D&D 5E Fixing the Fighter: The Zouave

[Blue]

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.

I've already said they are heroes. Heroes are competent. I just said that they need not be formally trained.

Okay, let's start again. Here's my position:

First level characters are competent heroes, but at the beginning of their hero game. Some may have experience in things directly relating to their class, such as a sage wizard or a soldier fighter, while others have experience elsewhere, such as the soldier wizard or sage fighter. Their backstory needs to make sense that they have the mechanical capabilities given by their class, be familiarity with armor, ability to cast spells, whatever, but there is no mechanical necessity that they can only pick backgrounds that directly lead into class. I can play the scrappy urchin fighter who learned to fight on the streets as easily as the noble fighter who learned fencing and intrigue at her mother's foot, as easily as the solider fighter, or any other combination that makes a cohesive character. Class descriptions are not prohibitive - they do not bar any ideas that aren't explicitly listed in them.

D&D is a game of high fantasy that can branch out, but at it's core you can survive not only a critical hit from a two handed axe, but also get breathed on by dragons and keep fighting. PCs are heroes, be it by talent, determination, or whatever undescribably factor makes them so. The "beginning of the hero game" is 1st level but still may be more than people with more experience who aren't heroes - e.g. fractional CR NPCs. This isn't to say you couldn't add in level 0 rules for the people who want to start even earlier, but it is entirely possible to play a nobody with talent and/or unconventional training as a first level character. You can be the guild artisan sorcerer who's had a talent for magic and after her caravan was wiped out swore vengance against the brigands that killed her foster-father mentor. You can play veteran of many wars who miraculously survives a battle and makes vow to the gods they they decided to honor and becomes a cleric, even though they weren't trained in a temple (or even have the religion skill).

It's not that it can't be done, but that it's not the default fluff...

The default fluff of classes does not override the fluff and mechanics of backgrounds.

 

[Oofta]

To me the only classes where it makes sense to be a peasant with no training would be sorcerer (innate ability) and possibly a warlock who just made a deal.

But a fighter? No. You don't learn how to use weapons overnight whatever montage you go through. That doesn't necessarily mean they were a soldier, there are any number of ways to get training. Perhaps they simply lived in a dangerous area and everybody was expected to be competent fighter and many able bodied adults have a level or two of fighter. Maybe one of their parents, older sibling or some extended family member took them under their wing and taught them what they needed to know.

How much it matters is personal preference, but someone who picks up a sword for the first time is likely to cut their own leg off the first time they get into a fight.

 

[Ancalagon]

The statements being made is that fighters are useless outside of combat is an exaggeration.

YOU are making that statement. What I and others are noting is that the fighter class is weak in the other pillar. Weak =/= useless.

I'm okay with you coming up with alternatives. Feel free. But when was the last time someone posted here with an actual suggestion to improve the fighter? There's one from @Don Durito above, but other than that it's been mostly "fighters do too suck and only newbs think otherwise!"

.... what did you think this thread was supposed to be?

 

[Oofta]

YOU are making that statement. What I and others are noting is that the fighter class is weak in the other pillar. Weak =/= useless.


.... what did you think this thread was supposed to be?

People have stated that fighters are trap options with no support for anything outside of combat that only newbs and casual players will play. I disagree.

 

[Quickleaf]

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!

I'm ok, thanks. Definitely miss gaming with you guys on ENWorld. Been a very intense year for me. But I've been fortunate enough to connect with a local gaming group and nearing the end of Tomb of Annihilation with them. Getting back to my writing projects too. How are things on your end?

Back to the Zouave / tweaking the fighter... The OSR class you linked is dripping with flavor. It actually reminds me a bit of an OSR implementation of a lifepath system (like what the old Cyberpunk RPG had). However, the system it's designed for seems to be pretty barebones, so the class can carry a lot more than it is designed for in 5e. For instance, backgrounds cover a lot of that stuff in 5e.

Most of it is a smorgasbord of eclectic features.

However, it does uniquely focus on the identity of the Zouave / fighter (I'm using them interchangeably, but not sure if that's your intent?) as a "bearer of every tool for the job." Extra inventory slots (independent from Strength) and the Nose For Trouble feature both hint at that as a part of this class' identity. You could definitely double down on that. For instance, in Tomb of Annihilation there's a trickster god you can be possessed by who grants you an additional attunement slot. You could borrow that idea and come up with something like...

Equipped for the Job: Double your carrying capacity and gain an additional magic item attunement slot. Once per day, as long as you have an adventuring pack, you can rummage through it as an action to find one piece of mundane adventuring gear worth 10 gp or less (e.g. a mirror or a lamp but not holy water or a spyglass). Add this gear to your equipment.

