D&D 5E Fighter Non-Combat Ability Brainstorm

[Tony Vargas]

Or it shifts the issue to the rogue. If the fighter gets expertise like the rogue is there even really a reason to have the rogue?

No, because there was never any reason to have the Thief.

It might help to start at an extreme. Suppose a fighter auto succeeded on every skill check he ever attempts. Would that actually be enough to bring him up to a wizard or even surpassing a wizard?

Pretty obviously, no.

Remember, that in the 5e Play Loop, the DM determines uncertainty, then narrates success, failure, or calls for a check.

Your proposed variation - which we might call "Cut an honest Fight'n Man a break, will ya?" I mean, if it was the 30s - would, in essence, remove that last option, so all the fighters actions would result in narrated success or failure.

 

[FrogReaver]

No, because there was never any reason to have the Thief.

Pretty obviously, no.

Remember, that in the 5e Play Loop, the DM determines uncertainty, then narrates success, failure, or calls for a check.

Your proposed variation - which we might call "Cut an honest Fight'n Man a break, will ya?" I mean, if it was the 30s - would, in essence, remove that last option, so all the fighters actions would result in narrated success or failure.

There is still a big difference between determining if something is auto success and determining it has some uncertainty and calling for a check and having that check just succeed.

But more importantly - that isn't even the point. The POINT is - would a change like that actually balance the fighter and wizard? I don't think it would. I think high level wizards would still be viewed as much better out of combat. Though there would at least be a reason to have a fighting man present for out of combat tasks.

 

[Tony Vargas]

There is still a big difference between determining if something is auto success and determining it has some uncertainty and calling for a check and having that check just succeed.

There's no functional difference, and, once you get used to it and stop calling for checks that auto-succeed, no procedural difference.

But more importantly - that isn't even the point. The POINT is - would a change like that actually balance the fighter and wizard? I don't think it would. I think high level wizards would still be viewed as much better out of combat.

I re-iterate my agreement with that, just to be clear.

Though there would at least be a reason to have a fighting man present for out of combat tasks.

Under BA, it never hurts to have another warm (or cold, wouldn't want to discriminate against Kobolds and lizardpersuns) body that might roll a 20 - bringing along one that functionally always rolls a twenty would be a no-brainer.

 

[Leatherhead]

Or it shifts the issue to the rogue. If the fighter gets expertise like the rogue is there even really a reason to have the rogue?

Consider this:

What is the reason to have a Rogue now?

Being good at skills isn't unique to the Rogue, the Bard also does that to an incredible (and arguably better) degree. The entire concept of Niche Protection with Disarming Traps and Lock-picking has been outmoded for about 2 and a half editions by now. As for combat, dealing high amounts of damage round after round isn't unique by any stretch of the imagination. Furthermore, the Stealthy and Dexterous Warrior angle belonged to the Ranger first, because Thieves weren't made for fighting.

Is the only reason to have a Rogue because there was been historically a Thief or Rogue? Yes.

Does keeping the Rogue around unduly impact the ability of Fighters because "Fighters and Rogues have to be different!"? Double Yes.

The Thief stealing skills away from the Fighting-Man was mistake to begin with, we need to quit making the same mistake over and over again.

 

[FrogReaver]

Consider this:

What is the reason to have a Rogue now?

This is an easy answer. The rogue is the mundane skill monkey. It has a mechanical and fictional niche associated with it.

Give it's skill abilities to the fighter and there's now no mechanical or fictional niche for the rogue. The fighter overtakes them at everything.

Being good at skills isn't unique to the Rogue, the Bard also does that to an incredible (and arguably better) degree. The entire concept of Niche Protection with Disarming Traps and Lock-picking has been outmoded for about 2 and a half editions by now. As for combat, dealing high amounts of damage round after round isn't unique by any stretch of the imagination. Furthermore, the Stealthy and Dexterous Warrior angle belonged to the Ranger first, because Thieves weren't made for fighting.

Being good at skills while being non-magical is

Is the only reason to have a Rogue because there was been historically a Thief or Rogue? Yes.

That's actually a pretty terrible reason to have one.

Does keeping the Rogue around unduly impact the ability of Fighters because "Fighters and Rogues have to be different!"? Double Yes.

Or for the rogue/thief concept could have been made into a subclass of the fighter.

The Thief steeling skills away from the Fighting-Man was mistake to begin with, we need to quit making the same mistake over and over again.

Which is why the rogue shouldn't exist, at least not as it's own separate class. But it does exist - so I guess maybe the point is that what we ought to do is relegate it to being strictly inferior to the fighter. That might work!

 

[DND_Reborn]

Which is why the rogue shouldn't exist, at least not as it's own separate class. But it does exist - so I guess maybe the point is that what we ought to do is relegate it to being strictly inferior to the fighter. That might work!

Why shouldn't it be inferior to the fighter, at least as far as fighting is concerned?

People have often argued about the DPR of the classes and given how, with expertise anyway, a rogue can be quite superior to a fighter in skills, a fighter should be quite superior to the rogue in fighting, including DPR.

There is too much overlap between classes--we're at the point where D&D might as well get rid of classes and just have features characters learn, etc.

 

[FrogReaver]

Why shouldn't it be inferior to the fighter, at least as far as fighting is concerned?

Because even giving the fighter the rogues goodies doesn't fix the fighter vs caster divide. In which case the fighter ends up with all the rogues abilities and is still better at fighting. RPG's don't work well when some classes are strictly inferior to others.

You are trying to pair this debate down to just the rogue and fighter now - which is why no progress gets made - it's a holistic point argument.

People have often argued about the DPR of the classes and given how, with expertise anyway, a rogue can be quite superior to a fighter in skills, a fighter should be quite superior to the rogue in fighting, including DPR.

If the fighter could be balanced with the wizard then I'm fine seeing rogues be worse at combat but better at skills than fighters. I don't see the first happening - so until it does the best proposal is to consolidate those things into the fighter class.

There is too much overlap between classes--we're at the point where D&D might as well get rid of classes and just have features characters learn, etc.

I don't mind overlap between classes - but at some point we could create a martial character that can pick between rage/action surge/ki/etc all on the same underlying class. That would go a long way toward fixing the combat pillar. Through on some out of combat choices too onto that kind of class and you might can get close.

 

[Bawylie]

Frankly, a lot of that stuff ought to just go into weapon selection. Proficiency increases in unarmed strikes (for example) could include Unarmored Defense, Flurry of Blows, Catch Projectiles, Stunning Fist, etc. Proficiency in Axes might include a cleave style attack, reckless attack, things like that.

 

[Garthanos]

I don't mind overlap between classes - but at some point we could create a martial character that can pick between rage/action surge/ki/etc all on the same underlying class. That would go a long way toward fixing the combat pillar. Through on some out of combat choices too onto that kind of class and you might can get close.

Call it the Hero like in Chainmail, hmmm (note they had different types of caster with different abilities then too but only well lets call them two ranks of identical Hero and even the most potent was less valuable than the Wizard on the battlefield and he was described as a one man army). Any way I think core to the caster divide is allowing skill use to be as potent or effective as spells.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Frankly, a lot of that stuff ought to just go into weapon selection. Proficiency increases in unarmed strikes (for example) could include Unarmored Defense, Flurry of Blows, Catch Projectiles, Stunning Fist, etc. Proficiency in Axes might include a cleave style attack, reckless attack, things like that.

I think one of the issues when going in this direction is 5E begins to lose some of the simplicity it is well-known for. When you already consider most classes through level 20 will end up with 15-20 features, nearly one per level, and also racial traits, there is already quite a bit to keep track of.