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

[Uchawi]

Hmm, what if they gave the Fighter the ability to really summon up a lot of fighting spirit and attack everything in front of him for a set amount of damage, say 3d6, with half that much on a miss. Start him out with 2 uses of the ability per long rest, but give him more uses and crank up the damage as he levels up.

We can call it: Burning Hands.

I would take a cue from coup de grace, since anyone can do that under the right circumstances, and offer an ability where if a fighter has an opponent pinned downed or restrained the hurt train starts rolling.

 

[Nagol]

I would take a cue from coup de grace, since anyone can do that under the right circumstances, and offer an ability where if a fighter has an opponent pinned downed or restrained the hurt train starts rolling.

At one point n a 3.5 game I gave Fighters the following ability to demonstrate a point:

"Once per day per 5 class levels, as a Standard action, a Fighter can designate any creature within normal weapon range dead -- no attack roll necessary or saving throw allowed".

The thing was it didn't matter materially. In-combat is not where the Fighter's weakness lies. The Fighter class is quite good at making creatures dead through normal force of arms.

Sure if you want to add neat-o/gee-whiz tactical manoeuvres, go for it. The superiority die can use the workout. The basic lack lies in the other facets of the game, however.

 

[Uchawi]

I am all for fighters gaining some ability in the non-combat arena as well. That is why I hoped maneuvers would be a spell equivalent, so there might be some common skill based maneuvers or even ones that require a save for pure martial classes.

 

[Greg K]

They've been garbage in precisely three editions of D&D. 3.0, 3.5, and 3.PF. That's because 3.0 broke the multiclassing system and meant that you fell a lot of levels behind in each class rather than only 1-2 before you hit level 10.

Meh. In my opinion, if using multiclassing, they should fall farther behind. What they should have done was include a fighter/mage base class in the PHB rather than rely on the hoop jumping of multi-classing and PrC as a band-aid (edit: again, my opinion).

 

[Bluenose]

Meh. In my opinion, if using multiclassing, they should fall farther behind. What they should have done was include a fighter/mage base class in the PHB rather than rely on the hoop jumping of multi-classing and PrC as a band-aid (edit: again, my opinion).

I think it's a good opinion, though. My preferred implementations of warrior-mage types include the 4e versions (Bladesinger, swordmage, some others); the BD^D Elf; and the classes some retroclones based on BD&D provide. What they have in common is that they're designed as a class from the start, rather than crunching two separate classes together and hoping it works. You'll note that no-one asks for a warrior-priest class, and that I think is largely because the Cleric already does that job (and there's no base priest class that doesn't have fighting skill in most editions). If it's good enough for that archetype (though whether the warrior-priest is an archetype is open to question) then it should be good enough for the warrior-mage.


Glad to see at least a few things being suggested for fighters to do, after the predictable burst of suggestions that they shouldn't have anything unique because if a Fighter can do it anyone should be able to. Perhaps one out-of-combat one, if a situation calls for an Endurance/Constitution check the Figher makes it automatically for a number of rounds equal to their Fighter level.

 

[Manbearcat]

Glad to see at least a few things being suggested for fighters to do, after the predictable burst of suggestions that they shouldn't have anything unique because if a Fighter can do it anyone should be able to. Perhaps one out-of-combat one, if a situation calls for an Endurance/Constitution check the Figher makes it automatically for a number of rounds equal to their Fighter level.

I think on the above there is design-space to work off of the Essentials Ranger situational group buff stuff. 5e could allow Fighter's to provide their proficiency dice/mod or saving throw bonus (Str and Con?) for group checks on exploration tasks or hazard/exposure avoidance on some kind of scheduled basis (short rest or long rest refresh or something).

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Meh. In my opinion, if using multiclassing, they should fall farther behind. What they should have done was include a fighter/mage base class in the PHB rather than rely on the hoop jumping of multi-classing and PrC as a band-aid (edit: again, my opinion).

I know this is an opinion, but do you have a reason why they should fall farther behind than 2E, other than opinion? I'm interested, because in 2E, I was perpetually suspicious of the MC rules on paper, and of new MC combinations and the like, but in practice, I only ever saw on MC combination that seemed distinctly more powerful than single-class characters to the point of outshining them, and that was entirely due to enabling from both a peculiar FR Speciality Priest class and a specific Dwarf-only Kit.

Also, if they were much more than 2-3 levels behind, they'd have been basically worthless, in many cases. I thought overall 2E's MC did a good job (possibly more by luck than judgement!).

 

[Emerikol]

I always loved the Fighter/Magic User of first edition. A fully competent fighter and a fully competent magic user. Both at 70% max level effectiveness. So a 7/7 F/MU was equivalent to a 10th level fighter. The class was a nice way to augment a group in both categories.

I do believe the eldritch knight is a subclass under fighter. There are also the Arcane Initiate feats. So you could create something if that is your wont.

I have my reasons for not liking 5e but this particular case is not one.

 

[Nagol]

I always loved the Fighter/Magic User of first edition. A fully competent fighter and a fully competent magic user. Both at 70% max level effectiveness. So a 7/7 F/MU was equivalent to a 10th level fighter. The class was a nice way to augment a group in both categories.

I do believe the eldritch knight is a subclass under fighter. There are also the Arcane Initiate feats. So you could create something if that is your wont.

I have my reasons for not liking 5e but this particular case is not one.

Well, the xp required for 7/7 Fighter/Magic-User would make a single-classed 8th level Fighter or a 9th level Magic-User. So the combination was a bit more than 70% effective!

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Well, the xp required for 7/7 Fighter/Magic-User would make a single-classed 8th level Fighter or a 9th level Magic-User. So the combination was a bit more than 70% effective!

Going solely on level, sure, but it's also worth noting the additional restrictions on MCers. For example, with F/M:

1) No School specialization (this was a big deal in 2E).
2) Armour restrictions (depending on race, DM, and other factors, but certainly much more restrictive than a single-class Fighter).
3) No Weapon Specialization (by default, again, some DMs allowed this, as did some kits).

Pretty sure there was other stuff too.