rogue, it would be more of a Strength-based person vs. Dexterity-based person. In fact, I kind of like that idea myself and might explore that a bit more.

Well, I have two answers.

First, older editions had no problem giving all fighters two non-combat identities: The Gear Guy & The Prestige Guy. Food for thought when we start to go into the "but fighters fight, that's what they do, they fight, cause it's in their name..." spiral.

Second, in addition to the "all fighter" non-combat examples I gave, it's perfectly fine to place non-combat abilities in the fighter subclasses. In fact, I think that's a great place to put many (though not all) such abilities.

 

[cbwjm]

I think a small change for fighters, something to give them that little extra at 5th level, is Improved Fighting Style. Let them select a fighting style that they are trained to improve bonuses in some fashion.

 

[KingofBongos185]

I'm having a hard time totally understanding the argument that fighters need built-in, fighter specific, non-combat class features. Sounds to me kind of like saying wizards need built-in wizard specific, weapon using class features. (I know it's not a perfect analogy, because wizards have plenty of combat relevant spells, but it's what I think of.)

What would these abilities look like? And would they be more appropriate at a class level or at a subclass level, given the breadth of concepts the fighter needs to cover?

One I could think of is alert. It doesn't just help with combat but out of combat as well.

However I think when people say non combat they mean more for the role play side. So it really depends on how you want to RP your fighter.
Feats like:

Keen Mind
Observant
Linguist
Healer
Actor
Skilled
Skulker
Weapons Master
Athlete

Like those.
Healer is useful if you have no healers in your group. Of course not much help but any help is still help.

So if really depends on your idea of what your fighter is like.

One of the fighters I created has both linguist and observant. He can read lips of 5 different languages from a fair distance. Helps when trying to keep an eye on a target in taverns, and not have a rogue.