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

[Wiseblood]

GlassJaw Wow I mis-worded nerves of steel. It was late here when I wrote those.

I was inspired by Little John in Robin Hood when I came up with Derision. In that case he was applying it to Bull one of the bandits of Sherwood but it is something that pops up in storytelling.

 

[Ashrym]

Interesting discussion and one in which I have argued in previous threads. I am in the "fighters work for me camp".

The suggestions in the OP seem minor and I don't see them having more than a perceptual difference while taking away from subclasses. Subclasses that add to different pillars would be more effective, IMO. That gets back to suggestions like the scout subclass.

As for the various argunents, I would argue that there is no need for a unique ability to contribute. Contribution is or is not regardless of how many characters might share the same or similar ability, although I agree with other posters that bonus ASI's/feats and action surge are non-combat options specific to fighters.

Action surge in particular matters because skill checks are often not needed do to circumstances or the take 20 option is available causing higher bonuses (that do not necessarily exist) to simply be excess. When the DC is 20 it doesn't normally matter if character A gets 20 and character B gets 22; both succeeded on tg DC 20 check for the same result. But when tine matters or the take 20 isn't feasable action surge can be critical. It's an ability for when the check matters or time matters.

My advice would be to build for other pillars and create a unique backstory. Identity is given by the players' concept designs and not necessarily the mechanics.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

One option to improve Fighter's non-combat spotlight that came up in previous threads was based around them being more grounded in the world and those around them.

Give them an additional Background.

That gives them more skill/tool proficiencies, for a wider base of competence. (Although the Rogue and Bard are still the best skill specialists.)
Plus a non-combat roleplay/social advantage that can be leveraged in some situations

 

[Inchoroi]

I am taking full responsibility that I am beating a dead horse.

I am in the camp that Fighters could use something else in the social or exploration category. I won't die on a hill for it but I see the need.

Anyway, I'm bringing this up because during our last session, of the players said he felt like he didn't have much to do out of combat. 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 know what the replies will be: use your background skills, role-play your character, you can skill use skills you aren't proficient in, etc. I get it, I really do. And I don't disagree. But that hasn't been enough to fully convince me Fighters wouldn't do well with something else.

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.

Neither of these abilities is a "balance" issue in my mind per se. They do give the fighter more trinkets and I know one of the goals of the fighter is simplicity so I guess that could be a thing. *shrugs*

Anyway, just sharing some quick thoughts!

You know, I actually agree that the fighter could use some stuff; not because its not possible for a player to use background stuff and whatnot to make themselves useful outside of combat, but because if a new player comes in with a fighter and doesn't use that stuff, they're kind of out of luck! I noticed it because I have a new player who's playing a fighter; he's awesome in combat, but sits like a bump on a log during anything else (unless its triggering a trap, since he's got the most HP).

 

[5ekyu]

You know, I actually agree that the fighter could use some stuff; not because its not possible for a player to use background stuff and whatnot to make themselves useful outside of combat, but because if a new player comes in with a fighter and doesn't use that stuff, they're kind of out of luck! I noticed it because I have a new player who's playing a fighter; he's awesome in combat, but sits like a bump on a log during anything else (unless its triggering a trap, since he's got the most HP).

But... How is that different from say a wizard who is played by a player who spends every choice on fighting stuff?

Takr a bog standard dwarven soldier fighter, you have stonecunning, crafting (mason, brew, smith pick one) and you have your military ranks, athletics, intimidation, gaming set and vehicles.

Those are incredibly easy hooks there for a GM to engage that dwarf in most every four huts or more location he enters.

In a dungeon type environment, stone cunning can be quite useful. Athletics plus high strength - again multiple uses if the challenge has features that require them like big stuff to move or break, jumps to make, etc.

The argument seems tho to now be if a player doesnt make any choices to make him good at these things and the GM doesnt establish festures where these other things are useful - then its not good.

But thats true for everything. The basic description seemed to indicate a set of scenes where stealth and scouting and traps and languages mattered... what if the GM hadnt had those? Would we be here asking for more stuff for rogues and wizards?

Course maybe he chose human... Noe we got higher bonus scores in multiple side stats (versatility unless he chose to ignore the non-fightin' stats) or we got an extra feat (feats mentioned multiple times - unless he dumped that to fightin to.)

Heck, look at it this way, that human std off-stat +1s likely gives you net +1s to a bunch of skills and saves which seems a lot like that bard's half proficiency until the levels pass your bonus ASI.

I would argue the player and the GM have to work at ignoring all these things to get to the place described and if so really no ability can force them to do otherwise.

 

[Sacrosanct]

You know, I actually agree that the fighter could use some stuff; not because its not possible for a player to use background stuff and whatnot to make themselves useful outside of combat, but because if a new player comes in with a fighter and doesn't use that stuff, they're kind of out of luck! I noticed it because I have a new player who's playing a fighter; he's awesome in combat, but sits like a bump on a log during anything else (unless its triggering a trap, since he's got the most HP).

As [MENTION=6919838]5ekyu[/MENTION] said, I don't think that's a class issue, but a player issue, and the experienced players and DM can help guide the new player. For example, we hear the same complaints about casters who prepare all their spells as damage combat spells and then don't do anything out of combat. Or rogues who are super active in exploration, but feel sidelined in combat. Or specializing in GWM or other melee and then complaining when combat is all at range. I.e., players who specialize in one specific area tend to complain how the other pillars are lacking, regardless of class.

 

[Quickleaf]

My advice would be to build for other pillars and create a unique backstory. Identity is given by the players' concept designs and not necessarily the mechanics.

