D&D 5E yes, this again: Fighters need more non-combat options

I’m sorry I haven’t been helpful. I will try to suspend my bias and help. I will try. Ok, something to boost fighters in the area of exploration and or social encounters.

Group leader: add half proficiency bonus to an ally’s roll on an action you have just attempted. E.g. you climb over a wall you can add half of your proficiency bonus to their roll. (You do not need to actually succeed nor do you need to be proficient in the skill)

Teamwork: Use your reaction to allow an ally to retry a skill check or reroll a saving throw. You may use this ability once. it recharges when you take a short or long rest.

W**l**d: for one hour make persuasion/intimidation checks with advantage after winning a fight.

Expecting trouble: if any ally can act during a surprise you may also act even if you were surprised.

Double time: you may double your overland movement for 8 hours without incurring exhaustion. This does not apply to tactical movement.

Nerves of steel: you remain calm when threatened. You may negate advantage against one opponent within 5 feet of you as a bonus action.

Undaunted: you may use your second wind to suppress one condition for a number of rounds equal to your proficiency modifier. (Including The condition Dead excepting death caused by a death spell, decapitation or disintegration )

Relentless: at the end of a short rest you may expend one hit dice to remove a level of exhaustion from yourself.( if that’s not a thing yet)

Derision: when someone with fewer hit points than you is in your presence you may impose a penalty to their social skill checks. This penalty is equal to twice your proficiency bonus. “Pay him no mind he’s full of piss and wind.”

Mistwell said:

Is it? Does this sound like what you and Hussar are saying? "I know what the replies will be: use your background skills, role-play your character, you can skill use skills you aren't proficient in, etc. I get it, I really do. And I don't disagree."

I think the OP's ideas are sound...and are very little like the things you guys seem to be advocating. His ideas are a fairly modest change using the existing Fighter mechanics found in some sub-classes and moving them to the core classes. The nature of his idea seems very less radical than what you guys seem to be advocating.

Click to expand...

[MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION], you kinda chopped off the important bit of the quote though:

I know what the replies will be: use your background skills, role-play your character, you can skill use skills you aren't proficient in, etc. I get it, I really do. And I don't disagree. But that hasn't been enough to fully convince me Fighters wouldn't do well with something else.

Click to expand...

Kinda left off the important bit there right? That sure, roleplay has its place, but, "Fighters wouldn't do well with something else".

Now, the notion of moving those features into the base class does kinda do the trick actually. Although, to be fair, the example I gave upthread was limited to the Battlemaster since several posters insisted that they wanted a fighter for lazy players who don't want to deal with complexity. Fair enough. My idea was to allow BM's to spend their superiority dice on skill checks. Don't see where that would be hugely over powered and would nicely do the trick as well. Might want to maybe grant an extra die or something somewhere because SD are a pretty limited resource, but, meh, it wouldn't hurt either way.

I made the mistake of making this sound like a do or die thing. It's not. I don't hate the fighter. I really don't. This is a proud nail issue for me. The fighter is ... almost there. It just needs a bit more seasoning and it would be perfect for me.

Every other class gets out of combat ribbons that are considerably more expansive than what a fighter gets. They just do. Fighters just need a bit of a nudge upwards and they'd be just right.

/edit - removed snark because I better start practicing what I preach.

To follow-up on my previous post, years ago I did a comparison of the 5e classes looking for abilities absolutely unique to each class – my thinking was that these abilities would shine a light on the "high concept" for each class. Ideally, the narrative identity and the mechanics would embrace and be mutually reinforcing. Here's what I found...



While it's not strictly about number of unique features – for example, some features may contribute more to illuminating narrative identity than others – I do think that this analysis shines a light on (a) how strong a class's narrative/identity/concept is, and (b) how closely the mechanical features map to that narrative/identity/concept.

I hate feat tax but I think every Fighter should take Ritual Caster and/or Magic Initiate at some point to help give them more to do outside of combat.

Mistwell said:

Is it? Does this sound like what you and Hussar are saying? "I know what the replies will be: use your background skills, role-play your character, you can skill use skills you aren't proficient in, etc. I get it, I really do. And I don't disagree."

I think the OP's ideas are sound...and are very little like the things you guys seem to be advocating. His ideas are a fairly modest change using the existing Fighter mechanics found in some sub-classes and moving them to the core classes. The nature of his idea seems very less radical than what you guys seem to be advocating.

Click to expand...

Yes. Also, what do you think I’m advocating?

CTurbo said:

I hate feat tax but I think every Fighter should take Ritual Caster and/or Magic Initiate at some point to help give them more to do outside of combat.

Click to expand...

Mass the class stand, yeah, probably. Or Skilled, or prodigy if they are of the right race (or have a DM who, like my group, thinks it’s dumb that prodigy is race limited), or one of the feats like Actor or Athlete or Keen Mind.

Id prefer a simpler solution that plays well with the simplicity of the champion, though, and doesn’t lock in feat choices just to shore up a lack in the actual class features.

doctorbadwolf said:

Right, I recognized feats earlier in the thread as a feature that helps, but the fact is most players don’t use them.

