Increasing Out-Of-Combat Effectiveness For All Classes

[Falling Icicle]

After watching the PAX East seminar, the thing that had me the most excited was the talk of making every class fun to play and have things to do outside of combat. They mentioned bringing things like Charm spells back, which makes me very happy. The wizard pre-4e already was very versatile outside of combat, depending upon his spell selection, so they really don't have to try very hard to make them effective in non-combat situations. Rogues, likewise, had a ton of skills that were useful in a variety of situations. But what about the Fighter? I'm anxious to see what they'll do to make Fighters effective in social and other non-combat situations. Hopefully this will mean the end of the stupid, skill-less fighter once and for all.

 

[TarionzCousin]

The fighter should have the Handle Animal skill so he can shepherd the return of the most important retro party member: the mule.

 

[Frostmarrow]

In everyday life it's a good idea to keep a fighter friend close by. They are strong and good at moving furniture and bracing building material when renovating. I have a friend who acts as his own car jack when the need arises. Another friend can singlehandedly drag a piano five flights. It's amazing how strong a strong person actually can be.

You would think that there would be plenty of opportunities for feats of strength in a fantasy game. But somehow there aren't. Maybe we need to put bend bars and encumberance back on the character sheet?

 

[Incenjucar]

At the very least they should throw in ideas like "Your fighter can use Athletics to flex and give the bard a +2 bonus to intimidate or diplomacy, depending on the audience."

 

[Doug McCrae]

If the fighter can do things outside combat then it's not D&D!!!

 

[mkill]

"Raw Muscle" should have been a 3E/4E skill. I guess in 5E it could be handled as a class/background bonus to strength checks.

There are a lot of things Fighters should be good at outside of combat: keeping watch (Perception), keeping their armor and weapons in shape (Craft), climbing, swimming, jumping... depending on their background, fighters should also be good at talking to townsfolk (town guard), nobles (night), military types and bureaucrats (soldier) or employers (mercenary).

It sounds basic and straightforward, and it probably is. For me, the problem, especially in 3E, wasn't so much that the fighter had no supernatural skills or spells to use for exploration and interaction. The problem was a combination of
* pitiful 2 base skill points
* typically low Int that gave no extra skill points
* at higher level, the base ability score becomes irrelevant and only skill points count
* completely anemic skill list - not even Profession (as the only one!!)
* class skills that don't connect with typical Fighter ability scores - can't Intimidate with Strength
* high penalty for taking cross-class skills
* No Knowledge skills for typical Fighter lore: no Knowledge (warfare)/(strategy)/(tactics)/(logistics), no Knowledge (heraldry)

In other words, the reason fighters were useless in non-combat situations is not tied to the Fighter archetype itself. It's rather that they got completely screwed by the 3E skill system. (And then screwed again when simple first-level spells give massively better bonuses than they can achieve with skill points alone until level 20...)

An ability score check / skill system that balances better between the classes should help a great deal.
* give all classes the same amount of skills/bonuses/NWPs
* if you use skill points, don't tie them to one ability score
* the difference between trained and untrained in an area shouldn't scale to a point where untrained characters don't even need to try
* just say no to class skills - recommend certain skills, but there should be no penalty for picking skills against the archetype
* add useful knowledges like Knowledge (warfare)

 

[Frostmarrow]

If the fighter can do things outside combat then it's not D&D!!!

I beg to differ! Bar bending and gate lifting has always been an important part of being a fighting man.

Fighters should be able to drink a lot. Fighters should feel free to be drunk at anytime. Inebriated fighters should be more effective than straight edge ones. –Other than ranged fighters of course (whom aren't true fighters at all truth be told).

Some fighters should be able to craft weapons, others should be into animal husbandry, some fighters should be great leaders and naturally a good portion of the fighters should be poets.

***

Seriously, there are just a small number of things an adventurer needs to be able to do. The difference between the classes is how they go about doing them. For instance, let's look at doors. Fighters break them down, rogues pick the locks, wizards knock, while clerics respect doors being barred.

I think we should look at what ends adventurers try to reach. Adventurers want Access. Your class dictates what means you employ.
Gaining gear dirt cheap is an end. Intimidate is a means. Sweet talking and outright deceit are others.

 

[dkyle]

Assuming we end up with Race, Class, Background, and Theme, I'd like to see out-of-combat capabilities primarily be tied to Background. A character skilled at combat magic (via Class and/or Theme) would not necessarily have a huge bag of non-combat magic tricks, unless he takes a magical Background. And a character whose Class/Theme are not magical, might still take a magical Background (think UMD-capable Rogues in 3.X, and anyone who buys Ritual Caster in 4E).

As far as magical vs. non-magical Backgrounds, I'd like to see the balance work out like:

Non-magical Backgrounds would tend to be specific. They represent a significant time and effort investment in learning particular skills.

Magical Backgrounds would tend to be more general. They'd represent time and effort invested on learning how to "do magic", but magic itself is flexible. However, magic would tend to be like 4E rituals; they'd be more costly (more GP-worth of materials for crafting, healing surge or hit point costs for other tasks), take more time, and/or require a higher DC check.

There would be exceptions, of course. A Jack-of-all-trades background would be non-magical, but might borrow some mechanics from magical background designs.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Looking at 3E and 4E combat, 3E had skills and utility magic. Utility magic, being abilities useable once per day(spell slot) tended to be "I win" buttons and generally trumped skills. Out of combat magic in 4E got nerfed hard, not necessarily to balance classes but IMO to prevent magic from trumping skills, as they were pushing skills as the primary non-combat resolution mechanism in 4E(and giving most classes fair access to skills, though not equal). Ritual magic was there, but in 4E due to its gold cost was a party resource more than a character resource.

I found 4E's skill focus a bit dry, and 3E's version lopsided(after you got to higher levels, non-combat was dominated by magic). The best way to me would be for everybody to get non-combat "I win" buttons, in addition to skills. Wizards and such get their spells, and non-magical characters get non-magical "I win" abilities because they are just that good.

 

[Blackwarder]

One of the main reasons I'm optimistic about the idea of backgrounds and themes is that they seem to disconnect feats and skills from classes and if that is really the case than its a good thing in my book.

Warder