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

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?

On a generic class level, the only thing I could see would be a bonus to Athletic things. The Fighter base class is so generic as to be usable for a variety of character types. This leaves customization to backgrounds/skills, plus feats (if available).

I could see several out of combat benefits dedicated to specific sub-classes, however. A cavalier with bonuses to riding and/or followers. A knight with bonuses to social interactions. A brute with bonuses to intimidation and interrogation. A scout with bonuses to hiding and perception.

In an ideal world, each class would have different ways of engaging with each pillar of the game to accomplish similar or overlapping functional results.

To find a recently escaped villain, an arcane class would cast a spell like Discern Location, a priestly class would rely on divine inspiration and/or intervention, an artificer would create small seeking drones, a social class would engage a group of irregulars and tap into the grapevine listening for whispers of detection, and a stand-up martial class would lead the hue and cry posse.

To survive the environs of the basalt castle floating in the lava lake, an arcane class would change his form to flame itself, a priestly class would call for immunity to fire, artificer would create a temporary and delicate exo-suit, a social class would have contacts capable of providing some defense, and the martial class would rely on scavenged material (magical or non-magical) to bolster himself.

To reach the cloud castle, the arcane class would cast Fly, the priestly class would call for an apportation miracle, the artificer would craft wings from feathers and wax, the social class would have contacts to help, and the martial class would climb the mountain the cloud is drifting towards and leap across the gap at its narrowest point.

As it stands, D&D only really guarantees every class will support the combat pillar despite acknowledging the others.


*edit* Here's a link to a discussion from just before 5e was released discussing this topic. http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...d-a-fighter-versatile-out-of-combat-look-like

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.

Had the 5e fighter been designed with story in mind, a lot of these would be contained in the subclasses:
A knight would handle animals, ride, and have knowledge of courtly etiquette. A bounty hunter would have some tracking, and negotiation/intimidation skills. A gladiator would have had some performance abilities, reading a crowd, and celebrity related talents.

Since the class is generic AF and the subclasses are devoid of story, there's not a lot that really fits all fighters.

Sword of Spirit said:

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?

Click to expand...

How you phrased this question is telling.

First, the fact that you framed it as 'we need to give Fighters out of combat stuff' means you are only open to a very narrow range of options for how to fix class imbalance. The fact is there are a lot of ways that Fighters are heavily limited IN combat now you don't acknowledge. That means a wide variety of solutions are probably off the table for you already.

Second the fact that you used 'Wizards need to have Fighter stuff added to them if we give anything at all to Fighters' sounds defensive and strange. The Wizard can already end combats in one round in many ways. The Wizard can take on foes that Fighters have absolutely no chance against. The Wizard can choose when and where to fight far more than a Fighter ever can. Why on earth do you immediately go there?

Third, why are you thinking if one class gets better, then it's automatically unfair to another class? Bringing balance means it's unbalanced now, and by definition that means some classes need to be buffed more than others. Do you just fundamentally disagree with the idea of imbalance existing now? It seems like you might.

So, IMO, I'm having a hard time believing this will be a productive discussion. Before I bother, I'm curious: Why you focused only on 'out of combat' for Fighters, why you specifically chose a -for-tat relative power increase for Wizards, and how open are you to solutions outside of your presumed 'out of combat' realm?

I've found the fighter class is only as boring out of combat as the player is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's also worth remembering that while the fighter class gets few built-in out-of-combat abilities, characters also have their race and background, each of which might provide additional options.

The fighter might not be able to do much outside of combat, but the character might be very skilled at some things.

Attract followers. So, you know, he can have a follower wizard do all that magic stuff for him.

Sword of Spirit said:

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?

Click to expand...

I imagine for people unfamiliar with AD&D and older editions that the argument that "fighters need non-combat features" seems strange or possibly an attempt to homogenize class design.

Back in older editions, fighter followers were a big thing. Yes, in either 1e or 2e other classes got followers BUT...

(1) The numbers, equipment, and skill level of other classes' followers were never as impressive as the fighter, and...

(2) Becoming a baron was built into the fighter in older editions. They were the only class that had explicit ties to political leadership and the ability to gain tax revenue.

That unique aspect of becoming a baron was stripped away from the fighter in 3e, or possibly in later 2e, can't remember exactly.

You may argue "Well good! I never wanted to play a political leader!" and that's fine, but it doesn't change the fact that something was taken away from the fighter which gave it unique non-combat functionality.

And nothing took its place.

So that's where the argument comes from (an argument I highly support) that the fighter needs non-combat class features. And I think [MENTION=37579]Jester David[/MENTION] hit the nail on the head in his comment above that the best place for such features are the sub-classes.