D&D 5E (2014) Fighter Non-Combat Ability Brainstorm

[Son of the Serpent]

It's the adults who struggle with complexity!

A brain with an overabundance of white matter and a dearth (dont know if i spelled that right) of grey is a bit adverse to learning new anything.

 

[NotAYakk]

Killing the Rogue and taking its stuff (a) won't fix the Fighter, (b) won't satisfy most people.

---

So, I really like the idea of Backgrounds. What if we somehow amped the Fighter up to 11 and added something like Background, but more awesome?

They can match existing Fighter-type archtypes. They can be modular so if you don't like them, you don't have to pick them.

Natural Leader
Heroic Blood
Reborn Hero
Fate-Chosen
Infinite Grit
Well Practiced
Tactical Genius

Then silo abilities in these "super backgrounds". (And yes, there is probably some overlap)

The fact you "picked" Tactical Genius as a Fighter then becomes the justification for why you can do X, instead of having to justify X in terms of being a Fighter and hence a Tactical Genius. Even though "X because Fighter" is a weaker statement than "X because Tactical Genius because Fighter", people feel the 2nd is more reasonable.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

How about Everyone Was Someone Before Joining the Army: the fighter picks a second background from one of the following (most are new): orphan, farmer, blacksmith's apprentice, fisher, cook, runaway squire (not eligible for knight background), cabin boy (not eligible for sailor background), lovelorn poet, ......

 

[Tony Vargas]

Killing the Rogue and taking its stuff

Hey, who said anything about killing? Think of it more as a trade or a merger. The fighter gets all the rogue's stuff, the rogue gets all the fighter's stuff, they're the same class now.

(a) won't fix the Fighter, (b) won't satisfy most people.

They still don't measure up to a Tier 1 or 2 caster, but they'd be better than they were.

So, I really like the idea of Backgrounds. What if we somehow amped the Fighter up to 11 and added something like Background, but more awesome?

Wait, /more awesome/ than an RP perk, a skill and a tool proficiency? Whoa.
Seriously, though: like a Prestige Class or Paragon Path?

They can match existing Fighter-type archtypes. They can be modular so if you don't like them, you don't have to pick them.

Natural Leader
Heroic Blood
Reborn Hero
Fate-Chosen
Infinite Grit
Well Practiced
Tactical Genius

Then silo abilities in these "super backgrounds". (And yes, there is probably some overlap)

A lot like Paragon Paths, sounds like.

 

[aco175]

Hey, who said anything about killing? Think of it more as a trade or a merger. The fighter gets all the rogue's stuff, the rogue gets all the fighter's stuff, they're the same class now.
They still don't measure up to a Tier 1 or 2 caster, but they'd be better than they were.

Yay, we should go down to two classes- a fighterish thief/ranger type and a mageish cleric/warlock type. Everyone will be happy... Until they grey blob fighting type gets complaints that they don't cast spells and are not as cool.

Should we be asking what the fighter's role in the game is? Is it to be the best social guy, the best exploration guy or the best at the fighting pillar.

 

[Campbell]

Right now no one is best at fighting. Fights are too long and too common to let any single class be dominant.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Should we be asking what the fighter's role in the game is?

5e doesn't have class roles.

Right now no one is best at fighting. Fights are too long and too common to let any single class be dominant.

"Best At Fighting! (with weapons) (and without magic)" is an advertising-style claim. It doesn't mean "clearly superior to all other classes in combat." It means, in general, when exclusively using weapons in combat, and when not using magic, no other class is /better/ at fighting than the fighter.

So, a druid or polymorphed caster using claws, using magic & not using weapons would be exempt for the comparison. So would a Monk using his fists. So would a smiting Paladin, or a Ranger who'd cast Hunter's Mark or a Bladesinger using Greenflame Blade. None of those are valid comparisons.

 

[NotAYakk]

Wait, /more awesome/ than an RP perk, a skill and a tool proficiency? Whoa.
Seriously, though: like a Prestige Class or Paragon Path?

A lot like Paragon Paths, sounds like.

Sure, but (a) rolled into a class feature, and (b) fluffed not as something you "earn" but something you discover or unfold about yourself, and (c) aimed at out-of-combat utility.

PrC and Paragon Paths had the usual "lets make you better at combat" thing. Avoid that, and we open up a lot of design space without having to balance against DPR.

