D&D 5E Why Don't Barbarians or Fighters Get Bonus Skills?

[Sunseeker]

Also, Barbarians are untrained warriors because that is what their entries state in every iteration of D&D they've been in. Off the top of my head, the 3.x Barbarian says "The barbarian is an excellent warrior. Where the fighter’s skill in combat comes from training and discipline, however, the barbarian has a powerful rage."
No training, no discipline, hit things with a big stick.

So, wait a minute here, you're using two distinctly different sources for you lore.
First you're using the real world for fighters in arguing that professional fighters(soldiers) are specific training, where more generic "guys who pick up weapons and hit things" fighters lack such training. You claim that it's immersion hampering for you to have all fighters have the same skills, when you feel that fighters should reflect the real world and those that fight as a profession that should have specific skill sets.

THEN you're using what D&D defines as a barbarian to argue that they are untrained, when the real-world historical concept of a barbarian was simply a term applied to pretty much any raider from the north who lacked the "refinement" of the Mediterranean cultures when looked at of course, from that "refined" perspective. The truth was that barbarians were often very well trained in combat and related physical skills, "barbarians" were often excellent survivalists who, unlike the "trained" and "skilled" soldiers from Rome had the ability to last much longer in the rugged northern European territory without aid.

So which is it? Are we using real-world history to define classes? Or are we using what D&D has "traditionally" defined as the class?

Using your own quote there, D&D considered fighters, all of them to be disciplined and trained.

 

[Li Shenron]

Why wouldn't fighters and barbarians learn some things as part of their training and lifestyles other than how to fight?

Maybe because their class is not their lifestyle and didn't necessarily require training. Maybe because their background is their lifestyle i.e. it's what they do every single day except when on an adventure, it's their role in society and it's what it earns them a living, whether they were trained by someone or on their own.

You can assume every Fighter had to be trained hard before being level 1. But it could be said also that a mere 10% higher chance of hitting with a sword (compared to a peasant of similar Str) is simply the result of being naturally inclined to fighting.
You can assume every 1st level Cleric has learned to cast spells because he was trained in a temple by others who knew how to cast spells. But it could be said also that he just developed the ability to perform miracles spontaneously (clerical spells as miracles are in fact a not so rare interpretation of their spellcasting), i.e. Cleric more like a saint rather than a priest.
Rogues stopped being Thieves in 3ed, before that there was quite a clear connection between their class and their lifestyle, but after that the connection has become optional, and the Rogue included more archetypes than just the Thief; it could also be said that a 1st level Rogue is someone naturally talented at hacking things and improvising: he doesn't have to had training, he might just see a lock and instinctively manage by trial-and-error at figuring out how to jam it.
Wizards are usually seen like someone who really required training or study even for 1st level, but before the 3ed Sorcerers the same Wizard class also had to be used to represent naturally gifted people who just cast spells without even knowing why.

The the Fighter, the Cleric, the Rogue and the Wizard walk into their first dungeon... and put their natural talents and inclinations into use. The Fighter learns a lot just from his first few fights about how to control his natural battle instincts, the Cleric understands more about his inner gifts, the Rogue records his successes and failure and turns them into expertise, the Wizard... well I guess the Wizard is again the most difficult of the bunch to explain

But in practice... all characters in D&D advance in their class by gathering experience, which comes from doing their things during adventures, not training. There aren't training rules in D&D, AFAIK there have never been any in the core books of any edition. Therefore it's not so necessary to see that 1st level as training-based, when the other levels from 2nd onward are not (directly at least) training-based.

I'm not against your view on training, it's not bad at all. I just want to point out that there is another view, and D&D is not far off from it

 

[Sekhmet]

[MENTION=93444]shidaku[/MENTION] My argument is that, within D&D, there has never been a mention of Barbarians being trained soldiers, and that Fighters are traditionally such a wide variety of kinds of people, that forcing them into the soldier role (one of the many that are open to them) is inappropriate. I'm all for giving these people skills for different backgrounds, but tacking them on to the base class is sloppy and inappropriate.

