D&D 5E Fixing the fighter (I know...)

[CleverNickName]

I actually quit playing my fighter because it was too boring for my tastes. I switched to Hexblade and never looked back.

Fighters all get Fighting Style at 1st level, which lets them pick from a list of combat abilities. What if the player could pick something non-combat related* as well, something that would grant a skill proficiency or other minor boon to help flesh the character out? I'm not sure what we could call it...for lack of a better term, I'll call it "Special Training" or something.

Maybe:

Special Training​

Your training extends to unique circumstances and situations that arise both on and off the battlefield. Choose a Special Training from the list of optional features below. You can't take the same Special Training option more than once, even if you get to choose again.​

​

Equestrian Arts​

You gain proficiency in Animal Handling if you don't already have it. Mounting and dismounting only costs you 5 feet of movement.​

​

Leadership​

You gain proficiency in Persuasion or Insight. (Or perhaps: Once per long rest, you may cast command as a 1st level spell; Charisma is your spellcasting ability for this spell.)​

​

Tracking​

You gain proficiency in Survival. You have Advantage on skill checks to find and follow the tracks of any creature that you have wounded in the last 24 hours.​

​

Scouting​

You gain proficiency in Perception. Once per long rest, you may cast longstrider on yourself (only) as a 1st level spell.​

​

Espionage​

You gain proficiency in Stealth, and proficiency with your choice of either the Forgery Kit or the Disguise Kit.​

​

Field Medic​

You gain proficiency in Medicine and proficiency with the Herbalism Kit. (Or perhaps instead, you learn the spare the dying cantrip?)​

Anyway, I'm just spitballing here. Don't examine them too closely; I was just brainstorming and I didn't give a whole lot of thought to silly things like "game balance" and "party roles" and "rules". But if you are one of the folks who thinks the Fighter could use a little something-something to make them more interesting, maybe it's a good place to start? Obvioulsy DMs should tailor this list to fit their campaign and their table style.

----------
* I can't stress this enough. Fighters already have plenty of combat abilities, they do not need help in this department. I recognize that many people feel that the fighter is lacking in non-combat abilities, but anyone who thinks they need more combat buffs is just...well, wrong. Anything that can even be remotely construed as a combat power should not be on this list (but anything else could be fair game.)

EDIT: The more I pick at this, the more I like it. I think I'll polish it up and add it to my House Rules this weekend.

 

[GlassJaw]

Eh, Barbarians besides Totem Warriors and Ancestral guardians fall into this category too. As do a lot of Monks I think.

Fair, but it's not a drastic for those classes. Danger Sense and Fast Movement make barbarians pretty effective as scout and door/trap-openers. Monks are effective in the exploration pillar as well.

 

[Garthanos]

Welcome!

Warlock has a ramp into those things though so it feels very easy and is certainly the simplest of Spellcasters.

1st level you get 2 spells, 2 cantrips, and only 1 spell slot per short

It is very simple.

Looks at the 4e level one character with 2 at-wills one encounter and one daily... ahem ?

Take a 4e ranger and you have one more thing ie to say who your target is and dish bam it was the simplest character in play too certainly not significantly more complicated than what I am seeing.

 

[Sacrosanct]

The problem with the fighter is that anything non-combat they get (background/skills/feats), other classes a) get them too and b) do them better.

And saying a fighter can use their ASIs on non-combat feats is a total false choice and not realistic. I also find it bad design that a fighter has to spend their ASI/feats in order to shore up their non-combat deficiencies. No other class has to make that sacrifice. I can see at later levels a fighter might do that but then it comes way too late.

Once again, those are extra feats we're talking about. No other class gets those. So yeah, a cleric could choose to spend an ASI on the same feat as a fighter, but they'd be giving up more to do so, because a fighter can choose 2 options without giving up any of the core 4 ASIs every else gets., and the cleric loses one of their 4 ASI to get the feat. I have no idea why you'd say they'd do it better. By virtue of more ASIs, fighters would have higher ability scores which means higher modifiers towards those skills. Seems like you have it backwards.

Setting aside how "fighters have non combat deficiencies" is hardly a truism that people all agree on, those two extra feats offer that choice without impacting any of the other 4 ASIs

If it's a false choice, it's only because you (general you) can't help yourself but put all of your options into combat and that's it. That's hardly a game design issue, that's a you willpower issue.

Like I said above, pretend the fighter doesn't get 2 extra ASIs. Instead, at those levels they have a hard baked in feature that gives them out of combat focused functionality. Is that what you'd prefer? That's like any other class then, and you don't have a choice of what features you get as a class.

But the fighter gives you a choice. Isn't having a choice better than to be forced to get a mandatory ability?

It's like this:

Selection A: you get 4 choices off the menu, plus coffee and donuts.
Selection B: you get 6 choices off the menu.

