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

Well this has turned out to be a great discussion! Thanks everyone. Lots of good ideas in here.

As I've read through the thread, I've become more convinced that the fighter needs something. All the arguments about why the fighter is fine - the player should role-play better, the DM needs to engage the player, use your background skills, everyone can roll skill checks, etc. - can be applied to EVERY class.

The thing is you don't hear those arguments being made about the other classes (maybe the barbarian occasionally). Why is that? Because the other classes have abilities that make up for it. They don't have to rely on the DM going out of his way to engage them or "role-play" more so they feel like they are contributing.

The other argument is that fighters get more feats so a player can use them to provide more non-combat options. While that is true, I don't think it's comparable by a long shot. As others have pointed out, the fighter is only getting 2 extra feats by level 12, which higher than most campaigns last. In addition, the first "extra" feat slot comes online at level 6. The fighter needs more options a lot earlier, like levels 1 and 2.

As far as skills go, of course every class can attempt any skill check. That's not the issue here. It's that fighters don't have anythink unique to offer the group when not in combat. And the skill checks they do make are usually covered by the other classes already, and are usually not as good anyway.

In my 30+ years of playing RPGs, every person that I played with - regardless of their experience, dedication, class they are playing, whatever - everyone wants to be able to do something cool and feel like they are contributing. The fighter just doesn't have it when not in combat.

GlassJaw said:

I've become more convinced that the fighter needs something.

Click to expand...

A forum poster wasn't persuaded to change his/her mind? Inconceivable.

...everyone can roll skill checks, etc....

Click to expand...

I think you are missing the point. At least my point (and since my point is obviously the best one, it's a good place to start).

Skill checks simply don't need to be all that common (I first wrote "shouldn't be", but that's my preference not a fact) in social interaction and exploration. You can just play the game, describing what you do, and unless the DM thinks the outcome is in doubt, stuff just happens. Having a class ability that gives you a bonus on social skills, or to navigation in the wilderness, might come in handy now and then, but most of the time you can just cruise along based on players narrating what they do.

A good idea or plan should be 95% of the work. The last 5% can get resolved by dice rolling. So if one class is 20% better at rolling dice...in some situations...that makes then 1% better at the non-combat pillars, in those situations. Use whatever %'s you want, but you still end up with a relatively trivial difference.

Most of it can be about your own creativity. That leaves a tiny bit reliant on mechanics.

My sense is that those who think the Fighter class is deficient think you need to make skill checks to have fun, and are rolling way too many dice.

...can be applied to EVERY class.

Click to expand...

Yes, exactly. Players of every class can contribute to non-combat by having ideas that are good enough that the DM doesn't call for dice rolls to resolve uncertainty.

GlassJaw said:

Well this has turned out to be a great discussion! Thanks everyone. Lots of good ideas in here.

As I've read through the thread, I've become more convinced that the fighter needs something. All the arguments about why the fighter is fine - the player should role-play better, the DM needs to engage the player, use your background skills, everyone can roll skill checks, etc. - can be applied to EVERY class.

Click to expand...

Not every class gets a free feat at levels 6 and 14. In fact, only one class does - Fighter. So no, not all the arguments can be applied to every class. One glaring one cannot. Because it's an "ability that makes up for" not having an other built in role playing feature. And those feats can grant them additional skill proficiencies, expertise, special skill-based abilities, and a host of similar things exactly like a rogue gets (for example).

The other argument is that fighters get more feats so a player can use them to provide more non-combat options. While that is true, I don't think it's comparable by a long shot. As others have pointed out, the fighter is only getting 2 extra feats by level 12, which higher than most campaigns last.

Click to expand...

It is not higher than most campaigns last, it's directly in the pocket of where most campaigns last, and one of those is 6th level which almost every campaign includes. How is this not comparable?

As for levels 1 and 2, they get Action Surge at level 2, which includes taking two of ANY action in the time it takes all others to do just one action. That action can be exploration oriented, or role playing oriented, or involve almost any set of skill checks. Where others can climb 15-30 feat in 6 seconds, the fighter could climb 30-45 feat with an action surge. Where others can make either an active perception check or an active investigation check in 6 seconds, you can do both with an action surge. Where others can move 15 feet when sneaking, the fighter can move 30. When the DM says "You can make either a history or religion check to try and remember something quickly to help you persuade the priest you mean well" you can make BOTH checks with an action surge. Is it a chase scene? Well, only the Fighter can dash twice in the time it takes the target to dash once! When you blow a skill check in many time-sensitive situations, you're screwed...but not the Fighter! The Fighter can blow a skill check, spend an action surge, and try it again or try an alternative skill check in the same time others can only try one skill check!