The Barbarian from the North, for example, might have Survival (very difficult place to live), Climb (avalanches and rockfalls can alter terrain dramatically), or Jump (leaping from rock to rock is a constant consideration in mountain climbing). He probably has Use Rope. He wouldn't have Swim (water is deadly in these environments, you steer clear), and he definitely wouldn't have Search (extra time spent in the wilderness means extra possibilities of snowstorms, frigid wind, or encounters), though you could argue for Spot.
The Barbarian from the Jungle wouldn't have Jump (there really isn't a need to jump in a Jungle), but he'd have Climb (ambushing from trees). While he'd still may pick up Survival (though far less necessary in the jungle than in the North), he's far more likely to be able to Swim.
The Barbarian from the Plains might have picked up Ride instead of Jump and Climb. No real need for jumping or climbing, and Spot isn't really an issue anymore, either. Survival is slightly more important than in the Jungle, but still not a primary concern.

The Fighter who was a Soldier would have no need for Survival - his food, trail, and safety is secured by other members of the military with those specific jobs. He can probably run, for a long time, and then kill things when he gets there. He doesn't jump, climb, swim, or use ropes. He doesn't have Knowledge - Anything, and he was likely never taught to ride animals.
The Fighter who was a Nobleman, who became a proud Knight, will have Diplomacy, Knowledge (Military Tactics or History), Ride, and Spot, without a doubt. He picked up spotting while on long hunts with his father and betters, was drilled in history and tactics from the time he was a child, and riding has become second nature to him. He has no business jumping, climbing, or living in the wilderness.
The Fighter who was an Enforcer for some criminal organisation picked up an entirely different set of skills - Spot, Search, Intimidate, and Handle Animal could be called for.

All trained Fighters - pick up sword, swing at things, but with a variety of different skills based on the environment their background puts them in.

ALL Wizards MUST learn Knowledge skills during training as a Wizard.
ALL Monks MUST learn athleticism skills during training as a Monk.
ALL Rogues MUST learn thievery during training as a Rogue.
NOT ALL Fighters or Barbarians MUST learn skills outside of hitting things and taking hits.

This is the reason they do not get bonus skills.

 

[mlund]

They really need to bite the bullet and trade out "Skills" in their exclusive little silos for "Talents" that can overlap and function more like the Profession skills in 3.X did. Then the Fighter could have "Man of Action," where he gets his skill die for action-hero-type stunts, while the Barbarian could have "Rover" to add to checks involving avoiding natural hazards, finding his way by land or sea, and finding things to forage or pillage.

 

[Obryn]

ALL Wizards MUST learn Knowledge skills during training as a Wizard.
ALL Monks MUST learn athleticism skills during training as a Monk.
ALL Rogues MUST learn thievery during training as a Rogue.
NOT ALL Fighters or Barbarians MUST learn skills outside of hitting things and taking hits.

This is the reason they do not get bonus skills.

Why would Wizards and Clerics learn more than magic/religion?

It's a bonus skill that can be used for being better at something. That "something" isn't locked in stone. And yes, I think both classes clearly learn more than hacking at things while becoming paragons of athleticism.

I am still unclear why wizards/clerics should learn stuff outside their area of expertise, rogues should all learn specific skills, but neither fighters nor barbarians pick up athletic or survival skills as a bonus. If your argument is "nobody gets bonus skills," fine, but this is a major disconnect.

-O

 

[Sekhmet]

[MENTION=11821]Obryn[/MENTION] Wizards and Clerics learn Knowledge skills related to their teaching. Knowledge Arcana, Knowledge Religion. These are tied in so clearly to their role that it can't be disputed.
Rogues have always relied on skills and expertise to survive. Skills have always been one of the very foundations of the class.

