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

[Quickleaf]

Fair enough. But can you provide some ideas of what non-combat functions that all fighters share? Because really, what defines a fighter is that they are good at fighting. Of all of the classes, they are the only one that really is defined by their combat ability.

For the most part, anything else I can think of might apply to some fighters, but not all. Certainly, within archetypes it's much easier to define. Knights have mounted combatant capabilities and leadership capabilities, for example. A strength-based fighter can be very athletic and carry more, but a dexterity-based fighter would be different.

For the base class itself, though, there aren't too many (if any) non-combat abilities that I can think of that should apply to all fighters.

So, I have three answers there.

First, subclasses (martial archetypes) are a *great* place to put varied non-combat abilities. There's nothing saying that ALL fighters need to have the same exploration/interaction features. In fact, if you look back at many of the AD&D2e kits, you'll see a repeating pattern of: The Cavalier receives a +3 reaction from anyone of his own culture (except criminals and characters of evil alignment, from whom he receives a –3). That's from The Complete Fighter's Handbook, and the cavalier kit wasn't alone – barbarian and berserkers definitely got that +3 bonus with different groups, and there probably are others I'm not remembering.

Second, as I previously pointed out in this thread, in old school D&D fighters had built-in non-combat identity as "Barons", ascending to political leadership, gaining followers, and earning tax revenue. A secondary identity as "the gear guy" was also built-in, with increased starting gold, percentile strength greatly increasing maximum load a fighter could carry without suffering encumbrance, and the only one who could use magic swords. That were part of the non-combat identity of ALL fighters and it was stripped away.

Third, I would assert that the fighter originated as a defender. And I'm not only referring to a tactical role. I'm also referring to the origin of a warrior class that was for the defense of a tribe or settlement. This assertion is reflected in the language used to describe the fighter class in the Rules Cyclopedia: In the D&D® game, fighters protect their weaker friends and allies. Compared to a ranger (who seeks out the horizon), a fighter can be seen as the one responsible for protecting the hearth – earlier I gave some examples of camp talents that I'm playing around with in my own fighter redesign.

 

[LotusApe]

I think the Fighter lost quite a bit of flavour when it lost the feudal society links from Od&d. In the past martial prowess was as important as magical prowess is in a fantasy world.

If you like Celtic or Arthurian worlds then having an ability like reputation would be interesting. Heroes had a real effect on the people and land around them. Mystics like Merlin could only be advisors, and religious power was likewise often kept separate from the secular power of Kingship. So that means that Fighters are the class that can be the most embedded in local society. So maybe inspiring effects, better intimidation and persuasion linked to level.

 

[Ancalagon]

I think the Fighter lost quite a bit of flavour when it lost the feudal society links from Od&d. In the past martial prowess was as important as magical prowess is in a fantasy world.

If you like Celtic or Arthurian worlds then having an ability like reputation would be interesting. Heroes had a real effect on the people and land around them. Mystics like Merlin could only be advisors, and religious power was likewise often kept separate from the secular power of Kingship. So that means that Fighters are the class that can be the most embedded in local society. So maybe inspiring effects, better intimidation and persuasion linked to level.

Yes but that then forces us into that feudal mold doesn't it? The game should be broader than that. In the Yellow city the slugmen are in charge (and then tends towards the mystical arts, when they aren't too busy eating and smoking opium that is), and half the human warriors are eunuchs.

The fact that the fighter class can be used to make a medieval knight OR a roman legionnaire, a viking raider, a samurai, a dwarven sell-sword or an eunuch warrior from the Mountains of the moon is a *strength* of the class.

 

[Quickleaf]

[MENTION=6899413]LotusApe[/MENTION] [MENTION=23]Ancalagon[/MENTION] I was just reading the old AD&D Dark Sun boxed set, and there are some interesting additions to the fighter class for that setting – which is distinctly not feudal (I think).

Fighters in Dark Sun are explicitly described as mass combat specialists and, eventually, troop leaders.

At 3rd level, they can teach weapon proficiencies to others.
At 4th level, they can operate siege equipment.
At 6th level, they can oversee construction of defenses.
At 7th level, they can command large groups of troops, gaining a "command diameter."
At 9th level, they can construct siege equipment.

 

[discosoc]

A few things stand out to me, but they mostly boil down to political influence. Certainly all high level adventurers would provide a sense of awe to everyone else, but a "fighter" is sort of unique in being relatable to the common man.