Click to expand...

How is this a problem with the class?

If players have the option to be good in other pillars of play and they opt to be better in combat instead, is it valid to say the class has nothing to do in other pillars?

If the bonus ASI/feats were restricted to force feats that affected other pillars of play, that would seem to meet your criteria of what you want, by limiting player options.

I get the desire to have more to do outside combat. And if your table wants to homebrew some add-on for fighters because that will make more fun for everyone, go for it. But I'm firmly on the side of those who think there is plenty to do for all classes outside of combat, including fighters, under the current mechanics of the game.

IMO, the PHB has everyone covered (pg 6):
[SECTION]2. The players describe what they want to do. Sometimes one player speaks for the whole party, saying, "We'll take the east door," for example. Other times, different adventurers do different things: one adventurer might search a treasure chest while a second examines an esoteric symbol engraved on a wall and a third keeps watch for monsters. The players don't need to take turns, but the DM listens to every player and decides how to resolve those actions.[/SECTION]

Ok, file that under "roleplay better" if you must, but it really is just a core part of the game. You don't need a button on the sheet to tell the DM what you'd like your PC to try. If you are discouraged because some other PC at the table has the better ability score and/or proficiency and/or class/sub-class ability for a particular task, I ask why? Optimization? If so, I submit that some of the most memorable actions in our games have been when a PC who is not the most mechanically "optimal" candidate for an action comes up with an idea, carries it out, and succeeds (or fails!) spectacularly.

Aside from all that, there is always the Help action (or whatever you'd like to call it outside combat) to aid your comrades in their non-combat tasks. Bard trying to persuade a guard to let the party through the door? Fighter stands behind him, flexing her muscles with hand on hilt of sword. Thief trying to sneak around to pilfer something from the Orc camp? Fighter causes distraction in other direction. Ranger trying to get up higher to scout the surrounding terrain? Fighter gives "ten" to get Ranger up to previously unreachable branches on highest tree in the grove. Etc...

doctorbadwolf said:

@Mistwell dndbeyond and wotc have stated that all of their extensive data shows that most players don’t use feats, by a significant margin. I know humans were called out as a surprising non-exception, but I don’t recall if fighters were, as well.

Click to expand...

But as far as I know, they haven't called out that the games are featless, which is what you are suggesting. As a matter of fact, the point about humans having more feats suggest that they are monitoring if characters have feats, which is a COMPLETELY different question and one that does not support that fighters can't take feats.

I'd say that the vast majority of my characters before their second ASI have no feats is true, yet I have never played in a featless game. I could take feats.

CTurbo said:

I hate feat tax but I think every Fighter should take Ritual Caster and/or Magic Initiate at some point to help give them more to do outside of combat.

Click to expand...

Good thing they have that extra feat at 6th level!

Hussar said:

If you don't have problems with the class, that's great. That's wonderful. But, why is it that every time someone does have a problem with the class it becomes, "Well, you have these problems because you just don't know how to play properly". Is there some particular reason you can't let us have a mechanical fix?

Click to expand...

Please provide the quotes of people saying you aren't allowed to modify your games to what you prefer. Or did you mean you want an official change to the class based on your preferences? Because that would be pretty ironic, you complaining about how you feel like people are telling you that your preference isn't allowed, but demanding official changes to the game that would do the exact same thing you're complaining about to a bunch of other players--eliminating the basic fighter class option from those who prefer that so you could have every class meet your personal complexity standards.

Hussar said:

Well, we're now about twelve pages into the thread and every single page has included multiple posts telling me that the problem doesn't actually exist and that no fix is needed.

Click to expand...

Provide quotes please of this happening multiple times on every single page. Because what you'll find are people saying that fixes aren't needed on a global scale. Which is entirely different than saying they aren't needed at your table if you feel the need to do so.

In what way is this helping me? And it's not like this is the first time. EVERY time this topic comes up, it gets buried under pages and pages of all and sundry loudly proclaiming how the problem isn't really there and we should all go away and shut up and play fighters quietly and happily.

Click to expand...

Provide quotes of people telling you to shut up and go away and play fighters quietly and happily.

IOW, perhaps if folks would spend just a tad less time telling me how they don't have this problem and either helping me find a solution or moving on to another thread, THAT would be just a smidgeon more helpful. Instead of page after page after page of thinly (and not so thinly) veiled insults and filibuster.

Click to expand...

Please provide quotes of people insulting you. Because as far as I can see, the only insults so far are from posters like ehren37 , who called players who like basic fighters dumb and lazy, who might only want basic fighters as some sort of revenge on jocks.


I imagine it's awfully easy to paint yourself like a victim when you set up an entire army of strawmen. It also sounds like you want an echo chamber, where everyone has to agree with how you feel on the topic or they aren't allowed to post. I don't know why, maybe to make you feel like you're the majority so WoTC should cater to your preferences, and thus you don't have to realize that your style of play, while perfectly valid, is not how the game is designed and thus the onus is on you to make those changes at your table to fit your needs.