D&D General When Was it Decided Fighters Should Suck at Everything but Combat?

I think it is decided each time the most clever and charismatic player play something else than fighter.
When the most skilled player at a table play a fighter the fighter is on every talk, every action, plan and scene.

JohnSnow said:

Here's my problem: does that fit with the tropes of fantasy fiction? Start naming iconic "fighting men" of fantasy, and you come up with characters like the Three Musketeers, D'Artagnan, Conan, Fafhrd, Gimli, Legolas, Boromir, Faramir, Madmartigan and arguably even including people like Robin Hood, Lan, and Aragorn. These "fighters" aren't just fighters. They have other abilities, being able to play the face of the party, use stealth, survive in the woods, and so forth. To pigeon-hole them as "the combat class" is to do a massive disservice to the fiction.

Click to expand...

I think it's worth noting that nearly every person you mentioned up there was a multi or dual classed NPC in D&D. When you have a handful of classes, you can't mirror every archetype. So rather than bloat up every class you do have, you just multi-classed into another class to get the skills represented in fiction.

JohnSnow said:

Similarly, "Swashbuckler" is as much a Fighter-archetype as it is a Rogue one. Madmartigan? He, too, may be multi-classed, but the "greatest swordsman who ever lived" had better be primarily a fighter, or the class is silly.

Click to expand...

Why? Only he called himself that. Well, I guess Willow did too, but not because he actually was, but because Madmartigan was the one to call himself that. What evidence do we have that he was the greatest that ever lived? He was very good, but how do we know greatest? He sure seems like a F/T to me.

JohnSnow said:

You mean like Ned or Robb Stark, or John Snow; all of whom have multiple skills, are well-learned, persuasive, and can survive in the wilderness, track, sneak, ride, and are reasonably athletic?

Or the many knights of Arthurian and other Chivalric romance who are almost always skilled woodsmen AND accomplished courtiers in addition to being skilled combatants and accomplished riders?

Or the Samurai of Japanese legend (and reality) who were expected to cultivate artistic pursuits in addition to being able to use weapons well, both on horseback and not?

Or the various characters in "The Thirteenth Warrior," say? Many of whom were skilled in things other than just fighting. ALL of them were reasonably stealthy, perceptive, trained sailors, and soldiers who could ride horses and build siege defenses. Yes, they all had specialties, but like Roman Legionaires, they're definitely more than just combatants.

And then there's all the heroes of Greek myth and legend, most of whom are basically just fighters (albeit also often demigods), including Achilles, Odysseus, Hercules, Perseus, Theseus, Jason, and the rest of the crew of the Argo.

And I think that case can be made for just about ALL of the "Fighter types" in legends and fiction. Yes, they are skilled combatants, but that alone doesn't define them.

Click to expand...

Where does it describe these people as being expert trackers or stealth? Everything else you describe is just a good INT or CHA score. You don't need a mechanic to track artistic or courtesan skills. A basic INT or CHA check is just fine for that. So all of those characters just had good stats is all.

As I'm reading your posts, it seems like you're taking the position that unless a PC has a defined power or skill at something, they aren't good at it. I think I have a fundamental disagreement with that, especially in earlier D&D versions.

JohnSnow said:

What does everyone else think? Have fighters been shortchanged by being pigeon-holed as "the meat-shield class?"

Click to expand...

Yes.
And its because they made the Rogue/Thief a separate class in the first place.

Kind of a silly argument as the fighter is the best at melee and probably the best at surviving

In Level Up, all of the character classes were given features that covered all three pillars of gameplay- Combat, Social Interaction and Exploration. In addition to features associated with Combat, the Level Up Fighter picked up Steely Mien and Reputation as Social Interaction features.
------------------------------------------------------------

Steely Mien​

At 2nd level your combat experience becomes obvious on some subtle level, influencing how people perceive you, or perhaps how you see them. Choose one of the following options:

Closed Helm​

You have great control over your emotions; your face is an unmoving mask, revealing nothing of what you’re thinking. Creatures have disadvantage on Insight checks made against you. In addition, you gain an expertise die on saving throws against being charmed or frightened .