Barbarians are savages, even if one occasionally serves the greater good.
Bards are mercurial and a little too clever, with a reputation for uncanny magic and charms.
Clerics are respected, but their divine connection is hard to understand or relate to.
Druids are savage clerics to most people, and often seen as more animal than man.
Monks probably come off as martial wizards, to be honest, when you look at all the magic stuff they do.
Paladins are in the same boat as clerics, although perhaps tinged with a little fear.
Rangers might be welcomed and respected, but they are also loners and not part of the normal social order.
Rogues are far too frequently associated with crime, and it's hard to admire someone who sticks to the shadows.
Sorcerers are just weird wizards.
Warlocks are just creepy wizards.
Wizards are walking weapons of mass destruction where even the most goodly are wielding powers that make no sense.

Fighters are literally the only 5e class that your average person or noble can probably relate to. That's important for inspiring and leading people. It's why all the best legends have a basic warrior at their core, and why the children practice with wooden swords. Fighters could use some kind of rule to better reflect this. Perhaps with very circumstantial persuasion/intimidation ability when dealing with certain people, and maybe simple things like discounts on mundane gear (for himself only). Attracting followers and being the class that a local king would prefer to grant land to. That kind of stuff could be pretty awesome.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I feel like including Expertise for Rogues and Bards kind of wrecked skill use for other classes in a not so subtle way.

A decent stat and a skill proficiency was supposed to feel like you were competent. In that system a fighter with all the traits mentioned above just has the background proficiencies associated with those abilities and a decent stat in the relevant ability checks. Now they 'have to have Expertise' to be considered good enough or when they only get a 15 on a skill check it is a failure or at the higher levels it has to be 25 (see Critical Role).

'Dice decide' style needs those huge bonuses to overcome the variance of the d20. In a 'DM decides' style I would say there is more room for just having a good stat or mere proficiency. The middle style kind of depends on how you run it. If the DM varies the DC based on the Skill of the actor then having an ultra high bonus wouldn't matter as much but if it more a variant on the 'dice decide' then you still need your bonuses maxed to succeed.

My scale I'd try is:
Dump Stat, no prof - roll for opposed checks stuff (perception, stealth, insight, persuasion, bluff) or things that almost always get rolls anyway. Anything that would probably require prof might get a roll at disadvantage (the ubiquitous 'me too' rolls).

Good stat or Prof (skilled) - much of the time auto-succeed on average non-opposed checks, make more difficult check with a lower DC

Good stat and Prof or Expertise - autosuccess more often and advantage versus the dump stat types on opposed rolls, lower DC on the merely difficult stuff.

Good stat and Expertise - no additional advantage - I'd prefer to just cap the skill bonus at +11 with advantage.

Kind of use Expertise as a way to overcome an ability lack or ramp up to the cap faster and then plateau.

That mindset is dangerous.
A DC of 25 is not needed. The expertise feature with a good stat should make you nearly autosucceed a check. Especially with the reliable talen feature. It should be quasi as reliable as magic. That isthe rogue and bard speciality. It is the same fallacy as in 3.5 where you suddenly rose skill DCs to 35 or so.

When you plan an adventure you usually want to give out information. And so you want someone to be good at those skills. If you don't want traps to be found by the rogue who invests heavily in those abilities, wis, int and dex and expertise, don't increase the DC over and over again. It just makes your players frustrated. A big problem in 4e. You felt as you mever achieve something as difficulties raise with your level.
I had terrific results using just dcs of 10 15 20 and 25 in 3.0 avoiding all skillpoint associazed problems. Even a fighter with just 2 skillpoints per level could take part in all challenges.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I won't say there were never roles in D&D before 3e.

Good, because there /really/ were. There were meat-shields and band-aid clerics and trap-fodder rogues.

Minor stroke of genius, choosing 'Role' as the formal label when writing for the Hallowed First ROLEplaying Game, though. Hi, welcome to Roleplaying! First step, choose a Role! ("hrmm makes sense...")

But they were much broader roles than the labels that folks started using circa 3e. and definitely in 4e.

I'd say they were narrower in some ways. The band-aid cleric ('healer') was narrower than the "Iconic Cleric" was narrower than the 'Leader Role,' most notably. Then again CoDzilla was much broader in effectiveness than the "Iconic Cleric," so we might swap the last two.

