Should fighters be skill monkeys?

Much as there's been some discussion that if there's a feat to allow X, then that's the design space for it and you can't do it without a feat.

I think that a sacred cow of D&D is that the Rogue and Bard are the skill monkeys, so therefore the fighter can't be.

I have more an more become convinced by people who have been saying to combine the fighter and rogue. Allow a class that focuses on mundane solutions. Make it a skill monkey since that's the epitome of non-magical problem solving, and then lots of choices - do I want to be a lightly armored skirmisher or a heavy tank? Melee or range, and can I fit thrown and unarmed into that? Sneaky, mounted, fast - what's my usual modus operandi?

DEFCON 1 said:

The only reason and way we keep these classes separate is by arbitrarily designing story reasons why this is true.

Click to expand...

That is one reason among many, but far from the "only" reason.

Niche protection, so that different characters fill different spots and therefore all have chances at the spotlight as "the person to do X".

Feeling like D&D - classes are a sacred cow, and even more so is that different ability scores are used for different classes which leads to an even greater differentiation of feel between, say, a CHR focused class vs. a DEX-based vs. one that wants INT. Different strong skills, different roles based on those, etc.

Keep characters from being homogeneous - this is somewhat related to niche protection but different enough to bring up, and works across different games. Any system that allows multiple power/features that interact with each other will have some combinations that reinforce each other and work better together. If you combine all of the classes, I think you'd really see characters with the same combinations showing up in game after game as well as within the same party.

Require a team - by splitting what you need to adventure successfully, D&D requires a teamwork and mutual dependencies. It make you value the other characters because you can't do everything well and need the support of the others. If more options are available for each character, there will be a lot more self-sufficient characters that just need teammates because of the number of foes, but otherwise doesn't rely on them to support.

There was a thread several months ago about the fighter being too weak in the non-combat pillars of the game (social, exploration). My answer was that the 5e fighter is in much better shape in that regards because of backgrounds, but that perhaps having the class have an extra skill would help (3 instead of 2).

So it's reasonable. I don't think it would step on the toes of the ranger or rogue too much, because they have a lot more (expertise, spells etc) to support their non combat than just skills.

Quickleaf said:

I agree the fighter should do more than "just fight." It's a holdover of an unfortunate name & regressive game design, in my opinion, where features of fighters in older editions were steadily dropped or made universal to all character classes without introducing anything to fill that void.

Click to expand...

That's part of the regressive game design, the other part is leaving the Thief in, even though anyone can have skills, now.

And, that hurts the fighter being able to do more than "just fight," because....

However, I disagree the fighter should be a "skill monkey." That's the rogue,

Click to expand...

Making room for the rogue leaves the fighter with "just fight."

and that's as it should be.

Click to expand...

...that's as it has been since '75, anyway.

Jacob Lewis said:

. . . alliteration toad? . . .

Click to expand...

Was the alliteration toad bitten by a radioactive alligator?

Blue said:

That is one reason among many, but far from the "only" reason.

Niche protection, so that different characters fill different spots and therefore all have chances at the spotlight as "the person to do X"..

Click to expand...

What are the niches? They are ALL based upon the story of the game. None of it is based upon the actual math and game mechanics. Even the ability scores are all purely story and fluff. Right now we have Ability 1, Ability 2, Ability 3, 4, 5 & 6. In every single case... the game mechanics are exactly the same. The DM chooses a number (like 10, 15, 20 etc.), a player rolls a die, and adds the number that is associated with Ability 1, Ability 2, or Ability 3 etc. and tries to get higher than the number the DM chose. It's only through the STORY that we all at the table agree and accept that Ability 2 is going to be consider "Dexterity", and that its because of the story the DM is telling that the reason we are using Ability 2 is because the fluff of "Dexterity" is what applies to try and affect the story.

The way we keep characters from being homogenous is by just saying each character will focus on different parts of the story, their "niche" and thus certain numbers they use get to be higher and more likely to occur in those situations where their math comes up. But the math itself has little to do with it. This "niche" over here gets to add an extra 1d4 to a roll because reasons (for example, because they "cast a spell" [story] that was "granted to them by their deity" [story] that "blesses his allies" [story] to make them "more effective in combat" [story].) Whereas that "niche" over there gets to add an extra 1d6 to a roll because reasons (they "inspired" [story] their allies with "brave talk" [story] which allows those allies to "accomplish a task they have to do" more easily [story].)

And its the same exact thing with stuff like granting extra damage on attack rolls. The actual mechanics are nothing but numbers. Numbers that without the story layered upon them have no real differences-- it's roll a 20-sided die (or an 8-sided die, or 4-sided die), add a few numbers to it chosen for reasons, and try and beat a number the DM arbitrarily chooses. And because these actual mechanics can be rather boring, we give them PURPOSE by layering a story on top of them. And the story is why D&D is what it is, rather than just a random series of dice actions like craps or Yahtzee.

To answer the OP: not by default, but rather by character development. If there was a means to optionally boost a fighter's skills, without taking levels in another class, at the fair cost of a few combat features, that would be interesting to me - as long as the skills gained do not render a rogue redundant.

DEFCON 1 said:

What are the niches? They are ALL based upon the story of the game. None of it is based upon the actual math and game mechanics.

Click to expand...

A wizard is as good at front line tanking as a fighter? A fighter is as good a healer as cleric?

I'm sorry, can you post again but starting from reality?

You give examples where you quote game mechanics (such as effects of spells (and by extension what classes have access to those spells) and call it story. It's not story, it's design and mechanics.

The only thing I can think about is that you are taking design choices on mechanics, how to use them, and who has access to what effects and using the incorrect label "story" for them.

Tony Vargas said:

I'm on a tear about this from other threads: It's all the fault of the original Thief in Greyhawk Supplement II, c1975.

Click to expand...

Actually, it predates that just a bit. I'm not sure if you've read about it or not, but you may find this and this interesting concerning the origins of the Thief.

Its an interesting comparison with the rogue as a dex fighter wjth a criminal background (i don't know about y'all, but i see a lot of ex criminals in 5e games!), is just as good at picking locks or disabling traps as a rogue (disregarding expertise). So in a sense that niche has already been stepped on.

What differentiates a rogue in 5e is sneak attack, uncanmy dodge, evasion and later things like reliable talent.

Ultimately without giving the fighter expertise and reliable talent you could give him 2 or 3 extra proficiencies even and he would not be able to outshine a rogue (or a bard)