While that's true, it's not the whole truth and overlooks the extent to which class features do reinforce identity.

A good example is the wizard's Spellbook feature. So wizards are on the look out for other Spellbooks, maybe friendly wizards make a habit of sharing one another's spellbooks, while rival wizards try to secure their spellbooks from rivals, etc. It implies this whole scholarly sub-culture which wizards are involved with or at least a lens through which to view the D&D world.

Another good example is the rogue's Thieves' Cant features. It implies rogues have a network of shady characters and a special means of innuendo to communicate among this sub-culture without the dominant culture understanding. It implies a roguish sub-culture and offers a lens through which to view the D&D world.

And so on for clerics selecting a god, Paladin Oaths, warlock's Otherworldly Patron, Sorcerous Origin, etc.

Of course a player can craft a PC with unique backstory without any mechanics to reinforce that concept, however a player who chooses to play any other class does have some mechanics to offer a lens & sub-culture, whereas a fighter PC is in the unique position of only having the backstory the player crafts. It has no lens & no sub-culture implied by any of its mechanics, and therefor less identity built into the class than every other class.

Whether or not this is an item of concern is a very subjective matter.

 

[Hussar]

Please provide the quotes of people saying you aren't allowed to modify your games to what you prefer. Or did you mean you want an official change to the class based on your preferences? Because that would be pretty ironic, you complaining about how you feel like people are telling you that your preference isn't allowed, but demanding official changes to the game that would do the exact same thing you're complaining about to a bunch of other players--eliminating the basic fighter class option from those who prefer that so you could have every class meet your personal complexity standards.
/snip

Well, since you asked so nicely:

Your first contribution to this thread was to tell the OP to play a different class:

/snip

So basically, do what lowkey13 said.

/snip

It's usually easier to allow a player to play a class that is more closely suited to what they want it to be, than to remake the class. IMO.

So, I think this is where that distinction lies.

I personally think that Fighters work best for two types of players:

A. The Lazy.
B. The Really Engaged.
/snip

Anyway, my anecdotal experience is that in those case, players would be much better off playing a Rogue (skills) or Valor Bard (figty-spells-skills) or even a, um, well, some type of charisma-based Fighting class that would let them load up on social stuff. You know, one that wasn't terrible and a scourge to all of D&D.

I'm positive the fighter doesn't need any (additional) class features to be successful in the non-combat aspects.
/snip

Convincing a lot of fighter/martial players of these things though? It's like an epic lv quest....

Or the player could just roleplay instead of treating it like a video game. This version of D&D gives a fighter many more options for non-combat opportunities than previous versions (1e/2e/3e) that I have played. I have literally never seen or myself had a problem with fighters in non-combat areas of the game.
/snip.

Do I need more? Look, I get that you disagree that fighters need a bit more out of combat oomph. Fair enough. But, why not leave us that do want it alone instead of threadjacking every single discussion on the topic to proclaim that there isn't actually a problem here?

/edit to add after catching up on the thread:

As [MENTION=6919838]5ekyu[/MENTION] said, I don't think that's a class issue, but a player issue, and the experienced players and DM can help guide the new player. For example, we hear the same complaints about casters who prepare all their spells as damage combat spells and then don't do anything out of combat. Or rogues who are super active in exploration, but feel sidelined in combat. Or specializing in GWM or other melee and then complaining when combat is all at range. I.e., players who specialize in one specific area tend to complain how the other pillars are lacking, regardless of class.

Your last post basically is telling me that my problem isn't a class issue but, rather, my players just aren't "good enough". I'm telling you, flat out, that no, I believe that it's a mechanical issue. That granting fighters just a smidgeon, not a lot, not a huge amount, just a bit more oomph out of combat would make them just right. But, I'm sure you'll just brush that off as we're just not good enough players and if we'd just embrace the game, everything would be rainbows.

I mean, seriously, what's the point in telling everything in this thread that's having the problem that it's a "player issue"? What do you hope to prove here?

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Ashrym]

While that's true, it's not the whole truth and overlooks the extent to which class features do reinforce identity.

A good example is the wizard's Spellbook feature. So wizards are on the look out for other Spellbooks, maybe friendly wizards make a habit of sharing one another's spellbooks, while rival wizards try to secure their spellbooks from rivals, etc. It implies this whole scholarly sub-culture which wizards are involved with or at least a lens through which to view the D&D world.

Another good example is the rogue's Thieves' Cant features. It implies rogues have a network of shady characters and a special means of innuendo to communicate among this sub-culture without the dominant culture understanding. It implies a roguish sub-culture and offers a lens through which to view the D&D world.

And so on for clerics selecting a god, Paladin Oaths, warlock's Otherworldly Patron, Sorcerous Origin, etc.

Of course a player can craft a PC with unique backstory without any mechanics to reinforce that concept, however a player who chooses to play any other class does have some mechanics to offer a lens & sub-culture, whereas a fighter PC is in the unique position of only having the backstory the player crafts. It has no lens & no sub-culture implied by any of its mechanics, and therefor less identity built into the class than every other class.

Whether or not this is an item of concern is a very subjective matter.

I think bonus ASI/feats are mechanics to reinforce that backstory. As is the background selection. Possibly stat allocation, fighting style, and subclass options.

A dex fighter with a criminal or spy background has more room for feats like dungeon delver, observant, or skilled because of that class mechanic. That gives contacts via background as well.

Fighters are more like a generic template but I find that opens up concepts as opposed to restricting them.