It's not that they can't be helpful for some, and in particular types of games, but they don't work well at all for us. And certainly there will probably some common approaches that do get used on a regular basis with a specific party.

Roles are very nice for new/casual players, they streamline putting together a basically functional party. A little more 'advanced' or merely more concept-/story- driven table, and they can be ignored, optimized against-type, and generally played with.

That mindset is dangerous.
A DC of 25 is not needed.

DC is relative to bonus. In concept, 5e DCs go up to 35, and bonuses up to about +17 or so. So an Expert (with Expertise) can hail-Mary the 'virtually impossible,' on a natural 18, but no one else need apply. Aside from those extremes, though, BA works by keeping the range of likely bonuses: -1 to +17, from completely overwhelming the d20. An incompetent rolling a 20 can get as good a result as an expert rolling a 2. You're never entirely out of your league.

I had terrific results using just dcs of 10 15 20 and 25 in 3.0 avoiding all skillpoint associazed problems. Even a fighter with just 2 skillpoints per level could take part in all challenges.

What about the characters with +25 and higher? No 'problems' with them?

That was a problem in 3e, you could optimize very high skill bonuses, very quickly (IIRC, even a very basic, PH-only 'diplomancer' could have been +14 at 1st, +21 at 2nd, and kept going from there). With ranks alone, you could get a +23 in a skill, before stat mods and items, but, no one could put a rank in every skill every level, so while some characters had +23 others had 0 - that overwhelmed the d20 (and usually it was overwhelmed long before that, thanks to magic items, stats, feats, and optimization in general - you could get triple-digit skill bonuses). The 'expert' could beat the result of your natural 20 by a mile, on a natural 1, even if you weren't an incompetent, but a same-level adventurer.
4e solved that with a half-level bonus instead of ranks. The 'trained' expert got a +5, and typically a high stat, while the untrained still got the half-level bonus, making chargen/level-up simpler as a minor bonus. That 5 and the difference in stats wasn't enough to overwhlem the d20. That and /level/ still could, of course, so you had the sense of advancement at very high level vs low, without creating incompetence in your fellow high-level characters.

5e, of course, has solved it with BA.

You felt as you mever achieve something as difficulties raise with your level.

Of course, in 5e BA, you're never entirely into the next league, either, so there's a sense you're not really advancing much. Whereas, with 'bigger numbers' of 3e & 4e, you got the sense that you were getting better every level, even if the challenges you faced were often getting harder, too.

The key, as a DM, is not to present too much conformity-to-level. Call back a challenge from a few levels prior now and then, and let everyone realize how much they've advanced.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

As to noncombat actions. A strength based fighter can carry all the gold you happen to find.

 

[Tony Vargas]

A few things stand out to me, but they mostly boil down to political influence. Certainly all high level adventurers would provide a sense of awe to everyone else, but a "fighter" is sort of unique in being relatable to the common man.

...Druids are savage clerics to most people, and often seen as more animal than man....

Wow, D&D Druids need better PR. Druids were the priests, judges, keepers of oral tradition, seers, and sages of the Celtic peoples, about the most highly-respected position in that society shy of "king."

But, on topic, yeah, not at all relateable to the common man...
...

Fighters are literally the only 5e class that your average person or noble can probably relate to. That's important for inspiring and leading people. ... Fighters could use some kind of rule to better reflect this.

Numbers tell in 5e combat, and anyone can be helpful in many tasks thanks to BA. Maybe we should go all 1e and let fighters raise forces of followers?
Or, y'know, the ol' "train the villagers to defend themselves" montage.

 

[Ancalagon]

[MENTION=6899413]LotusApe[/MENTION] [MENTION=23]Ancalagon[/MENTION] I was just reading the old AD&D Dark Sun boxed set, and there are some interesting additions to the fighter class for that setting – which is distinctly not feudal (I think).

Fighters in Dark Sun are explicitly described as mass combat specialists and, eventually, troop leaders.

At 3rd level, they can teach weapon proficiencies to others.
At 4th level, they can operate siege equipment.
At 6th level, they can oversee construction of defenses.
At 7th level, they can command large groups of troops, gaining a "command diameter."
At 9th level, they can construct siege equipment.

This is pretty neat, but it will only be useful in a subset of campaign...

The fighter is a very generic class, and its ways to contribute out of combat should also be generic/flexible.