Heroic Flair​

Your victories have emboldened you and you radiate with heroic confidence. You have advantage on Persuasion checks made to influence friendly creatures with a CR lower than your fighter level.

Watchful Eye​

You are eternally alert and wary, ready for trouble. You have advantage on Insight checks made to determine hostile intent or predict violence, and your passive Perception increases by 5.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Reputation​

At 10th level, your reputation has begun to precede you. Choose one of the following options:

Inspiring​

You’re a reputed leader, a person to be trusted whose words are to be heeded. You gain an expertise die on Persuasion checks. In addition, you may spend 1 exertion point as a bonus action to inspire a creature that can hear you. The creature makes an Insight check opposed by your Persuasion check, becoming inspired by you on a failure. Indifferent creatures you inspire in this way become friendly towards you and your allies, and friendly creatures you inspire in this way will consider you an ally and may provide you with local information that would otherwise remain secret. Creatures will remain inspired by you indefinitely unless you do something that would make them hostile or lose confidence in you, such as lying, stealing, or causing them or their allies harm, or being proven cowardly or untrustworthy in any way.

Intimidating​

You’re reputed to be a terror to your foes and a fearsome ally. You gain an expertise die on Intimidation checks. In addition, you can use a bonus action and spend 1 exertion point to intimidate one creature you can see. The creature makes a Wisdom saving throw (DC 8 + your proficiency bonus + your Charisma modifier) or becomes frightened of you for 1 minute. At the end of each of its turns, a frightened creature can repeat the saving throw, ending the effect on itself on a success.

Legendary​

Your deeds have become epic stories, growing bigger and more outlandish with each retelling. You gain an expertise die on Deception checks. In addition, you can spend 1 exertion point to weave your real legendary deeds into a Persuasion check as boasting, or include fabricated legendary deeds into a Deception check. When you do so, you have advantage on the check.

Level Up Fighters are still good at combat, but they are not entirely useless once combat has ended for them like they apparently were in earlier editions of D&D.

Fighter | Level Up

JohnSnow said:

What does everyone else think? Have fighters been shortchanged by being pigeon-holed as "the meat-shield class?"

Click to expand...

Well, D&D is easy to pick on. But there is a game design reason for fighters being meat-shields: if fighters are good at anything else, other classes lose their lustre. Fighters, in D&D, MUST be the meat-shields, because that's why someone picks the fighter class. If you want to be good at something else, pick another class.

There are some classic blunders to avoid here.
1) Never get involved in a land war in Asia.
2) Don't expect D&D to make sense.
3) Don't expect fiction characters to match up to game characters.

The fighter got the shaft when they decided in 3E to enforce niche protection for the classes, instead of letting everyone be "well-rounded". Rogue got the "skill monkey" niche, so of course, couldn't give the Fighters skills* - they had to be big, dumb meat shields because your were going to dump Int and Cha to have as high Str, Dex and Con as you could get.

* Most "skills" in the game are Int/Wis(/Cha) related (or are associated in the mind of the designers that way), so of course the "Dumb Sports Jock" couldn't be smart enough to have many skills, whereas actually they'd have skills in different areas and subject matter. It's why the fighter got 2 skills in 3E, but the Wizard & Cleric would have way more and getting extra skill points was tied to INT.

Stormonu said:

The fighter got the shaft when they decided in 3E to enforce niche protection for the classes, instead of letting everyone be "well-rounded". Rogue got the "skill monkey" niche, so of course, couldn't give the Fighters skills* - they had to be big, dumb meat shields because your were going to dump Int and Cha to have as high Str, Dex and Con as you could get.

* Most "skills" in the game are Int/Wis(/Cha) related (or are associated in the mind of the designers that way), so of course the "Dumb Sports Jock" couldn't be smart enough to have many skills, whereas actually they'd have skills in different areas and subject matter. It's why the fighter got 2 skills in 3E, but the Wizard & Cleric would have way more and getting extra skill points was tied to INT.

Click to expand...

And then further pushed away when they decided Rogues had to suddenly be good at fighting and damage in 4e (strikers) and continued that idea into 5e.

Why be a Fighter when you can be just as good (with a few less HP) but also have double the ability in some skills and basically get mostly better advantages than the "meat shield"?