D&D 5E Fighters should be the social class

[CleverNickName]

@Asisreo I was mostly speaking to the point that if a fighter wanted to be a "social" class, they already have the tools to do so. I wasn't implying they should be forced to.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

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.

This is personally not my experience. My players arent great roleplayers, but they dont shy from engaging the NPC in a conversation, even if they know that another character has a better CHA score. At the same time, I usually at least ask my players to tell me what their PC says to intimidate/persuade/bluff the NPC; it can be short, said in the 3rd person or whatever, but CHA skills arent the only thing in play when interacting with NPC.

Anyway, I just remembered that the battlemaster will probably receive new social/exploration maneuvers. This will allows at least one archetype to be skilled in social interaction. Samurai, Banneret and Cavalier all have bonus proficiency in social skills, so they are not half bad (always considering that the player invests a little in CHA and maybe in non-combat feats if possible). The Eldritch Knight has a few occasions to gain Enchantment or Transmutation spells that could allow them to buff their social skills (Enhance abiltiy, Charm X, Suggestion etc).

 

[DND_Reborn]

Considering you can make a level 1 fighter with STR 16, CON 14, CHA 16; AC 18, HP 12, and proficiency in all 4 CHA-based skills, plus two other skills, I don't see why this is an issue really. Fighters can be good at "face" skills without any special treatment. YMMV.

 

[Ashrym]

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.

That depends on choosing to invest in charisma and a proficiency. That's the same requirement those other classes have but when the only thing they gave going for them is synergy.

Those classes are also looking for charisma, dexterity, and constitution.

That argument also requires those classes to take proficiency at all. I rarely take those proficiencies on a bard, for example, because the PC can rely on charisma and jack-of-all-trades. That allows proficiencies in which the PC has low ability scores.

Plus a group convincing an NPC can use a group check. That means the group succeeds if half the PC's succeed to hold closer to average and reduce low roll risk.

The 2 bonus ASI's can be as simple as 4 more points of charisma. It's a choice to not invest. Investing is just a trade off.

Relative to the rest of the world instead of specialized characters +8 is "good" as well, from a characteristic view.

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.

Uh-huh.

There are no foppish or grizzled rules. Foppish has a negative connotation that would imply lower charisma and skill, being the opposite of a highly charismatic with extra focus and training (proficiency).

Foppish is a made up quality attempting to make a point based on that non-existent trait misapplied to game mechanics.

There is no such thing as a low quality set of social characteristics that can be applied to a high bonus. The high bonus is a positive quality regardless if how it's portrayed.

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.

You party based game is in direct competition with each other? ;-)

Tongue in cheek; I understand what you are trying to illustrate.

I disagree, however. 5e encourages rolling only when the outcome is in doubt. That small difference in bonus becomes moot most of the time because rolling unnecessarily is not encouraged.

I'll point to group checks increasing the number of rolls when it becomes necessary. It's a more likely average due to more rolls applied and that promotes everyone looking for a bonus.

I've considered giving fighters an extra skill proficiency as a way to deal with caster dominance in non-combat scenarios,

I haven't seen that non-combat dominance since 3e, IME.

The problem is not Fighters. It's not a problem with Fighters, Rogues, Clerics, or Wizards. The problem is not really with classes.

The problem is that there is exactly one social attribute: Charisma. Every social skill keys to one attribute -- with the exception of Insight, which is so vaguely passive that it's essentially only useful to oppose Deception. That's the first part of what's wrong. Charisma carries virtually the entire social pillar on it's back.

Then, for the second part, there are several classes whose primary combat attribute is also Charisma. That's an absurd design that exposes the skill design flaw. It means that Bards, Sorcerers, Warlocks, and (to a lesser degree) Paladins are double good at all social interaction for free.

Why? Who thought that it was a good design idea to make a third of the classes head and shoulders better at all social interaction? They didn't design a third of all classes to be head and shoulders better at all combat encounters. Why are social encounters different? Why is the entire social pillar warped so badly?

The only reason this doesn't come up in actual play is because most tables don't use Charisma or social skills for every interaction. Instead, most tables roleplay things out, and the results are based on the social skills of the player and not on the abilities of the character at all.

See above. Having charisma synergy helps but it doesn't stop a fighter from investing or guarantee the charisma classes also take those proficiencies.

Plus, persuasion expert rogues with reliable talent tend to show up charisma characters, regardless. :-D

Clearly Ged/Gandalf/Merlin/etc. aren't Wizards, by this logic

Ged sang to summon the gebbeth. Gandalf is based on Väinämöinen. Merlin is based on Myrddin Wyllt.

They aren't wizards. They're all bards.

I kid. But off-topic, all 3 can be argued as bards following the original inspirations.

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.

No guarantee someone is better, and see my comments above.

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?

Do you often tell the other player how to build his or her sorcerer? ;-)

It's still tongue-in-cheek. It's obviously easy to get a good bonus with a class that primarily used charisma by also taking proficiencies.

The point is that does not stop a fighter from making that investment if a player is going for the social fighter concept.

Bannaret even gives free expertise in persuasion. That's better than 20 charisma and proficiency even if the fighter has 10 charisma.

Samurai gains the bonus proficiency and elegant courtier feature.

A player who wants social features on a fighter and never takes them is self-inflicted. Just build with social activities in mind.

 

[Ashrym]

While I agree in part, it would be nice if there was a mechanical bonus to help offset the Cha casters' inherent advantage.

There is. Bonus ASI'S / feats. There are also subclasses that add benefits.

 

[auburn2]

I'm not sure about the social part, but in my idea, a class should be either mystical or skilled, with archetypes blurring that line. Classes that do not gain magic as part of their main features should have more skills. Not necessarily expertise, mind you. Just 1 or 2 more skill proficiencies.

I get what you are saying. I would argue though that the fighter has unique "skills", specifically action surge and subclass abilities which are some of the best abilities in the game.

 

[wizard71]

Honestly, all character classes should have the same base amount of skills and only receive a bonus based upon intelligence. Skill monkeys are not needed anymore as D&D has given up even trying to pretend that skills balance out combat abilities. Let people create the characters they want. If you want to be a diplomatic fighter, intimidating wizard or a stealthy paladin go for it. Give a bonus to skills gained based upon intelligence modifier so that Intelligence is at least considered for a build other than wizard or eldritch fighter.

 

[auburn2]

Since we are talking about fighters lacking skills, I do feel the need to point out that a human fighter is the only character RAW that can be proficient in 17 skills by level 8.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Since we are talking about fighters lacking skills, I do feel the need to point out that a human fighter is the only character RAW that can be proficient in 17 skills by level 8.

Think so???

A Human Fighter at level 8 will only have (at most) 9 skills: 4 (Human variant with skilled feat) + 2 background + 2 fighter + 1 subclass.
(I might be missing a feature here or there for maybe an extra skill or two, but it isn't 17...)

This is because you can't take the Skilled Feat more than once.

A Human Variant Rogue (Scout) 3/ Cleric (Knowledge Domain) 1/ Bard (Lore) 3 has all 18 skills by character level 7, with expertise in 8 of them.

 

[Maxperson]

Plenty of world leaders have historically come from the military, and charisma/social skills are certainly useful to them.

Sure. A few have not placed charisma as their dump stat and gotten proficiency with social skills...........just like a 5e fighter can.