D&D General Payn's Ponderings: The Fighter's identity; or, what's left after the combat pillar?

[Azzy]

Looking back at fighters from previous editions, I've had a few thoughts.

Proficiencies. Unlike previous editions, in 5e PCs don't gain additional nonweapon proficiencies/skills/languages, etc. as they increase in level. I think gaining a few skills/languages/tool proficiencies as you level would help the fighter some. I've houseruled that PCs gain one additional language, skill, OR tool proficiency every four levels. Sure, it's not a fighter-only feature, but it would still allow the fighter to gain some additional noncombat ability with little impact on the rules.

This list of skills and tool proficiency is a bit too narrow, IMO. No, I wouldn't like to see the return of the glut of NWP of 1e/2e or the messy skill list of 3e, but 5e could do with a few more skills. Also. Tool proficiencies are messy and should just be wrapped back under the skill umbrella.

Followers & Leadership. The AD&D fighter was a leader (at least in higher levels). Gaining followers is a pretty obvious boon in many ways. However, they can be a burden for players and DMs (especially if you have AD&D number of followers), so there are drawbacks.

Additionally, a fighter, should have some inherent leadership ability—from more "maneuvers" (which should be a basic fighter thing, not just a battlemaster thing) that lean into this (like the much denigrated warlord) to swaying the masses through inspiration or intimidation.

Feats of Strength. Fighters should have some inherent bouses to breaking down doors, lifting heavy objects, jumping long distances, etc. above and beyond what other martial class can do with their natural strength.

Feats. Feats really need to be decoupled from ASIs and either be non-optional or give fighters something equivalent to choose from. Right now non-combat feats and non-main stat ASIs are competing withing each other and with their combat-centered counterparts.

Spell Resilient. In TSR-era A/D&D, fighters had some of the best saves. Having a bonus to saves against spells (or, at least, mind-affecting ones) should be a class feature for the fighter even at lower levels.

 

[Guest 7034872]

Looking back at fighters from previous editions, I've had a few thoughts.

[...]

Spell Resilient. In TSR-era A/D&D, fighters had some of the best saves. This should be a class feature for the fighter to be able to rebuff many spells (especially mind-affecting ones).

I especially like this last point. Hardiness is supposed to be one of the fighter's defining traits, isn't it?

 

[Seramus]

Experiment: Be a fighter. Take only exploration or social pillar feats. Go to adventure league games. Count how many heads explode.

That's not a value judgement. I think you could do quite well. But I'm genuinely curious over how much backlash you might face.

 

[Quickleaf]

Spell Resilient. In TSR-era A/D&D, fighters had some of the best saves. This should be a class feature for the fighter to be able to rebuff many spells (especially mind-affecting ones).

For AD&D 2e (as well as BD&D) at least, that's actually not accurate. In 2e the lower your save number the better, since it was the target number on a d20 you were trying to reach or beat. The "Warrior" saving throws actually start worse than other classes, and then eventually at very high levels get only marginally better ...maybe... depending on class... and really on against Breath Weapon.

For instance, saves were listed in order of Paralyzation, Poison, or Death Magic > Rod, Staff, or Wand > Petrification or Polymorph > Breath Weapon > Spells. Comparing a 1st level Priest, Rogue, Warrior, and Wizard...

Priest = 10 > 14 > 13 > 16 > 15
Rogue = 13 > 14 > 12 > 16 > 15
Warrior = 14 > 16 > 15 > 17 > 17
Wizard = 13 > 11 > 13 > 15 > 12

So... for AD&D2e...
Priests start with better saves vs. Paralyzation, Poison, or Death.
Rogues are pretty balanced, but slightly better saves. vs Petrification or Polymorph.
Wizards rock both their saves. vs. Rod, Staff, or Wand and their saves vs. Spells.
Warriors... just lag behind.

What about Basic D&D? I was curious so I checked my copy of the Rules Cyclopedia. Similar saving throw set up, only it goes Death Ray or Poison > Magic Wands > Paralysis or Petrification > Dragon Breath > Rod, Staff, or Spell...

Cleric/Druid = 11 > 12 > 14 > 16 > 15
Fighter/Mystic = 12 > 13 > 14 > 15 > 16
Magic-user = 13 > 14 > 13 > 16 > 15
Thief = 13 > 14 > 13 > 16 > 15
Dwarf = 8 > 9 > 10 > 13 > 12
Elf = 12 > 13 > 13 > 15 > 15
Halfling = 8 > 9 > 10 > 13 > 12

So, for BD&D...
If you want good saves, be a Dwarf or Halfling.
Fighters are more just middle of the pack along with other classes.

I can't recall for 1e, so maybe someone else with more experience can remind us?

 

[Azzy]

For AD&D 2e (as well as BD&D) at least, that's actually not accurate. In 2e the lower your save number the better, since it was the target number on a d20 you were trying to reach or beat. The "Warrior" saving throws actually start worse than other classes, and then eventually at very high levels get only marginally better ...maybe... depending on class... and really on against Breath Weapon.

For instance, saves were listed in order of Paralyzation, Poison, or Death Magic > Rod, Staff, or Wand > Petrification or Polymorph > Breath Weapon > Spells. Comparing a 1st level Priest, Rogue, Warrior, and Wizard...

Priest = 10 > 14 > 13 > 16 > 15
Rogue = 13 > 14 > 12 > 16 > 15
Warrior = 14 > 16 > 15 > 17 > 17
Wizard = 13 > 11 > 13 > 15 > 12

So... for AD&D2e...
Priests start with better saves vs. Paralyzation, Poison, or Death.
Rogues are pretty balanced, but slightly better saves. vs Petrification or Polymorph.
Wizards rock both their saves. vs. Rod, Staff, or Wand and their saves vs. Spells.
Warriors... just lag behind.

