D&D 5E Things that the non-magical Fighter could do

[Sadras]

Most ideas from any thread should be open to all classes. There is rarely any compelling reason to restrict them.

True.

And just for kicks...introducing Enworld's very own 4e Powers for 5e: Martial Silence and Climb Aboard.

Personally what I definitely do not want is a character sheet with powers. As DM I'd prefer to have a rough guideline of what is possible at various levels, with the PCs telling me what they want to do at the table and we quickly make a call (usually we do it as a group).

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Most ideas from any thread should be open to all classes. There is rarely any compelling reason to restrict them.

You could make the same argument for any non-magical power and many magical ones. There is, for example, no compelling reason, by that standard, to limit backstabs to Rogues. In reality, for example, the experts on stealth murder were never thieves and the like, and always warriors.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Personally what I definitely do not want is a character sheet with powers. As DM I'd prefer to have a rough guideline of what is possible at various levels, with the PCs telling me what they want to do at the table and we quickly make a call (usually we do it as a group).

Yes, exactly. The less design elements there are embedded in classes or other character-specific abilities, the better.

 

[Ahnehnois]

You could make the same argument for any non-magical power and many magical ones. There is, for example, no compelling reason, by that standard, to limit backstabs to Rogues. In reality, for example, the experts on stealth murder were never thieves and the like, and always warriors.

I could and I do. Backstab most certainly should not be the defining characteristic of a rogue/thief, nor should it be that character's exclusive purview. And even when you get into magic, the possibilities for what could happen when a straight-up fighter starts reading a scroll or praying to a divine power can be far more interesting than "nothing".

It's entirely possible to have class-based design with little or no exclusivity or niche protection.

 

[Thaumaturge]

I just assume there will be a feat that allows access to a limited version of combat superiority. Like there are feats to gain limited spell access.

And combat superiority is where the 4e fighter lives. If a group doesn't like the 4e fighter, it simply should disallow combat superiority.

Thaumaturge.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I could and I do. Backstab most certainly should not be the defining characteristic of a rogue/thief, nor should it be that character's exclusive purview. And even when you get into magic, the possibilities for what could happen when a straight-up fighter starts reading a scroll or praying to a divine power can be far more interesting than "nothing".

It's entirely possible to have class-based design with little or no exclusivity or niche protection.

Fair enough. That's directly at odds with D&D's design through the years, which has generally involved moderate exclusivity/niche protection (initially higher).

 

[Ahnehnois]

Fair enough. That's directly at odds with D&D's design through the years, which has generally involved moderate exclusivity/niche protection (initially higher).

It's generally involved starting with those things, and then, either through the course of an edition and between editions, tearing them down with variants and add-ons galore. 2e had lots of niche protection to start, but by the end you could kit up classes to do all kinds of off-type stuff. 3e had some to start, and virtually none by the end.

I'm just suggesting that we should skip to the end.

 

[Savage Wombat]

This is why I didn't have any objection to 4e's Power Sources rules. Saying that these abilities are the purview of Martial characters limits them appropriately, I'd say. Although (like with 3e feats) maybe fighters should have the ability to choose more of them.

 

[Chaltab]

Most ideas from any thread should be open to all classes. There is rarely any compelling reason to restrict them.

If they're not restricted by class then there's no compelling reason to have a class system. 'Restriction' doesn't necessarily mean a blanket prohibition, but there's no way a Wizard should be any good at Fighter maneuvers without some Multiclassing. The disintegration of niche protection is one of the things that made 3.X so unbalanced.

 

[Manbearcat]

You know, people have tried that with me over the years. It has never done anything but piss me off. Not that I won't defer to others but that deference is based on the belief the one being deferred to is in fact best suited to the situation. I do not believe I am particularly special wrt willpower either. Attack the problem; ignore the rivals.

I'm note sure what you're referring to when you say "people have tried that with me over the years." You could be speaking to any number of things. My gut tells me you're referring to leadership a la Bobby Knight or General Patton. Leadership, the moralization of your team/subordinates and the demoralization of those who oppose you comes in all shapes in sizes. If you haven't born witness to it, done it, or been a part of it means just that. It doesn't mean its not a "thing." Its very real. Ask any of the men who fought under Captain Dick Winters in Easy Company (who always led the charge, always had a solution, always put himself most at risk and never put his men at undue risk) on the Normandy Invasion and beyond and then had to deal with atrocious leadership during the Battle of the Bulge when Dick was promoted and moved (much to his chagrin) from the front lines.

Are we still talking Fighter or have we slipped into the Rogue? * several

Yes, we're talking about the Fighter. Athleticism is a Fighter's one absolutely uncompromising shtick outside of combat. Of course there is going to be overlap but it isn't the fault of the Fighter. Its the fault of D&D's poorly abstracted task resolution system which would do much better if it made all athletics and acrobatics contests a check that involved rolling the lower of two scores (Strength and Dex, Strength and Con, Dex and Con) versus target number. Every contest involves at least two of those attributes.

Requires a system where wounds are possible. Half the people who discuss hit point in-game manifestation reject that.

Not necessarily at all. And when I said wounds, I didn't just mean physical gashes. I meant it very generically. Being demoralized is being wounded (its your morale taking the hit). Mental and physical fortitude can be wounded. Overcoming being demoralized and mental setbacks/struggle in martial contests is as much the deal as anything else.

We have HP to play with. We use that. They're all kind of wonky (as we all know) but they do the job well enough.

So the Fighter kills the Bard and takes his stuff? No other class can offer inspiring leadership? I'd prefer to see that left open for all classes, actually.

No. As has been addressed above, the Warlord and Bard have a little overlap but not much. Charisma guy is about it. They do different things and they do those different things differently.

Did Montgomery fight on the front-line in WWII? Did Patton? It is certainly not the typical place for army commanders to appear.

He certainly could be fluffed as a battle-leader type. I've seen several Bard battle-leaders over the decades.

I was using the examples provided in the post to which I first replied.

Every single one of those leaders I mentioned were extraordinary field men. The reason that we know them is because they were extraordinary leaders on the front lines, which earned them promotion and commendation. Patton and Monty fought in WW1 and before (Patton fought on the front lines in the Pancho Villa campaign). Rommel is widely considered one of the best field leaders and soldiers of the 20th century. MacArthur is the same. Winters is best known for leading a ragtag group of disassembled paratroopers, undergeared and outgunned, in the textbook assault on a fortified gun position during the Normandy Invasion. His field ad-lib is still taught to this day. He is as perfect an example that I can think of of what a true battle captain means to a small infantry unit (from a morale perspective and from a tactical brilliance perspective). He perfectly captures the 4e D&D Warlord.