 

[Quickleaf]

Some really good stuff in this thread, and these points raise some interesting questions about 5E's design space for non-combat options. I do wonder if this is a bit of a fool's errands, largely for the things that Quickleaf pointed out.

Beyond skills, there aren't a lot of design knobs that can be turned for non-combat. Giving the fighter Expertise is absolutely a quick and easy fix, and a decent one at that. But giving the fighter some additional skill bonuses continues down the path of watering down non-combat options for all the classes. If every class is getting additional skill proficiencies and bonuses, skills become more and more trivial.

Also interesting that the discussion turned to issues with the rogue. Historically the rogue was my favorite class; I enjoyed being the skill monkey. But I'm not as enthused with the 5E rogue. The rogue essentially has become the mobile striker. At best, they share the skill monkey spotlight with other classes. At worst, the rogue has been significantly watered down and lost a good chunk of its identity.

Maybe this speaks to a larger issue with 5E. The relative simplicity is a huge factor in its success no doubt. But with that simplicity, variation between the classes and options were sacrificed.

Yes, that's a strong question to ask. When it comes to creating an alternate fighter class (for the minority who want that) or an add-on to the fighter class (again, for the minority) that mechanically – in the class design itself – enhances the fighter's contribution to non-combat encounters, there are two important questions.

The first is conceptual and a question of identity. What do you want the fighter to be able to do outside of combat that it's not currently doing at your table? And how does your answer inform the identity of fighters in your campaign?

The second is a question of working within limits. Given all these limitations, is there design space in 5e for non-combat abilities for the fighter? And, if so, how would those look?

Let's take a look at an example...

I imagine fighters as being really tough, not just physically, but mentally as well. Now, additional saving throw proficiencies are already covered by the fighter getting more feats and being able to take Resilient. But I'm thinking of a gritty warrior who has seen some horrible stuff and is less prone to running away at the sight of a dragon or losing his mind at some horrific thing. Immunity to fear might be an option... but that is primarily useful in combat and steps on the toes of the Paladin's Aura of Courage. So what about immunity/resistance to madness?

We have a strong concept, but that leads to the question of design space. Is madness an optional rule in 5e or is it hard-coded into core rules of the game? Well, there are planar conditions (e.g. Astral & Pandemonium) that cause madness, some artifacts might cause madness, cackle fever (and the horribly named mad monkey fever in ToA) can cause madness, some spells like contact other plane and symbol (and potentially bestow curse) can cause madness... So it seems like it's a pretty core part of the game, even if it doesn't come up regularly.

Next, we ask: How easy is it to remove madness in 5e? This will help give a picture of which level such a class feature would be balanced at. Short-term or long-term madness can be cured with a 2nd-level calm emotions / lesser restoration, so a fighter could probably get it pretty early around 3rd level. Indefinite madness, however, requires 5th-level spell greater restoration (which expends 100 gp of diamond dust). So the game distinguishes madness by severity, meaning this feature would need to omit indefinite madness (which is OK because that seems to be rarer in the rules) or have a delayed feature that kicks in around 9th level.

Now I'd consider whether being immune/resistant to madness is enticing enough for a player to select in lieu of other non-combat abilities. Well, it's a passive feature that doesn't really make for cool spotlight moments. Sure, on the rare occasions madness comes up in the game and the fighter is targeted by that effect, it'll be sweet! But having something else attached to this hypothetical feature would help make it more appealing and more consistently applicable.

It would be easy to jump to giving advantage on Constitution checks (which are strangely required instead of saves for resisting extreme heat, dehydration, and exhaustion), but that might be better reserved for a different non-combat ability. Instead, let's double down on the concept of being mentally tough.

The Sanity score is optional, so we're not going to touch that as part of this design – though a sidebar mentioning how this feature interacts with a campaign where Sanity score is used would be helpful.

What a resistance to enchantment-type magics used out of combat? Things like charm person, suggestion, dominate person, the jackalwere's Sleep Gaze, or the succubus' Charm? Maybe if the fighter success his save, he can pretend to have succumbed such an effect? Ah, but then you're treading on the shared creative space of D&D in which any number of character types might want to try that trick. So then we'd need to hunt for the right language in include a variety of effects that are thematically similar but whose only common ground in the rules is targeting Wisdom saves. Maybe something along the lines of "when you are not in initiative and you fail a Wisdom saving throw, you may choose to succeed instead." Obviously not perfect language and it needs a # uses limit, but moving in a good direction.

