D&D 5E (2014) Fighters should be the social class

[Paul Farquhar]

Skills not on the Fighter list

Not really relevant, since you can get any of them from your background.

 

[Tonguez]

Stealth (Cunning Fighter = Rogue, high Dex Battle Master)
Deception (Cunning Fighter = Rogue, Fighter with Criminal Background)
Persuasion (Leader Fighter = Banneret)
Medicine (Medic Fighter = Cleric)

 

[Li Shenron]

Do you think that Fighters should have more social ability? And how would you go about it?

I would put a high score in Charisma and select a social-oriented background. Then spend a lot of time in actual social interaction.

But I have the feeling some people want those for free on top of what the Fighter already gets.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

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.

 

[Dioltach]

I'm not sure I see why fighters should automatically be so common and relatable. Does a lordly knight or a veteran of wars have more in common with the population at large than a rogue in his hometown? And in a fantasy world, wouldn't there be plenty of devout people who join the ranks of their priesthood to serve the people? A bard could enjoy the popularity that modern celebrities do.

An important part of the CHA stat is finding ways to relate to others, and get others to relate to you. If you want your fighter to be relatable to people in your world, just don't make CHA your dump stat. Problem solved.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

This is my own pet peeve and my own opinion of course, but it's always rubbed me the wrong way that fighters get lower skill choices than many other classes, and that it's the bard who is typically the leader (now sorcerers and warlocks thanks to a helping of CHA based characters).

Firstly, for all the fluff about the intensive study that a wizard must undergo, they still find time to gain as many proficiencies as a fighter, who should by comparison have more time available to practice other things.

Secondly, a fighter should really be the most common and relatable of the classes amongst common people. Someone who adventures by the strength of their arm should be more understandable and less "weird" than someone who casts magic because they have dragon blood, or even someone who casts magic out of their lute.

Thirdly, there's often mention how a fighter has little utility outside of combat. Some people may like that, others may not. A choice like this however, gives those who want that utility to be available to them.

Whether or not the starting fighter dumps CHA or not, I feel that they should have more choices beyond insight and intimidation.

If I were going to modify them, I would give them a third skill choice at creation and allow them to choose persuasion and deception in their skill list.

I'm not sure how I would approach the relatability issue differently however. Running a campaign, I might consider altering the DC based on who the audience is. 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.

Do you think that Fighters should have more social ability? And how would you go about it?

it’s funny. I am getting ready to play a fighter good at deception and intimidation. Thought about swapping intimidation for persuasion.

and what led me to this? Racial ability bump. I am playing a tiefling For the first time. picked a social background.

Its EASY to play a social fighter unless you are over focused on optimization and put a dump stat in everything but MOAR combat!

I think the problem is not a problem, but a choice.

choose soldier background and instantly get two replacement skills. You can have intimidate, deception persuasion and athletics. If you are variant human, I suppose you could also get performance!

All that is left to be the social king is score allocation.

I think this is a solution looking for a problem. Put a decent score in charisma and you are off to the races with your powerful voice and commanding presence!

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Why's that? It doesn't seem like something I'd consider a default for someone called a "fighter." Being good at all physical interactions is nice, but I don't think social interactions should be a default focus for the class.

They're called "fighters" not "talkers."

Yeah and Sorcerers are called Sorcerers, not "talkers", and so on. We can play this game with all the classes except maybe Bard.

Fighters should at least have an option for better social abilities. But they don't, because the default Fighter design basically attempts to revert to 3.XE, and gives Fighters extra ASIs/Feats instead of extra abilities. And Feats aren't a great substitute for abilities here, because they tend to just grant you the most basic level of proficiency in a skill, like you'd get from a Background.

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.

They can't actually build to be good at it, in default 5E though, unless they have rolled stats and CHA to spare. Assuming they need STR or DEX and CON as primary and secondary (and they pretty much do), with other stat methods, whatever is left for CHA is likely to be pretty low, and then all you have is maybe Persuasion and one of Deception or Intimidate.

And any CHA-based character is going to do nearly as well untrained, and better if trained.

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. ;-)

Uh-huh, but the point is, under D&D 5E's actual rules, the foppish Bard is going to have a better chance than the grizzled Fighter. In a lot of other games, that wouldn't be true. In some, it would even just matter mostly whether you were grizzled or foppish, and your "class" or equivalent would be irrelevant.

I've don't consider them these heroes from fairytales, I consider them superhuman mercenaries.

That's an incredibly bizarre and specific take on what a D&D Fighter is. Particularly the idea that Fighters are "mercenaries", but other D&D classes aren't is just outrageously weird. Indeed most are also superhuman.

An important part of the CHA stat is finding ways to relate to others, and get others to relate to you. If you want your fighter to be relatable to people in your world, just don't make CHA your dump stat. Problem solved.

Not really though, because 5E is a party-based game, and in most parties, some other PC is going to be better than you at social stuff. To compete you'd have to make CHA your primary, making yourself actively worse at fighting. And 5E encourages you to have the highest person roll, and another assist - and you gain zero benefit from the person assisting actually being good at the skill in question.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Let me make the most outrageous suggestion:

If you want your Fighters to be the most social class...

...make sure your most engaging roleplayers are playing the Fighters.

When it comes to socialization, the game mechanics have very little to do with it. You need players who actually roleplay and make offers / suggestions / comments / inquiries so that you as the DM can engage with them. You could have the most socially dominant class in the world, but if the player just sits there on their hands with mouths closed and saying nothing... then those mechanics are essentially useless. You as the DM are forced to continually prod that player to "make a Persuasion check" every 30 seconds in order to just spoon-feed them social interaction.

Giving fighters more skills ain't going to accomplish what you think it will. Because yeah, their rolls might be 2 to 3 points higher on average when they make them... but if the players never say or interact with anything during play that warrants making the checks, those extra skills might as well never have been there in the first place.

 

[Helldritch]

The problem is two folds
1) It is a problem that the skills are stat related. Persuasion requires charisma, athletics requires strength.
If stats were not that prevalent in skills the choices would be a lot more varied.

2) Point buy is making stat selection "optimal" for each class.
With point buy, you no longer see a single class fighter with high intel, wisdom or charisma. No need for these so they become the dump stats. You no longer see paladins with a decent intelligence or a high dexterity (unless it is a dex build, a rare but possible build).

If a player had the choice of adding either stat or skill, you would see a lot more varied build. IF with each ASI, you could put a bonus +1 to any two skills that you are proficient, it would enable a lot more varied choices. Stats would still be useful, accounting for "naturals" at a skill to exist, and then the "trained or experienced" aspect could take over. So the "natural" could apply his stat until his proficiency would get higher. DC would also be more relevant as it would be easier to judge, stats can sometimes bring a hard DC into triviality.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I've considered giving fighters an extra skill proficiency as a way to deal with caster dominance in non-combat scenarios, but that has more to do with the fact that I dislike the association between 'being skilled in general' and 'dirty fighting' - as in, I don't see why those should be linked in the rules. getting the best skill bonuses shouldn't be a class thing; getting the most skill training can be.

Another option I've considered is giving standard humans two backgrounds (this would be on top of using floating ability mods) so they get a pile of skills to play with. This would solve the fighter issue in itself (I think - this isn't playtested) but I could even see adding fighter bonus skills to that.

One thing I wouldn't do is give fighters Expertise as a class feature, unless maybe restricted to athletics. But I actually think the Practiced Expert feat is a better solution to the "all the world's greatest athletes and scholars are also good at dirty fighting and/or singing" issue.