D&D 5E Fighters should be the social class

[MichaelSomething]

Odd that the quote said you were quoting someone else.

I very much think the Fighter should have gotten much of the Warlord's identity. I also think the fighter Subclasses need stronger identity. Then we could complain about the barbarian and monk not having much out of combat features.

Yeah, I accidently quoted two people and deleted the wrong parts in my post.

The Fighter could use a Warlord subclass though.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

There's no reason why they can't be a "social" class. Just resist the urge to tank Charisma, and select a background that gives the character a couple of Charisma-based skills. If you really want to go HAM with it, choose half-elf as your starting race and use a custom background that focuses on social nuance.

If your group uses feats, you have no worries at all. Choose the Human Variant instead and select the Skilled feat, and use it to choose a handful of your favorite social skill proficiencies. You could also choose Linguist to pick up a few new languages. Since Fighters get a bunch of ASIs, this isn't as expensive for them as it would be for other classes.

If none of that works for you, just talk to your DM about what you're trying to do. Maybe they will let you swap out some of the Fighter's skill proficiencies for ones that better fit your character concept. Maybe they will let you trade your tool proficiency for a new language. Maybe they have a custom race or subclass that's right up your alley.

fighters can choose a background. They do not have to have an 18-20 chr to be effective. A 14 is great.

there is the actor feat and inspiring leader feat.

I honestly think if someone wants to lead from the front, it’s easily accomplished but someone has to want to do it (I.e. not demand first available 20 in attack stat and 20 in Con; actually take some social skills).

yes, the sorcerer will more easily come up with a 20 in chr...but so what?

we are imprisoned by our habits and group think only. And I have been just as habit prone. In the past year or two I have been pushing against type and expectantions more and it’s fun.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I never said that other characters aren't mercenaries, because they all are. The fact that a stereotypical adventurer goes on a quest to fight something for money makes them a mercenary in my eyes. The fighter is just the rugged, practical type of mercenary. A wizard is a tactical type. A bard is the type to keep the mercenaries together but not necessarily being the leader.

Ok but that's still a totally bizarre take, especially as you're rejecting Beowolf/Conan as being Fighters. Clearly Ged/Gandalf/Merlin/etc. aren't Wizards, by this logic, because Wizards are "superhuman mercenaries". What about Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser? I guess they're not Fighters or Rogues because those are "superhuman mercenaries"? I mean but what happens when we discuss Deathstroke from DC? I guess he's all D&D characters, because he is a superhuman mercenary by definition? This is very confusing.

we are imprisoned by our habits and group think only. And I have been just as habit prone. In the past year or two I have been pushing against type and expectantions more and it’s fun.

This sort of attitude is fantastic until you actually have to make some rolls. 5E is not at all friendly to this kind of thing. Many games are, particularly modern ones. But 5E is not.

 

[Mistwell]

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

Yes but they often come from the military because of their reputation on the battlefield, not because their charisma wins people over. People support them because "military background" not "persuasive". Remember when Ross Perto chose James Stockdale as his running mate because "military background"? Total disaster. Because being a general isn't a good indicator someone is persuasive.

 

[Xeviat]

Yes but they often come from the military because of their reputation on the battlefield, not because their charisma wins people over. People support them because "military background" not "persuasive". Remember when Ross Perto chose James Stockdale as his running mate because "military background"? Total disaster. Because being a general isn't a good indicator someone is persuasive.

The idealistic, fantasy, fictional interpretation of generals and battlefield leaders is that they're either incredible tacticians or are inspiring leaders. The fighter class doesn't really support having Intelligence or Charisma as a secondary ability, and the Battlemaster only offers so much for this.

 

[Mistwell]

The idealistic, fantasy, fictional interpretation of generals and battlefield leaders is that they're either incredible tacticians or are inspiring leaders.

Really?

That's not my experience with fantasy fiction. Great tacticians. Intimidating people. Often very smart. But they often inspire through threat of harm and based on their Government backing, and bark orders without explaining why, because persuasion is not their job. They're not there to talk soldiers into following their orders and so they don't ever develop a skill of persuasion.

The fighter class doesn't really support having Intelligence or Charisma as a secondary ability, and the Battlemaster only offers so much for this.

I agree. I think intelligence should be a secondary stat for fighters with feats to reward that. I just don't know that persuasion is in their field. But I remain open to being convinced. I find this a pretty fun discussion.

And we all need fun discussions these days I suspect.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Ya know, if you didn't feel like you needed a good number for constitution, it'd be a lot easier to justify putting your second-best number into charisma. Then you're at least halfway to a leader-fighter. And a 12 Con probably is enough on a d10 hit die class for all but the most challenging campaigns.

The other half if making more leadership-based maneuvers/feats/features so you can go all in on that or have more ways to dip into it.

 

[TheSword]

Fighters more than any other class can be whatever they want to be because of the abundance of feats/ASI’s.

It’s a great class now and one of bigs reasons I like 5e more than 1e Pathfinder.

 

[Asisreo]

Ok but that's still a totally bizarre take, especially as you're rejecting Beowolf/Conan as being Fighters. Clearly Ged/Gandalf/Merlin/etc. aren't Wizards, by this logic, because Wizards are "superhuman mercenaries". What about Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser? I guess they're not Fighters or Rogues because those are "superhuman mercenaries"? I mean but what happens when we discuss Deathstroke from DC? I guess he's all D&D characters, because he is a superhuman mercenary by definition? This is very confusing.

Slow down. I never said these classes can't achieve these fantasies, I'm just stating the type of fighter that comes to mind when I hear D&D fighter. I'm not rejecting the ideas, they just aren't my defaults.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

Fighters more than any other class can be whatever they want to be because of the abundance of feats/ASI’s.

It’s a great class now and one of bigs reasons I like 5e more than 1e Pathfinder.

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!