Now we need to consider whether immunity or resistance (or something else) to madness is the better option. My concern here is if we go with immunity to short-term madness, then a spellcasting PC making heavy use of contact other plane could multiclass into fighter just for this non-combat ability and circumvent the risk posed by contact other plane. So either advantage on saves, a way to delay the onset of madness, or some unified mechanic that covers all of the above.

Wrapping it all together, I have two options to choose from...

Hardened Mind (#1). You are immune to long-term madness. When you are not in initiative and you fail a Wisdom saving throw, you may choose to succeed instead. You may use this ability a number of times per day equal to your proficiency bonus.

Hardened Mind (#2). You are immune to long-term madness. When you are not in initiative and you fail a Wisdom saving throw, you may choose to delay the effect of the failed save until you fall unconscious or one minute passes. You must take a short or long rest before using this ability again.

I wanted to write this out long form to demonstrate that, yes, there is design space, but due to the design limitations it is not at all an easy process. And, honestly, I'm not really happy with the "when you are not in initiative" clause.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Yes, that's a strong question to ask. When it comes to creating an alternate fighter class (for the minority who want that) or an add-on to the fighter class (again, for the minority) that mechanically – in the class design itself – enhances the fighter's contribution to non-combat encounters, there are two important questions.

The first is conceptual and a question of identity. What do you want the fighter to be able to do outside of combat that it's not currently doing at your table? And how does your answer inform the identity of fighters in your campaign?

is there design space in 5e for non-combat abilities for the fighter?

It sure seems like 5e left a lot of design space open. There's not s'much the niche protection there used to be, for instance.
But, there are some taboos, some third rails - they're like sacred cows, but instead of needing to kill them to get anything done, they kill you if you touch them - that may well get in the way, no matter how open things look. So you're like, "lookee, there's some design space," but you step towards it and wham a 40 ton ACME weight falls on your head. (What, you want an example? OK, let's give Great Weapon style something cool, but that won't unduly increase it's maximum damage or make it broken: I know! They can do a little damage even on a mis- WHAM … -stake... yes, I was saying "that would be a MISTAKE" we would never do that, put down the dynamite and step away from WotC headquarters, please...") And, yes, that was an example from inside the fighter's best-at-fighting bailiwick, outside of it, there's more space, but even more problems with giving it /anything/.

Because another problem you invariable get with the fighter is that the moment you try to give it something nice, someone pipes up with either "fighter's shouldn't do that, sounds all supernatural!" or "well, shouldn't anyone be able to do that?" And, once you've hashed that out and either given up on it (DoaM) or it really does end up being something everyone can do - at-will, of course - and nobody does(mark variant in the 5e DMG), because at that point, it's been watered down into something completely unappealing.

[quote
]Let's take a look at an example...

I imagine fighters as being really tough, not just physically, but mentally as well. Now, additional saving throw proficiencies are already covered by the fighter getting more feats and being able to take Resilient.

Feats can do a lot, but the fighter gets two more feats, which wouldn't exactly buck up 4 saving throughs. And, y'know, those Two feats are also supposed to give him other-Pillar stuff, and help keep him at the top of the damage heap....

...so, no, completely bogus, actually. Go right ahead and give the fighter proficiency in all saves. It won't break the class, it won't break the game, no one will even notice or care - until the fighter saves against one of /their/ spells, of course. But it's not a PvP game, remember?

But I'm thinking of a gritty warrior who has seen some horrible stuff and is less prone to running away at the sight of a dragon or losing his mind at some horrific thing. Immunity to fear might be an option... but that is primarily useful in combat and steps on the toes of the Paladin's Aura of Courage.

In another thread, folks're going on about how there's no niche protection and no required classes anymore..;.
...so, no, there are no toes. And, anything the fighter get that doesn't affect anyone else is in no way going to impinge on Aura of Courage... which, also, not just about Courage, it's saving throws!

Immunity seems out there, though. What about automatic saves?

So what about immunity/resistance to madness?

That's get'n pretty narrow.

What a resistance to enchantment-type magics used out of combat? Things like charm person, suggestion, dominate person, the jackalwere's Sleep Gaze, or the succubus' Charm? Maybe if the fighter success his save, he can pretend to have succumbed such an effect? Ah, but then you're treading on the shared creative space of D&D in which any number of character types might want to try that trick.

What did I just say, above?