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

[Ratskinner]

I can't say that I've seen this problem in play. The fighters and barbs I know tend to broaden out a bit with background and racial choices. In the game I ran, the barbarian cheerfully went "Survivaling" and the fighter had no problem using his criminal background to sneak a bit.

I think this is one of those attitudes-toward-play things, more than a mechanical problem. That said, giving fighters another skill wouldn't phase me, either.

IME, the fighter's biggest problem is that I'm not 100% sure that he actually is the best at combat, at least by the margins that the designers were aiming for. He's no slouch, but other classes keep pace or beat him out, especially if the rest/recharge schedule isn't being pushed (paladin, I'm looking at you).

 

[Sacrosanct]

Fighters have sacrificed nearly all exploration and social ability to be the best at combat. The problem with this is that the fighter despite this sacrifice is not the best at combat and is a bit behind till 11th level where it pulls ahead by a small amount. Problem is that according to WotC stats the average game goes up to 12th level.

Many trot out the over used line of "the player should role play better". Guess which other classes can do that? All of them and they have abilities/spells to back it up.

Next we have the "but fighters get 2 extra feats" brigade. The feats are gained at 6th and 14th which means in the average game (according to WotC) the Fighter only gets 1 mid game. Then there is the fact that the fighter uses those feats to try and keep up in combat let alone patch up near none existence in exploration or social, there is only so much pie to go around.

It seems that too many have taken in the 40 years of brainwashing that fighters cannot have nice things. It's amazing how much noise is made when someone suggests the fighter should get a new toy. I also think that the 5e fighter suffers from having to fit both the simple and the "Advanced" subclasses on to the same chassis. Many would say that there are enough classes but if you look at how many caster classes there are would 1 more martial really hurt. Now excuse me whilst I get my chalice ready to catch all the Grognard and spellcaster supremist tears, they are tasty.

Yes, because clearly anyone who disagrees with you is brainwashed, and is a crybaby.

Are for you for real? Or is this a poor attempt at satire?

 

[FrogReaver]

I can't say that I've seen this problem in play. The fighters and barbs I know tend to broaden out a bit with background and racial choices. In the game I ran, the barbarian cheerfully went "Survivaling" and the fighter had no problem using his criminal background to sneak a bit.

I think this is one of those attitudes-toward-play things, more than a mechanical problem. That said, giving fighters another skill wouldn't phase me, either.

IME, the fighter's biggest problem is that I'm not 100% sure that he actually is the best at combat, at least by the margins that the designers were aiming for. He's no slouch, but other classes keep pace or beat him out, especially if the rest/recharge schedule isn't being pushed (paladin, I'm looking at you).

I agree, to justify fighter's utter lack of out of combat benefits they do need to be better at combat than they are. (at least the non-feated version does). Or more fun would be to just give them some out of combat options IMO.

 

[Quickleaf]

While my bard and the warlock were sneaking and scouting, listening at doors, searching bookshelves, and translating tomes, he was looking for options to contribute. In another group we play in, this player is a wizard and feels like he has more versatility in and out of combat.

I've long commented on ENWorld about the need for bolstering the fighter in terms of exploration, interaction, and story. So that's my bias.

In regards to your situation, it may be worth investigating with your player what exactly he means by "versatility." From your examples of what other PCs were doing in the scene, it sounds like you're talking about a scene where the PCs were exploring a dungeon... How did he feel he didn't have anything to contribute? Was it because he couldn't think of anything? Or there weren't opportunities offered by the DM/Adventure in that scene? Or because he felt everyone else could do what he wanted to do with better odds of success?

On the rare occasions I get to play (and not DM), I love to play fighters. While each character will have their own personality, I generally play fighters as the lynch-pin, the solid heart of an erratic and unpredictable party. To use old school parlance, I embrace the roll of the "Caller." The Caller dates back to when the players sat on one side of the DM screen and the DM was on the other, and the players spoke amongst themselves about their strategy for the round and one of them – designated the Caller – would speak to the DM on behalf of the whole group. The Caller would also often be the voice of reason and temperance, the one helping PCs reconcile their differences, devising intelligent strategies, basing decisions on campaign lore, and so forth. Nothing in the rules makes the fighter PC better at this, but it feels right to me on a narrative level.

 

[Eubani]

Yes, because clearly anyone who disagrees with you is brainwashed, and is a crybaby.

Are for you for real? Or is this a poor attempt at satire?

A bit of humour, but I stand by what I say when in that part I say there is an outcry whenever it is suggested the Fighter gets something.

 

[CubicsRube]

The fighter has always been one of my peeves in d&d.

For all the fluff of the long hours that wozards must ubdertake to study their craft, surely a fighter should have ore time freed up to learn extra skills!

Socially, a fighter should be one the most socially relatable classes imo. Warlocks and druids and even uppity paladins might put off the city guard and common folk, but a fighter should know how to talk to other soldiers and mercenaries, and should be able to blend in with society quite easily.

Beyond creating and trying out new exploration and social features, not sure I can helo. Tried to stimulate thought on a simple mechanic idea a couple of weeks ago on something along these lines and was fairly quickly quashed with "i don't like it/it'll ruin the game" style comments

 

[CubicsRube]

Actually i do have an idea if it's bot too radical for you.

You can try dumping skills and using the dmg background proficiency variant. This goves a lot more meat to choice of background and it works for a certain style of player (which is why it is default in some systems such as 13th age and shadow of the demon lord)

 

[Eubani]

Actually i do have an idea if it's bot too radical for you.

You can try dumping skills and using the dmg background proficiency variant. This goves a lot more meat to choice of background and it works for a certain style of player (which is why it is default in some systems such as 13th age and shadow of the demon lord)

Whilst that method has some pros it does not change the issue that it is the same base as everyone else who gain abilities/spells to back it up and the fighter does not.

 

[ccs]

It seems that too many have taken in the 40 years of brainwashing that fighters cannot have nice things.

It's not brainwashing. It's 40 years of practical experience that's shown me (even over in PF) that:
A) it's not necessary to max out ones To Hit/Damage to build a viable fighter/martial type & still enjoy the game. Certainly not here in 5e....
Wich means that some of those resources can be spent on the non-combat stuff.
B) DOING THINGS > choosing not to participate 2/3s of the time because you don't have the highest + for it in the group.

BTW, who or what do you think I'm trying to keep up with in combat? And what exactly have I sacrificed as far as the exploration/social pillars by choosing to play a fighter?
Please list these for this grognard.

 

[Li Shenron]

So while I was looking at the PHB this morning, I had a thought: what if the Champion's Remarkable Athlete and the Battle Master's Know Your Enemy were part of the base Fighter progression?

First of all, that Remarkable Athlete is the 7th level Champion ability is ridiculous. It feels like a bad feat, or at least combined with the Athlete feat. I could also see any of the martial classes having access to an ability like this.

Second, Know Your Enemy is extremely iconic for the warrior archetype. Sizing up your opponent has many references in movies, literature, etc. It's also something unique to the fighter from the other classes.

These would give the base fighter an additional option in both the social and exploration areas.

Well, as you noticed, at 7th level the Champion gets Remarkable Athlete, the Battlemaster gets Know Your Enemy, and the Eldritch Knight gets a known spell from any school at 8th level. So all PHB Fighters do in fact get at least some out-of-combat ability.

In addition, all Fighters get 7 ASI/feats rather than the base 5, so they could use the extra 2 to earn more out-of-combat feats than anyone else.