D&D 5E Fixing the Fighter: The Zouave

[Don Durito]

Good grief. The "screaming it's perfect" accusation. Again.

No edition is perfect. But when people try to give specifics on why "the fighter is useless outside of combat" we get "they don't have expertise" or supernatural abilities from half a dozen different classes. I simply see a lot of smoke and no fire.

Well every other class either does expertise or supernatural abilities (except for some Barbarians - but even most of them end up with rituals).

Fighters should get Expertise - if their contribution outside of combat is meant to be skill based. Because that's how you get a secondary role that's actually worth something.

Obviously there's a reason why Rogues and Bards were given it - because they are traditionally the classes that are good at skills and the skill system really does need expertise to patch it.

But Rogues and Bards are now able to contribute to combat effectively. The extent to which they can now contribute to combat has been improved in a manner disproportionate to the extent that FIghters have gained non-combat ability.

And people may report being satisfied with the class, but they'd probably be just as satisfied if Fighters got say, Expertise in one skill. Because people don't usually mind their characters being better,

 

[Garthanos]

The thoughts i have had about improving the fighter have been about finding a way to provide combat use for mental attributes (like initiative - this ironically encourages the str fighter slightly) and making skills useful for its already existent subclass features (ok just the battlemaster) making them more versatile and slightly more potent when you are trained in the associated skills.

But anyway it's pretty indirect.... ie if your combat abilities are enhanced by mental abilities and trained skills then those seem like more an option. Encourages that feat use and directing ASIs in possibly more versatile directions.

.

 

[Quickleaf]

@Ancalagon Long time no chat! A couple thoughts...

1. Features like Tall Tales and Old Friends sound like things that you'd get at 1st level. They're story elements of a class, in a similar way that Otherworldly Patron is a 1st level story element of a warlock or Sorcerous Origin is a 1st level story element of a sorcerer. How did you become a warlock? I made a deal with The Fiend. How did you become a skilled fighter? I campaigned on the ancient High Road against hobgoblins. It's backstory, stuff that happened leading up to your 1st level. Players multiclassing 1-2 level dips into fighter for armor/weapon profs & Action Surges may or may not be something that happens at your table, but I'd be concerned about further front-loading the fighter.

2. Based on what I read, there is a LOT of overlap between the Zouave's features and existing elements in the game. Tale Tales, depending on what you roll, occupies similar design space as Natural Explorer, Druidic, Perception checks, proficiency in Strength saving throws, Indomitable, the 5e Archaeologist's background feature, other background features, and the monk's Slow Fall. Nonplussed occupies same design space as paladin's Aura of Courage. Respect occupies same design space as background features and Charisma checks. And Nose For Trouble simultaneously treads on the same design space as the Alert feat, the Assassin Rogue's 3rd level Assassinate feature, and Sleight of Hand checks. Having 1 or 2 features duplicated across classes in order to reinforce specific themes or identity of a class is probably fine, but when you start replicating multiple class features and other aspects of the rules within a single class, that's probably something you want to avoid.

3. I think the appeal is more that the Zouave class is injecting more story into the otherwise barebones fighter which is a story-light rules chassis? And less in giving an Eldritch Invocation-like smorgasbord to choose from, right? It sounds like a lot of the appeal here is the flavor, not the mechanics? Seems like most of what's here could be turned into a flavor-only "life experiences" table like XGtE's "heraldic signs" or "instructor" table in the fighter section of chapter 1? And anything else could perhaps be handled with giving the fighter an extra background?

 

[Ancalagon]

It has been a while @Quickleaf , I hope you are well!

The story - well anyone can write an amazing backstory for any character of any class. What I'm trying to do - and I will use this as a starting point, I may have to do some changes - is to add mechanical elements that are related to the exploration and social pillars. I will retain some features but not all that are combat related.

Your points about niche protection are well noted. I was going to have a choice of the tall tales, but now that I think about it, I may leave it as a roll. You don't choose those adventures, they choose you!

 

[Blue]

But you can't be a level 1 Fighter who JUST picked the sword up. Before level 1 you should have experience.

...

I would argue DnD doesn't actually cover the commoner who just picked up the sword. At all. Every level 1 PCs already has experience under their belt. The Wizard has years of learning Arcana, for exemple and the Rogue has tons of skills and so forth. The Wizard isn't 'the Village Bookworm who decided to try slinging a Firebolt one day'. A Level 1 Monk isn't 'tavern idiot decides to throw a punch'.

Then you play in a vastly narrower D&D than I do, and I'm sad for you. Hometown youth who makes good is a commonly recurring archetype we see in stories all around us. To exclude it from your D&D because you only accept experienced 1st level characters is tossing out many concepts and stories that can never be told in your games. At best they can be ones who have already made good it seems, already passed that hurdle.

D&D is a game of heroic fantasy. 1st level PCs are heroes, which is what makes them more than a standard NPC, but that does not equate to the must have formal experience. As a matter of fact, the system has backgrounds and skills which tell where you have experience. You can play a bard with the soldier background, and you can play a fighter who's been an urchin, or a sage, or anything. A noble fighter who learned fencing alongside etiquette and dancing but has never been camping without three servants, much less a veteran of campaigns.