What about Basic D&D? I was curious so I checked my copy of the Rules Cyclopedia. Similar saving throw set up, only it goes Death Ray or Poison > Magic Wands > Paralysis or Petrification > Dragon Breath > Rod, Staff, or Spell...

Cleric/Druid = 11 > 12 > 14 > 16 > 15
Fighter/Mystic = 12 > 13 > 14 > 15 > 16
Magic-user = 13 > 14 > 13 > 16 > 15
Thief = 13 > 14 > 13 > 16 > 15
Dwarf = 8 > 9 > 10 > 13 > 12
Elf = 12 > 13 > 13 > 15 > 15
Halfling = 8 > 9 > 10 > 13 > 12

So, for BD&D...
If you want good saves, be a Dwarf or Halfling.
Fighters are more just middle of the pack along with other classes.

I can't recall for 1e, so maybe someone else with more experience can remind us?

1e should be more or less the same as 2e. I must be misremembering, but I thought that fighters (at least in BECMI) had better save tracks than they actually did. I guess it shows how long it's been since I played the old editions. Don't know what I'm smoking today.

 

[Helldritch]

I blame a few things.
1) Standard array or stat placement.
Because of the standard array and stat placement, we no longer see fighter with mid to high int, wis or cha. These stats are now the dump stats for a fighter (or any martial character that will not cast any spells). My first character was a fighter that became a wizard because I had relatively low strength (16) but rolled 18 intelligence (yes, on 3d6 the rest was average). As a young 10 year old boy, I saw that as a curse, but I switched to wizard at level 7. But if I had had, say... 15? My fighter would have stayed a fighter but with a high intelligence score. With the standard array and stat placement, all fighters will have high ST or Dex and High Con. St or Dex will become a dump stat along with the intel and or charisma.

2) The low amount of skills given by background and class.
Raising both of these by a single additional one make true wonders as the "essentials" are normally covered. Just two skills more helps martial (yes, even the rogues and bards are on the low side). It would also help differentiate a fighter from an other just by the skills chosen.

3) Languages are few and intelligence and race should give you more along with some background.
I miss the days when an elf would speak about six languages from the start, not counting his bonus intelligence. Ok, six might have been a wee bit too much but three would have been good. Common, Elf and Orc? Intelligence giving more languages on start would also help. Here only starting intelligence would count, but with a 16, it means 3 more.

4) Expertise
The goal of expertise is to make a character exceptional at one skill, doubling his proficiency bonus. The unfortunate side effect is that as soon as there is a character with one such skill in a knowledge or whatever, the other characters feel like useless (beside possibly giving advantage on an already high skill by helping the expert). This makes the DC system wonky as if you have a character with expertise in perception, traps are now almost irrelevant if a second character has it. At 8th level, a rogue might have expertise in both perception and lock picking, with advantage it means the equivalent +18 to a roll (+ 8 from double prof, +5 from dex and +5 from advantage with the help action). Even at +13, it means that as low as level 8, a DC or 25 will be beaten with a roll of 12 or better. With advantage, it means that this chance is the equivalent of 7 or more to succeed a DC 25. Heck! A 20th level rogue will have +17 all by himself! How can he fail with a bit of help? Expertise should have given a +2 at best. This way, even with help, success would not be so sure thus making a second character able to help quite important and not just icing on the cake.

5) Stat Required on the rolls.
This one, is a bit of a pet peeve of mine. Why would Religion require intelligence? Is it logical that your priest that takes religions knows less about religions than the rogue that took it and put expertise in it? Or the wizard? Some classes should give bonuses to some skills. A priest might have +2 to his skills in religion, a wizard +2 in arcane. Or a character might have +2 in one skill of its choice.

This would help a lot in giving versatility in pillars.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

I like the idea of fighters getting more combat maneuvers, but I foresee a problem that would basically require the rule-makers to stick to their guns. Namely, that once you give fighters (for the sake of example) a called shot ability, you have to steadfastly resist the arguments of people who say "why can't my paladin make a called shot? why can't I firebolt the dragon's eye? not fair!"

For the same reason they can't sneak attack.

Looking at fighters as just a mall cop with slightly higher numbers is why they have nothing special about them.

 

[Quickleaf]

1e should be more or less the same as 2e. I must be misremembering, but I thought that fighters (at least in BECMI) had better save tracks than they actually did. I guess it shows how long it's been since I played the old editions. Don't know what I'm smoking today.

I was in the same exact situation last year on the forums. It just seemed to be what I remembered and fit my idea of the "fighter", but I was surprised to discover almost the opposite was true. And the only thing I've been smoking is the news, so...

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

IMO, Fighters should, at minimum, get an extra background, and just fold the champion into the base class. They are only debatably better at fighting in the level band people tend to play (1-12). Also give them a fighting style every odd level to help them actually be an A tier combatant.

1 extra AI doesn't make up for spells and generally terrible class features.

The other problem is D&D is aimed at a hack and slash playstyle that doesn't mesh with modern play expectations. 5E's fights are basically just an attrition of resources for the "real classes", rather than having any real element of danger. From what WOTC has said, most don't have 6-8 encounters per day. That many pointless fights is a MMO grind.

 

[Guest 7034872]

I was in the same exact situation last year on the forums. It just seemed to be what I remembered and fit my idea of the "fighter", but I was surprised to discover almost the opposite was true. And the only thing I've been smoking is the news, so...

These days that's a pretty heavy smoke.