D&D 5E Fixing the Fighter: The Zouave

[Blue]

This guy is a veteran. That means he's a survivor. He's seen combat, illness, injury, low supplies, ambushes (from both sides), retreats, city sacking and survived.

This guy is also a campaigner. He knows things. He knows how to dig a latrine. He knows how to cook something of dubious quality and make it edible. He knows that this is just the place where the cavalry is going to charge through and we should get the hell out of here. He knows how to bribe a dog, or a judge. He knows what tool to carry with him and what to leave behind. He knows how to use each of said tools to solve at least 3 different problems.

Lastly he's well traveled. He's been places. He knows the basics in a smattering of languages. He's eaten foreign foods and strange alcohols. He's been on a boat, maybe survived a wreck or two. He knows other cultures, what they want, how they think.

All of this - if it happened during play then it's likely it applies to every character - the wizard just as much as the fighter. So it shouldn't be class based.

If it happens to take then class .... well, it doesn't. A 1st level fighter need not be a first time veteran and campaigner who's well traveled. He might be the village blacksmith's apprentice who's parents were just killed by goblins, or whatever.

If you want it before taking the class, 5e has backgrounds. Now, I think backgrounds should be more impactful, but fitting the above in.

 

[GreyLord]

Well, I say this many times...

Then give the fighter one choice of expertise, except their expertise can be not just in a skill, but also a tool or weapon if they choose.

So the fighter could have something they excel at better than most. Only ONE choice though. If they choose to be a master of a weapon, it could be a weapon. If they choose to be a master at gambling, it could be gambling. If they choose to be a master of a skill, the could do it.

Want to be a skill monkey? Choose a class that actually lets you be more of a skill monkey.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Well, I say this many times...

Then give the fighter one choice of expertise, except their expertise can be not just in a skill, but also a tool or weapon if they choose.

So the fighter could have something they excel at better than most. Only ONE choice though. If they choose to be a master of a weapon, it could be a weapon. If they choose to be a master at gambling, it could be gambling. If they choose to be a master of a skill, the could do it.

Want to be a skill monkey? Choose a class that actually lets you be more of a skill monkey.

Prodigy Feat (Xanathar's Guide). Fighters get lots of feats, they can afford to spend one on skills if they find themselves at a mechanistic OoC table.

 

[Oofta]

The Zouave class linked seems to me to be more of a custom background than anything. You get two mechanical benefits, a bonus to save vs fear and extra combat benefits. Not much of anything that matters outside of combat. Which is kind of funny, because in theory that's what the problem is.

For the Nose for Trouble I'd take the Alertness feat, if I want it at first level I'd do variant human. The "always go first" is quite problematic (what if there are multiple?). Better save vs fear can be accomplished by a higher wisdom score and/or a feat to be proficient in wisdom saves.

So build a dex based human variant fighter with a custom background and decent wisdom. When you get feats do things that will make you more effective outside of combat or buff your saves. What I don't want to do is give people an option for a better starting background than anyone else with significant combat benefits with no corresponding penalty.

Last, but not least, a fighter has had years of training in weaponry. The "farmer that picks up a sword" is already covered by the books. They're called "commoners".

 

[5ekyu]

If only spell casters could roleplay better or use ability checks as well as their spells and special abilities...…….oh wait they can.

Yes... but... because classes are not used in the game in isolation, always tied to race and backgrounds, the fact that a class is less versatile in one area than another is less critical if they can gain function in those gaps in backgtound or race.

Sure a mate can have spells to help with social or explore and choose skills and background too but that does not matter as much whrn compared to a fighter who also uses his background for that secondary.

The fighter's main area is combat and durability. Its sub-classes provide a versatile set of choices. They seem quite popular in actual play - much more than in certain styles of forum wars.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Prodigy Feat (Xanathar's Guide). Fighters get lots of feats, they can afford to spend one on skills if they find themselves at a mechanistic OoC table.

To be fair, 3e Fighters got lots of feats - 18 compared to the usual 7 - 5e fighters get 2 bonus ASIs, over and above the at least 5 ASIs everyone gets. And, feats are optional, and any suplement, likewise is optional.

You don't have to be rolling dice to be playing the game.

True, many things can be resolved without dice, from trivial actions like walking across a room, to tasks where there is no uncertainty because it's just something you're that good at, like the Rogue or Bard with Expertise in a skill, to special abilities like the Ranger's tracking, to many rituals or 'utility' spells that don't call for saves/attack/damage, to speaking in character with or without regard to the nature or abilities of that character.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I'll post something that may be a bit... uncharitable to some fighter players (not all! some!). I think there are players who are there for combat. They are waiting for the next fight, the next bout of excitement. The part in between is bla bla bla they aren't really interested in - they might focus a bit for a few minutes of amusing roleplay or to kick in a door, but most of the time they are detached. For a player like this, a fighter is perfect (and for the players who don't want to wait for the combat, a barbarian?). Of course satisfaction in the class is good.

But what about the people who want to play a fighter AND engage in the non combat part? Now I'll fully admit, 5e really did help that with the backgrounds - they can be a very useful tool/lever to do this. But I think it should be a bit more.

The ranger has those tools, but they are very specific to a certain flavor.

this is a false categorization, because there are also players who like their fighter PC to do things out of combat and are perfectly happy with how it’s designed. It’s not like the people who are OK with the current fighter are only those who focus on combat.

the only argument is where each person draws the line with what kind or how much of out of combat stuff they like. And that line is different for each person.

*just last Saturday we had a session with no combat at all, and the party fighter was the most involved (because he was also party leader). He was also directly responsible for avoiding combat with a group of wererats.

 

[Oofta]

One of the things I like about 5e is the flexibility you get with backgrounds. That's not unique to fighters, but it does help.

But other than the warlock PC that always has detect magic up, class never seems to matter that much. Sure, at high levels casters can do fly or teleport. But for example fly and disguise self can be replicated with items. Expertise equivalent can be gained from a feat.

The fighters in my campaign contribute just as much as anyone else.

 

[snickersnax]

There's this weird situation where the Wizard 'studied in a magic school for years' before level 1 but, somehow, the lv 1 Fighter is viewed as 'Farm hand picks up a sword'... If the Wizard studied for years to get to Level 1 then SO SHOULD THE FIGHTER!

Unless he multiclasses into wizard at second level, then he can just go to the weekend seminar.

 

[doctorhook]

Fighters are definitely a bit weird in the sense that they are both very generic (almost anybody with a weapon) and very narrow in their scope of abilities (pretty much just combat, per the original post). Despite this, one major reason for its continued success is that D&D has ultimately always been about combat foremost. Therefore, I think we should blame D&D itself for the fighter.