It's certainy fair to say we didn't persuade you. But, it's not fair to say they don't get unique things which can help with out of combat challenges. They do.

Mistwell said:

As for levels 1 and 2, they get Action Surge at level 2, which includes taking two of ANY action in the time it takes all others to do just one action. That action can be exploration oriented, or role playing oriented, or involve almost any set of skill checks. Where others can climb 15-30 feat in 6 seconds, the fighter could climb 30-45 feat with an action surge. Where others can make either an active perception check or an active investigation check in 6 seconds, you can do both with an action surge. Where others can move 15 feet when sneaking, the fighter can move 30. When the DM says "You can make either a history or religion check to try and remember something quickly to help you persuade the priest you mean well" you can make BOTH checks with an action surge.

It's certainy fair to say we didn't persuade you. But, it's not fair to say they don't get unique things which can help with out of combat challenges. They do.

Click to expand...

Heh. During Levels 2-4 the only thing I ever used Action Surge for was out of combat stuff. The most . . . uh, spotlightly . . . thing I did with was swim after an ally getting swept away by rapids, catch up to him and rescue him all at once. Without action surge I wouldn't have been able to grab both him and a branch to stop myself before going over a waterfall.

Satyrn said:

Heh. During Levels 2-4 the only thing I ever used Action Surge for was out of combat stuff. The most . . . uh, spotlightly . . . thing I did with was swim after an ally getting swept away by rapids, catch up to him and rescue him all at once. Without action surge I wouldn't have been able to grab both him and a branch to stop myself before going over a waterfall.

Click to expand...

This exact same thing happened to my dwarf fighter while exploring the Forge of Fury!

Mistwell said:

This exact same thing happened to my dwarf fighter while exploring the Forge of Fury!

Click to expand...

I was a weakly gnome saving a dwarf (totally taking advantage of my table's ruling that drinking a potion is a bonus action in order to quaff a potion of Giant's strength as I dove into the water)

The last official WOTC class popularity survey I saw was from back in April 2016. The most popular and most played class was the fighter. That couldn't be just from new players. So what we're seeing here is that the class doesn't need anything. There are just various wants based on personal preference and playstyle. And naturally there won't ever be consensus on what those wants are.

*Edit* and before someone says that popularity doesn't equal balance or something else along those lines, let me say that if the class truly needed all these things, and was as woefully behind all the the other classes like several people claim, then there is no way it would be popular, let alone the #1 class. I can't think of any other analogy where one thing was much worse than everything else in its segment, and yet was the most popular.

[MENTION=22103]GlassJaw[/MENTION] You can find my extensive work on redesigning the fighter in a grounded way to enhance its powers in terms of exploration & interaction, as well as in terms of story over here: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?535057-The-Warrior

It's quite extensive, so prepare for a "deep dive" if you read it.

Sacrosanct said:

The last official WOTC class popularity survey I saw was from back in April 2016.

Click to expand...

From Oct 2017. Still most popular.

ehren37 said:

So what you're saying is fighters can't have nice things, narrative control, etc because we need a class for those that can't be bothered to be particularly engaged. If you want those (ie, fun stuff), play a caster. I read it, I disagree. Why does the fighter have to be the dumb class or why can't we have a complex fighting type? Why can't wizards be the magic missile spammer noob class? I mean, other than some pathetic nerd revenge with making the "jock" class the subpar dummy option.

Click to expand...

Seriously you didn't read what I said. I didn't say, infer, or imply any of that. Look at my actual words that you quoted. Start with your assumption that "being more complex" means the same as "having nice things", which obviously isn't the same thing. And you can drop the whole "if players want this, they can't be bothered to be engaged or must have spurious motives." I mean, if you did read what I said, I explicitly called out how that attitude is flat out wrong so for you to bring it up again clearly shows you didn't read a single sentence of what you quoted.