D&D 5E Fighters should be the social class

[CleverNickName]

Consider using this quick-and-easy houserule that a friend of mine uses for her games: "If your character's highest ability score is 15 or less at 1st level after all applicable bonuses, you may start the game with a feat of your choice from the Player's Handbook." It was originally written to help characters avoid getting sucker-punched when rolling their stats, but she ended up keeping it because it encouraged more versatile and creative builds.

I don't like to hand out free feats, especially at 1st level. I'd rather give them a magic item of their choice from a custom, campaign-specific list. But to each their own.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Qft! I really like feats and find the extra fighter ones open up a lot of possibilities.

You can easily start with a 14 CHR, 2 social skills and then take a relevant feat without missing much.

honestly, persuading someone or tricking someone is not totally hamstrung by a prof bonus and a +2 for chr.

sure, a cleri. With a 20 wis and skill in insight is not easily tricked but you should be quite capable of persuading the average mook, bar patron or soldier.

or just use the extra ASI for chr!

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.

 

[Asisreo]

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.

"I wonder if it's worth having CON if someone else will probably have better CON..."

 

[Warpiglet-7]

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.

my group for decades has played whatever is desired without really consulting each other with exception of evil vs. good.

it might not be “efficient” but if you want to inspire and lead, I say just do it!

 

[jmartkdr2]

"I wonder if it's worth having CON if someone else will probably have better CON..."

You don't get to use the barbarian's hit points, though.

If the sorcerer has a better persuasion mod, why not let them make the persuasion checks?

 

[Asisreo]

You don't get to use the barbarian's hit points, though.

If the sorcerer has a better persuasion mod, why not let them make the persuasion checks?

Because if they fail, someone else might need to step in to help with the slack. It may take a group check to succeed, which means everyone's participation helps.

 

[CleverNickName]

Because if they fail, someone else might need to step in to help with the slack. It may take a group check to succeed, which means everyone's participation helps.

And because some of us want a better option than "sit there and watch someone else handle it." Wanting everyone to participate in all three pillars of play isn't too much to ask. If only the Tank gets to do Combat, and only the Sneak gets to do Exploration, and only the Face gets to do Social, the game is going to be dull 2/3 of the time.

They should all use different approaches, but every class should at least have the option of participating. For the Social pillar, the sorcerer and bard could lead with Persuasion, while the cleric and druid track them with Insight. The fall-back plan is for the rogue and warlock step in with Deception, while the ranger keeps a lookout with Perception. And as a last resort, the fighter and barbarian can use Intimidate while the casters prepare for a hasty exit and the bard prepares to de-escalate.

Fortunately, the rules already have everything you need to do this (especially if you customize your background, and use optional rules for feats.) The hardest part will be to decouple the "I MUST FOCUS ON ONE THING" idea from the "IN ORDER TO HAVE FUN" idea.

 

[Minigiant]

Personally...
...the fighter only needs Strength to be a fighter. They can easily function with Charisma as their 2nd highest ability.

Heavy armor covers their AC and Second Wind covers their HP.

In the classic 4, the fighter can easiest be the face.

 

[Asisreo]

And because some of us want a better option than "sit there and watch someone else handle it." Wanting everyone to participate in all three pillars of play isn't too much to ask. If only the Tank gets to do Combat, and only the Sneak gets to do Exploration, and only the Face gets to do Social, the game is going to be dull 2/3 of the time.

They should all use different approaches, but every class should at least have the option of participating. For the Social pillar, the sorcerer and bard could lead with Persuasion, while the cleric and druid track them with Insight. The fall-back plan is for the rogue and warlock step in with Deception, while the ranger keeps a lookout with Perception. And as a last resort, the fighter and barbarian can use Intimidate while the casters prepare for a hasty exit and the bard prepares to de-escalate.

Fortunately, the rules already have everything you need to do this (especially if you customize your background, and use optional rules for feats.) The hardest part will be to decouple the "I MUST FOCUS ON ONE THING" idea from the "IN ORDER TO HAVE FUN" idea.

It really doesn't matter if you have an ability that lets you engage with the social pillars or not. The guy with the greatest likelihood of success will always be the first to step in. But they have a chance of failure.

But if you wanted to seriously dedicate yourself to social pillar, either play a different class or actually put your money where your mouth is and have your Charisma be your highest ability score with STR and CON as secondary. You never not have the choice, sometimes the choice involves less damage, but that's the choice you should make if that's really what you're going for.

And no, not everyone should be forced to participate in any part of the game they don't want to. If the fighter's the best at, idk, intimidating, they're forced to be the guy to intimidate despite not wanting to be that type of character.

 

[Redwizard007]

I'm amused by the early posts that boil down to "just roleplay better, stats don't matter." While I agree in part, it would be nice if there was a mechanical bonus to help offset the Cha casters' inherent advantage.

Likewise, backgrounds can be leaned on for skill access or cool fluff based advantages (see Folk Hero,) but they allow the creepy warlock, man-whore bard, and raised-by-wolverines barbarian the same opportunities. Something in the fighter class, or at least a sub-class, should take it to the next level.

The Leadership feat (3.5,) or amassing an army (2e,) are both good inspiration for a decent leader-of-men fighter. Truthfully, a subclass for each class that apes the 2e build-a-stronghold-and-be-a-leader would be a nice callback that adds a new dimension to 5e. Or, you know... bring back the Warlord.