Fighters and Barbarians do not have such a strong tie to any skill or set of skills. They learn to FIGHT. They spend their time learning to FIGHT. They FIGHT.

Wizards study.
Clerics pray.
Rogues steal.
Fighters fight.

 

[Sunseeker]

@shidaku My argument is that, within D&D, there has never been a mention of Barbarians being trained soldiers, and that Fighters are traditionally such a wide variety of kinds of people, that forcing them into the soldier role (one of the many that are open to them) is inappropriate. I'm all for giving these people skills for different backgrounds, but tacking them on to the base class is sloppy and inappropriate.

The Barbarian from the North, for example, might have Survival (very difficult place to live), Climb (avalanches and rockfalls can alter terrain dramatically), or Jump (leaping from rock to rock is a constant consideration in mountain climbing). He probably has Use Rope. He wouldn't have Swim (water is deadly in these environments, you steer clear), and he definitely wouldn't have Search (extra time spent in the wilderness means extra possibilities of snowstorms, frigid wind, or encounters), though you could argue for Spot.
The Barbarian from the Jungle wouldn't have Jump (there really isn't a need to jump in a Jungle), but he'd have Climb (ambushing from trees). While he'd still may pick up Survival (though far less necessary in the jungle than in the North), he's far more likely to be able to Swim.
The Barbarian from the Plains might have picked up Ride instead of Jump and Climb. No real need for jumping or climbing, and Spot isn't really an issue anymore, either. Survival is slightly more important than in the Jungle, but still not a primary concern.

The Fighter who was a Soldier would have no need for Survival - his food, trail, and safety is secured by other members of the military with those specific jobs. He can probably run, for a long time, and then kill things when he gets there. He doesn't jump, climb, swim, or use ropes. He doesn't have Knowledge - Anything, and he was likely never taught to ride animals.
The Fighter who was a Nobleman, who became a proud Knight, will have Diplomacy, Knowledge (Military Tactics or History), Ride, and Spot, without a doubt. He picked up spotting while on long hunts with his father and betters, was drilled in history and tactics from the time he was a child, and riding has become second nature to him. He has no business jumping, climbing, or living in the wilderness.
The Fighter who was an Enforcer for some criminal organisation picked up an entirely different set of skills - Spot, Search, Intimidate, and Handle Animal could be called for.

All trained Fighters - pick up sword, swing at things, but with a variety of different skills based on the environment their background puts them in.

The problem here is that this would create an unnecessary amount of granularity. Bob would practically need to be interviewed by the DM before his character sees play.
"I want to play a Barbarian."
"From the north or the south?"
"um...north."
"Okay that gives him +2 to endurance checks against cold, from the mountains or the forests?"
"Uh...forests?"
"Okay from temperate forests, coniferous forests, montane forests or boreal forests?"
"Uh...Jim what's it matter?"
"Well I need to know if you get a bonus against animals, and specifically the ones that live in those forests, and the types of weather there for your survival bonuses..."
"Ya know what, this is just too much, how about I just play a fighter?"
"Okay...would you like to be a knight, a solider, a mercenary, a militiaman or a pit-fighter?"
*facepalm*

I get it, different people from different places have different specialties, but the type of granularity you're calling for is stupid.

ALL Wizards MUST learn Knowledge skills during training as a Wizard.
ALL Monks MUST learn athleticism skills during training as a Monk.
ALL Rogues MUST learn thievery during training as a Rogue.
NOT ALL Fighters or Barbarians MUST learn skills outside of hitting things and taking hits.

This is the reason they do not get bonus skills.

This is a poor reason and even worse examples. You're choosing not to break down Wizards, Monks and Rogues in the same way you are fighters in order to make your point, it's a lie-by-omission fallacy.

