D&D 5E Fighters should be the social class

[Asisreo]

Sometimes, NPC's don't want to talk to the bard because they have no affiliation with them. A fighter may have been around enough to make some friends in similar lines of work, and their friend doesn't want some fancy pants bard speaking for their friends. Mechanically, the friend would be indifferent to the bard but friendly to the fighter.

Sometimes, an NPC will just directly talk to the fighter, because it's awkward to see a group of people and literally only one person ever opens their mouth.

Sometimes, only the fighter has certain information or knowledge on something specific. Something necessary to convince someone. Sometimes, the bard can't really think of a logical progression in the conversation but the fighter realized they know something interesting.

 

[FrozenNorth]

One way that I would suggest emphasising the Fighter's relatability and grounding in the world around them is to give them two backgrounds.
So they get more skills or tool proficiencies (although they're never going to overshadow the Rogue in skill capabilities) and an additional slight social benefit.

I wouldn’t necessarily give them two backgrounds (because backgrounds may not mesh well together), but I think it would be fair to allow them to “supercharge” their backgrounds somehow, to reflect the fact that while the wizards were spending years learning their spells and clerics were praying, fighters were out in the world doing stuff.

 

[FrozenNorth]

I wonder if it's worth investing in social skills as a fighter when there will certainly be one or more other party members who are better at it by virtue of being what they are. Unless you happen to be separated from your party, using your social skills would essentially be insisting that everyone accept a lower chance of success.

Why would you assume that there would be a high Cha character in the group. The archetypical party is Fighter, Cleric, Rogue and Wizard. Many players do not build their Rogues to be a faceman, so boom, your Fighter has a niche as the party face.

Also, as a DM, I don’t allow the party Face to speak for all other characters all the time. On occasion, sure. But no, “barbarian articulates the plan for 5 minutes than claims the bard spoke”.

Finally, there is no guarantee that the speaker even wants to hear from the party face. Dwarven miners may not speak Common and may want to speak to the party Dwarf. The lord may only want to speak to the character with the Noble background. The thieves’ guild may bar entry to the paladin of Pelor.

In my Eberron campaign (4e), the party face was the low Cha barbarian, not the high Cha warlord. The barbarian, through his background, had the family connections throughout most of the world, so of course they want to hear from him rather than the stranger they never met.

 

[FrozenNorth]

There is a long British tradition of the children of the privileged serving as gloriously incompetent military officers, before going on to serve with glorious incompetence in other walks of life. But these days the military part is skipped as often as not.

Major General Elphinstone says hi!

 

[Ashrym]

No you can't. You can get 2 of those from your background. You can't get all of them ever.

Spend a bonus feat on skilled and go bannaret. That's 6 proficiencies from class features and 2 from background, including expertise in persuasion.

That's plenty of skill proficiencies before races.

Obvious races would be half-elf or variant human as sources of skill benefits. The vuman can use the bonus feat for skilled from the get go or prodigy.

It's not difficult to come up with a social build for a fighter. It's the (mis)conception of a player who feels obligated to make all decision points towards combat that prevents it. Give up that up and it's not a problem.

It absolutely does not. That's bizarre. Foppish is about how you dress and act, and has nothing to do with skill or charisma. You can be a massive fop and incredibly skilled and charismatic.

Then why would being foppish impact the social skills negatively compared to the grizzled fighter at all? That's the point I was making. ;-)

It was the context of foppish somehow being a weaker quality than grizzled regardless of bonus that gave the impression of a negative connotation in that example.

I don't think the difference is as small as you're suggesting, but that illustrates another problem with 5E, that being that investing in a skill or making something a priority for your character can often be undermined by the mighty d20. The problem then become that the Bard with +7 skill fails, and the Fighter with +4 fails, but the Barbarian with a grand total of -1 succeeds. Which is funny the first time but not the twentieth time, let alone the five-hundredth.

+7 vs +5 is only a small difference when rolling is necessary. The difference matters once in ten rolls when rolls don't occur that often. Nine rolls out of ten that difference is irrelevant.

The d20 is only an issue if rolls are being called for too often.

I am not sure where I lost you after that part, but parties can make group checks in social settings just like they can stealth checks.
Who makes individual checks can also change based on languages known or other criteria like military rank.

It's worthwhile to invest in social skills on a fighter if that's what the player wants.

 

[Quickleaf]

@CubicsRube You might appreciate my perspective and design philosophy of The Warrior from a few years ago. I was arguing against "The Fighter Fights" / Traditionalist views of the fighter class, and attempting to share a framework for what a redesign could look like. To summarize the gist of it:

The Fighter feels generic and lacking a distinct identity to some players because it doesn't say anything meaningful about the character's place in the world or society. "Warrior" is a better name (and design imperative) because it implies a different design approach focusing on the totality of warfare (not just combat) and the context of the character within a culture that recognizes a separate warrior class or caste. This conception helps design to accommodate the breadth of martial character concepts without falling into the trap of being too generic or pigeonholing the class to a too narrow definition.

Your comment about wanting the fighter to be the class with that "common touch" speaks to the void in the fighter's identity. That same void is what I was attempting to fill in my effort on the Warrior redesign.

If you compare the OD&D, AD&D, and BD&D fighters to the 3e, 4e, and 5e fighter, the most glaring difference is the absence of Lordship (Baron-hood) in more modern editions.

The other defining features were being skilled with a diversity of weapons & being tough. In some – but not all – of the editions, the fighter was also the best at armed combat.

However, that left a void in the fighter's identity.

3e embraced that void as being a design mandate, making the fighter a flavorless chassis that you applied your own flavor to. 4e attempted to emphasize the fighter as being a defender. And 5e is sort of in between.

Mike Mearls mentioned that one of his regrets with 5e was being so fixated on mechanically differentiating the "simple fighter" from the "complex fighter" that the subclasses becoming a vehicle for mechanical differentiation, rather than thematic/story differentiation. He suggested that subclass would be the best vehicle for introducing flavor/identity to the fighter.

 

[Tallifer]

(Just my own rationalization of the mechanics ) The charismatic Paladin is the social Fighter. Sword and leadership. Especially since WotC has divorced the paladin from the religious obligations. The other Fighter is the strong silent type who is just a tad too intimidating to talk with.

 

[Redwizard007]

(Just my own rationalization of the mechanics ) The charismatic Paladin is the social Fighter. Sword and leadership. Especially since WotC has divorced the paladin from the religious obligations. The other Fighter is the strong silent type who is just a tad too intimidating to talk with.

I get how you rationalize that, but the intensity of a paladin is likely to be a turn off to many. I think you just need to bite the bullet and put some points in Cha.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

Meanwhile, in an alternate universe, where the designers made Purple Dragon Knight the strongest Fighter subclass and everyone takes it all the time, 5e Fighters are widely considered social characters.

 

[MGibster]

This is something I've been thinking of lately. Ideally speaking, every class should be the social class. Far too often it's the 1-2 characters with Charisma as their primary stat who become the default faces for the group. It's always disappointing to hear a player say something like, "I don't have a high Charisma. Someone else go talk to him."