Character abilities can come from formal training, from natural talent, from oddball experiences that they can translate into useful skills, from being raised by wolves or making a pact with an unworldly force, from the acceptance of your devotion or oaths by deity, and by a whole bunch more. The game allows this. It makes no requirements on your background vs. class.

Some fighters were vets in an army - any many are not.

 

[Undrave]

Then you play in a vastly narrower D&D than I do, and I'm sad for you. Hometown youth who makes good is a commonly recurring archetype we see in stories all around us. To exclude it from your D&D because you only accept experienced 1st level characters is tossing out many concepts and stories that can never be told in your games. At best they can be ones who have already made good it seems, already passed that hurdle.

D&D is a game of heroic fantasy. 1st level PCs are heroes, which is what makes them more than a standard NPC, but that does not equate to the must have formal experience. As a matter of fact, the system has backgrounds and skills which tell where you have experience. You can play a bard with the soldier background, and you can play a fighter who's been an urchin, or a sage, or anything. A noble fighter who learned fencing alongside etiquette and dancing but has never been camping without three servants, much less a veteran of campaigns.

Character abilities can come from formal training, from natural talent, from oddball experiences that they can translate into useful skills, from being raised by wolves or making a pact with an unworldly force, from the acceptance of your devotion or oaths by deity, and by a whole bunch more. The game allows this. It makes no requirements on your background vs. class.

Some fighters were vets in an army - any many are not.

You're right that DnD can model that kind of story, but I would argue it cannot out of the box. Especially if you read the intro fluff of the Fighter class. You'll need to upscale encounter to make them feel more dangerous because if random farmhands could deal with Goblins if only they had a sword, they wouldn't need the PCs in the first place. As long as Level 1 means the same thing to every classes it can work.

Furthermore, my point is that holding the Fighter to THAT standard, and ONLY that standard, is usually used as an excuse to deny it any sort of fancier abilities. "He's just a dude with a sword." and all that. I feel it's unjustified. Other classes don't get that level of scrutiny to their ability.

 

[Oofta]

I've done 0 level characters before, and yes it took a bit of house ruling. Basically limited proficiencies and equipment, almost no starting money, no class features.

Combat was limited - a pair of goblins or giant rats were a real challenge. It was a lot of fun but was more about building a backstory for the group and how they ended up becoming adventurers and how they received their training.

 

[Blue]

You're right that DnD can model that kind of story, but I would argue it cannot out of the box.

So your position is that D&D can not do a home town person done well or other character without formal training without requiring rules changes.

I hate to tell you., but you are just wrong. It is done all the time, in campaign after campaign. I've done it plenty of times with no mechanical changes as both player and character. I've also done characters with more experience. If you are unsure I can put it up as a poll.

It did require me to value backgrounds even if that conflicted with the fluff of a class. Since specific overrules general, and also since actual mechanics define what a system while the fluff describes, this is just fine in describing what, as a system, it can do.

Furthermore, my point is that holding the Fighter to THAT standard, and ONLY that standard, is usually used as an excuse to deny it any sort of fancier abilities. "He's just a dude with a sword." and all that. I feel it's unjustified. Other classes don't get that level of scrutiny to their ability.

Which is not a point I've made or argued. From the very first I talked about how a fighter can come from a wide array, including a veteran. So regardless if that may be a valid point for other discussions, that does not have baring on the specifics of what you and I are discussing.

 

[Undrave]

So your posiution is that D&D can not do a home town person done well or other character without formal training without requiring rules changes.

I hate to tell you., but you are just wrong. It is done all the time, in campaign after campaign. I've done it plenty of times with no mechanical changes as both player and character. I've also done characters with more experience.

It did require me to value backgrounds even if that conflicted with the fluff of a class. Since specific overrules general, and also since actual mechanics define what a system while the fluff describes, this is just fine in describing what, as a system, it can do.

That's still not the default assumption of the books. Lv 1 characters are competent. The numbers are scaled with that concept in mind, including the enemies a Lv 1 party is expected to face. If you treat them as brand new commoner, you're just shifting the frame of reference.

A Level 1 party can go up to level 5 in only a few weeks of in-game time and take on a young dragon. That, to me, implies at least a certain amount of experience BEFORE level 1.

It's not that it can't be done, but that it's not the default fluff, and that default fluff informs the abilities of a class. People under evaluate the strength of martial characters because they don't consider the default fluff's frame of reference when it come to strength and range of ability.

Which is not a point I've made or argued. From the very first I talked about how a fighter can come from a wide array, including a veteran. So regardless if that may be a valid point for other discussions, that does not have baring on the specifics of what you and I are discussing.

I was arguing with Sacrosanct that people still view the fighter as the commoner with a sword and showed you as one exemple, mostly because you were right there and it was easy. It wasn't any sort of blame put on you.

Sacrosanct never acknowledged it either...

 

[Garthanos]

A Level 1 party can go up to level 5 in only a few weeks of in-game time and take on a young dragon. That, to me, implies at least a certain amount of experience BEFORE level 1.

For me it implies some might have experience and never before really been pushed and discover they are awesome and others are prodigies or reincarnating heroes yay for flexibility! And at level 5 they are on the road.