ALL wizards have to know how to cast spells. Great...there's a lot of different spells and I'm sure different schools train wizards differently. A Wizard who focuses on sustained spells is likely going to be heartier and more athletic than a Wizard who focuses on spells of the mind. A Wizard who trains in casting lots of necrotic spells is likely to be more charming to offset his unnatural aura.
There are TONS of different monk schools. Physical training is classically used only as a mode of learning dicipline and self restraint. A great deal of time is spent in mental contemplation, aka: meditation. And the physical training differs depending on the school of martial arts they're teaching, and the same applies to meditation, different sects meditate differently. This is reflected in their skills.

Any Fighter or Barbarian worth two pence is going to learn some general skills beyond hitting things and taking hits. They're going to be skills revolving around physical feats. Sure, a Fighter from the south might know more about swimming than a fighter from the north. But that does not preclude a fighter from the north living by a lake and thusly knowing how to swim. It is an athletic skill and is very likely going to be in the repertoire of pretty much everyone whose class revolves around physical feats.


In short: to argue that fighters and barbarians should get no skills until we determine the exact longitude and latitude from whence they came is asinine. Even if we did, a quick survey would tell you that the vast majority of their skill overlap.

 

[Obryn]

[MENTION=11821]Obryn[/MENTION] Wizards and Clerics learn Knowledge skills related to their teaching. Knowledge Arcana, Knowledge Religion. These are tied in so clearly to their role that it can't be disputed.
Rogues have always relied on skills and expertise to survive. Skills have always been one of the very foundations of the class.

Fighters and Barbarians do not have such a strong tie to any skill or set of skills. They learn to FIGHT. They spend their time learning to FIGHT. They FIGHT.

Wizards study.
Clerics pray.
Rogues steal.
Fighters fight.

Wizards and Clerics get a choice from a list of associated knowledge skills.

You have not said why athletic characters should not get a choice from a list of associated athletic skills. I agree it shouldn't be set in stone. My question is, "Why should they have fewer skills?"

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

What I'm saying is that I want fewer skills per character overall, and it's easier to get away with not giving skills to warrior types.

This is why people say fighters can't have nice things. Your goal is a SYSTEM-WIDE mechanical preference (fewer skills per character), but you're only specifically applying that preference to the fighter, because the fighter is such a broad concept that no one skill seems "required" in the way that Knowledge: Arcana is "required" to be a wizard.

If the broke down the fighter into a bunch of better-defined sub-classes, like Soldier, Brute, Mercenary, Bounty Hunter, etc., you'd probably be fine with each of those classes starting with one free skill too.

I'd say that in this case, class balance trumps "fewer skills" as a design concern, and if every other class gets 1-4 bonus skills, fighters and barbarians should get at least one as well. While there is no one skill that every fighter needs, each individual fighter probably has at least one extra skill that's well-suited to his style.

 

[Sekhmet]

[MENTION=11821]Obryn[/MENTION] You have not said why Fighters and Barbarians are "athletic" characters.
I'll say it one last time - tie skills into Backgrounds, leave the core class out of it. Not one skill says "Hey, all Fighters would have this", nor by extension a group of skills that suggest "Hey, most Fighters will know these."


[MENTION=93444]shidaku[/MENTION]
Okay. Get rid of Backgrounds, because that is exactly what I'm calling for and describing here.
Yes, some Wizards will be different than other Wizards. Some trained differently than others. ALL will have learned Knowledge skills during their studying, because they are Wizards. This is integral to the idea of the class. This is what makes Wizards, Wizards. If they did not study arduously, and instead learned magic through some other source, they would be Sorcerers. Sorcerers would not get Knowledge skills, because it is not integral to their class.
You're right, some Monks will be from different schools, and no different skills because of that. ALL Monks will learn different feats athleticism during their training, because they are Monks. This is integral to the idea of the class. If they did not train their bodies arduously, they would not be Monks.
Barbarians and Fighters have no such general training outside of combat. The integral idea of their class is to fight, not to swim, climb, jump, study, craft, heal, pray, or otherwise involve skills whatsoever. The argument that they should be given bonus skills is saying that skills are integral to their class.