Group A: Selection B sucks because it doesn't come with a coffee option!
Group B: we don't even like coffee, so it's nice we can choose another option, and if we do want coffee, we can still choose to get it.
Group A: false choice! Because if you could get 6 meats, who would choose coffee!
Group B: so you'd rather be forced to have coffee because if you had another option you can't resist the meat? Ok then...

 

[Salthorae]

Looks at the 4e level one character with 2 at-wills one encounter and one daily... ahem ?

Take a 4e ranger and you have one more thing ie to say who your target is and dish bam it was the simplest character in play too certainly no more so than what I am seeing.

It was even the striker which is honestly though boring very simple

I never played 4e, I went from 3.5 to PF to 5e, so I don't have those tables or know exactly what those things mean in game terms, though I can infer a bit.

I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or not!

A 5e Warlock has 2 at-will Cantrips, 1 spell per short rest (which might be per encounter or might not depending on how often the group rests). Nothing "daily" about them though at 1st level. Pretty simple right?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Once again, those are extra feats we're talking about. No other class gets those.

ASIs. Feats are DM-opt-in optional.

 

[BookBarbarian]

Once again, those are extra feats we're talking about. No other class gets those. So yeah, a cleric could choose to spend an ASI on the same feat as a fighter, but they'd be giving up more to do so, because a fighter can choose 2 options without giving up any of the core 4 ASIs every else gets., and the cleric loses one of their 4 ASI to get the feat.

I'm not sure they give up more to do so actually.

The Fighters have those 2 extra feats, but that's part of a basic core class package that in theory should be equivalent in cost to the cleric core class package.

The Fighter's extra feats come at the cost of other reduced class features compared to other classes.

Edit: So I think it costs them the same. One class feature. Which is an ASI.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I'm not sure they give up more to do so actually.

The Fighters have those 2 extra feats, but that's part of a basic core class package that in theory should be equivalent in cost to the cleric core class package.

The Fighter's extra feats come at the cost of other reduced class features compared to other classes.

If the cleric (or other class) uses an ASI to get the same feat the fighter chooses, they can only have 3 opportunities to raise stats while the fighter still has 5 opportunities. That's giving up more.

Personally, I think that feat option/choice is a lot better than half of the built in class features other classes get instead of extra feats. Raise an ability by 2 or choose a feat compared to being able to see a mile or track at a fast pace or carry more (barbarian totem level 6 features)? Which will be more useful in a campaign? Which will be used more often in a typical game? An ability check/attack roll/saving throw +1 bonus or feat, or one of those built in features?

 

[Garthanos]

I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or not!

A 5e Warlock has 2 at-will Cantrips, 1 spell per short rest (which might be per encounter or might not depending on how often the group rests). Nothing "daily" about them though at 1st level. Pretty simple right?

Tracking those short rest abilities which now have to be remembered how many do I have across encounters is actually more complicated than having encounter powers ...in the initial case is wait did I use that ability last fight or not (in 4e you always have it every fight you are not memorizing state except short term) - Also the 4e character (except for the wizard - or maybe a swordmage) doesn't have a power he currently cannot use. So wait I know two spells but I can only cast one right now because I have this limit called slots?

I would say that combo ups the complexity slightly. And yes having a daily ups it mildly for the 4e character.
I do not think either is complicated but I am saying its not massively less either.

That said over all 4e characters are at extreme minimum analogous to a level 3 so sure things might be a bit more complicated but you have picking invocations and picking from known spells and the remembering which short rest powers have been used are no simpler than dailies (which is arguably less user friendly than real encounter powers)

Picking from known spells is done at the table making it a more frequent choice window than playing the 4e Wizard who picks his in the morning. Then just knows this is what I have.

 

[Tony Vargas]

A 5e Warlock has 2 at-will Cantrips, 1 spell per short rest Pretty simple right?

Two known spells, so until they use their slot, they choose from among 4 spell options each round (plus using a weapon or whatever, of course).
It seems simple, but a comparable degree of freedom in 4e - 2 at-will, 1 encounter, 1 daily, 4 things to choose from - was deemed too complex, at the time.
So, yeah, he's agreeing with you - with a side of bitterness. ;P

So wait I know two spells but I can only cast one because I have this limit called slots?
I would say that combo ups the complexity slightly. And yes having a daily ups it mildly for the 4e character.
I do not think its complicated but I am saying its not really significantly less.

Spontaneous casting is simpler in one way: you face the /same/ choices every round, until you blow your last/highest-level slot. It's more complex, in another: you have /more/ choices.
Prepped casting was also more complex in the obvious way - you had to choose all the spells you'd cast that day beforehand, for a list, so you had a /lot/ of high impact choices to make all at once - but simpler in another, in that once you locked in a spell, you didn't have to second-guess whether to use it /instead of another/.

5e neo-Vancian essentially combines the complexity issues of both - I've seen it really puzzle long-time, returning, and brand-new players. The first, typically not for long.