D&D 5E Fighters should be the social class

[CubicsRube]

Disagree, the fighter is the militant class, the bashing brute and as far as the CLASS goes I think both ths skills available and the number are perfect for the CLASS.

I personally think that the Barbarian is the brute class, but to each their own.

 

[Mistwell]

Guards become guard captains, and become military leaders, protectors of nations, slayers of mighty beasts, or even kings. I think that's a well established archetype in most fantasy literature.

Also, fighters are not guards, they are already considered more talented, or possessing something on top of a regular soldier as established by the fiction in the PHB:

Trained for Danger
Not every member of the city watch, the village militia, or the queen’s army is a fighter. Most of these troops are relatively untrained soldiers with only the most basic combat knowledge. Veteran soldiers, military officers, trained bodyguards, dedicated knights, and similar figures are fighters.

I still see military leaders as being intimidating, not necessarily persuasive or deceptive. You don't send your general to negotiate, unless he's backed again by a threat of force and authority of a Government. Remove those, and he's not known as a sound diplomat. If they were...you wouldn't need diplomats and ambassadors. There is nothing inherent to the job which is persuasive or deceptive.

 

[cbwjm]

I see fighters as many things: soldiers, noble knights, foolish duelists, thuggish brutes. Some of these intimidate, others lead, and some just get through the day doing what they're doing. Making the fighter a social class takes away from what they can be, sort of like how a sorcerer is always going to be good in social situations due to their spellcasting stat, even though the player might not see them that way. My belief is that the fighter is perfectly fine as it is and backgrounds, subclasses, and feats can get you to whichever version of a fight you like.

 

[Mistwell]

I see fighters as many things: soldiers, noble knights, foolish duelists, thuggish brutes. Some of these intimidate, others lead, and some just get through the day doing what they're doing. Making the fighter a social class takes away from what they can be, sort of like how a sorcerer is always going to be good in social situations due to their spellcasting stat, even though the player might not see them that way. My belief is that the fighter is perfectly fine as it is and backgrounds, subclasses, and feats can get you to whichever version of a fight you like.

Wouldn't you agree almost every image of a fighter includes them being decent at athletics?

 

[CubicsRube]

I still see military leaders as being intimidating, not necessarily persuasive or deceptive. You don't send your general to negotiate, unless he's backed again by a threat of force and authority of a Government. Remove those, and he's not known as a sound diplomat. If they were...you wouldn't need diplomats and ambassadors. There is nothing inherent to the job which is persuasive or deceptive.

That's fair.

I identify the fighter with being a kind of everyday man hero in my mind, like an action hero. John McClane vs Rambo. Otherwise I don't see them having much identity.

 

[Mistwell]

That's fair.

I identify the fighter with being a kind of everyday man hero in my mind, like an action hero. John McClane vs Rambo. Otherwise I don't see them having much identity.

I agree.

Neither of those guys is known as persuasive or deceptive. Athletic, Perceptive, Insightful, they're all those things though.

 

[Asisreo]

Because feudal and faux medieval societies often idolize great warriors, because Beowulf & Conan are the stars of ancient tales. Because as I said before, the common person would be much more able to understand and relate to someone who defeats evil by the might of their arm, rather than occult practices they don't understand, or perhaps fear.

No class is called a "talker", by the way.

I've don't consider them these heroes from fairytales, I consider them superhuman mercenaries. They can be leaders but they don't have to be, it's not ingrained into their identity. And I prefer it, because I really don't want being a fighter to include having to pay taxes and other fees when I chose them to actually just engage in combat meaningfully.

 

[ccs]

Do you think that Fighters should have more social ability?

Fighters have plenty of social ability. Or at least as much as anyone else & the same potential for extra/less.

And how would you go about it?

Oh, that's easy!

As the player I'll just participate.
Just because I'm not rolling the dice with as many +s as our bard doesn't mean that I'm going to sit there mutely when it's talky time vs stabby time & skip part of the session.

As the DM? I'm cruel. I will throw social encounters at the fighter types and make them participate.
The surest way to get such an encounter is to try & zone out & play with your phone.

See, it's not the fighter that's at fault here. It's the players. Too many fall into the trap of thinking that because their characters don't have +s, or as many +s to something as someone else, that they shouldn't even attempt _____. This is compounded by the thought that the best way to play something is to maximize a stat. Thus there's plenty of fighter types with +5s to hit/damage (and feats to add more combat options!) who're lacking the confidence to just participate in non-combat stuff.
But this is 5e. A +5 is nice, but it isn't really necessary. A +4, even a +3? That'll usually suffice. Allowing some resources to be spent increasing the Int/Wis/Cha/skill aspect. Or at least not tanking it to where your rolling with negatives to the dice roll....

 

[cbwjm]

Wouldn't you agree almost every image of a fighter includes them being decent at athletics?

Pretty much, with a few exceptions most tend to be physically skilled. Even the foppish (previously autocorrected to foolish) duelist would have some skill in athletics, even if they focus more on dexterity rather than physical strength.

 

[Ashrym]

What makes you think my fighters aren't social if I want a social fighter? It's silly to force fighters into a social pillar when a player can build that way by choice.

Subclasses do add extra non-combat abilities, bonuses, or skill proficiency as well. It's not just the background, although that influence a fighter's identity.

For example, a foppish bard trying to win over a garrison of hardened frontier soldiers should have a harder time IMO than the grizzled fighter in the party who speaks their language.

What makes you think the bard is foppish instead of grizzled too? The bard can have a soldier background just as easily as the fighter can have an entertainer background. ;-)