Now, the flavor is nowhere near as enticing as the Zouave writeup. Part of that is mirroring how class write-ups are handled in 5e. There's a bit of flavor for the class and a bit for each subclass, but when it comes to class features there's very little story (with a few notable exceptions like Thieves' Cant or Druidic).

Actually, that might be another possible feature, providing proficiency in some kind of non-standard "language" like semaphore, talking drums, smoke signals, or scout sign language (though those latter two could be intruding on the ranger's niche). And then giving that "language" a writeup comparable to Thieves' Cant or Druidic.

 

[Garthanos]

Equipped for the Job: Double your carrying capacity and gain an additional magic item attunement slot. Once per day, as long as you have an adventuring pack, you can rummage through it as an action to find one piece of mundane adventuring gear worth 10 gp or less (e.g. a mirror or a lamp but not holy water or a spyglass). Add this gear to your equipment.

Reminds me of a couple martial practices I designed one is called well humorously fourth dimensional packing (named after my wifes talent at fitting things in spaces where they really shouldn't) it allows the whole party to carry more ... and another one that is called trained preparedness. You always have what you need like boy scouts and caped avengers (but it's mechanically much like being able to buy on the fly at high levels it might indeed be a magic item like a scroll or something). Yours triples down also provides a portion the amount of another item that will be (details tbd) in a feat aka independently wealthy.

 

[Garthanos]

Actually, that might be another possible feature, providing proficiency in some kind of non-standard "language" like semaphore, talking drums, smoke signals, or scout sign language (though those latter two could be intruding on the ranger's niche). And then giving that "language" a writeup comparable to Thieves' Cant or Druidic.

Battle Speech/Signs: your party can use the help action from a range of 30 feet (the ally must be able to hear or see clearly the one aiding), including attacks and saving throws regardless ALSO basically a martial practice in development btw. They have to spend some time learning it and may have to do so each level as their abilities change and periodically rehearsing the communications. Of course rehearsal can be exhausting on occasion.

 

[Garthanos]

Hmmm kind of looks like many of my martial practices might be appropo might reconsider and convert them to 5e.

 

[Tony Vargas]

People have stated that fighters are trap options with no support for anything outside of combat...

Technically that'd be inaccurate: the fighter does get two skills, and a couple of sub-class features - the Champion's 'Remarkable' Athlete and the BM's Student of War - and the EK can eventually pick non-combat spells. It'd be more accurate to say that the non-spell-casting fighter has less support for anything outside of combat of any other class, except perhaps the Barbarian. Though that'd still be incomplete, because you also have to consider how they'd tend to underperform daily-heavy classes, like full casters or Paladins, or even the afore-mentioned barbarian, in the course of shorter adventuring days, in combat, as well as out.

But, quibbles aside, I assume I'm still meant to be "people" in this instance:

Hey, if they were like truenamers in 3.5, and were obscure and virtually never played, yeah, that inferiority wouldn't matter.
But fighters are a "trap option" baited with some of the most popular heroic tropes out there.

So, yeah, I said "trap option" that's a fair label for an equally weighted-choice that's likely to underperform, but has qualities that make it /look/ better than it is. I could've quoted Cook and said "Timmeh Card" but, hey, this is a D&D forum.

People have stated that fighters are trap options.. that only newbs and casual players will play. I disagree.

First "sucker" now "newb?"
Is it really that hard for you to show a modicum of respect?

I obviously, disagree:

The fighter is very attractive to new/casual players - and many established players, even though they're well-acquainted with its shortcomings, they can apply system mastery to partially overcome them - because it covers the most familiar and relatable tropes around heroes in the fantasy genre.

Obviously, all classes should be balanced, and the fighter isn't alone in breaking low, but /especially/ classes that have particular aesthetic appeal in their concepts need to be robustly balanced. Because they /are/ going to get played, regardless.

But when was the last time someone posted here with an actual suggestion to improve the fighter?

I'm sorry, but all you have done is deny facts and toss insults, which distracts from anyone making positive suggestions, because we're busy defending ourselves from your incessant straw-man attacks, insults, and fallacies.
If you don't think the fighter 'needs' improving, you have nothing to contribute, right? No skin in the game? Why are yo so vehement in your denials?
Are you honestly afraid the game would be broken if the fighter got a few more perks?

 

[Oofta]

Technically that'd be inaccurate: the fighter does get two skills, and a couple of sub-class features - the Champion's 'Remarkable' Athlete and the BM's Student of War - and the EK can eventually pick non-combat spells. It'd be more accurate to say that the non-spell-casting fighter has less support for anything outside of combat of any other class, except perhaps the Barbarian. Though that'd still be incomplete, because you also have to consider how they'd tend to underperform daily-heavy classes, like full casters or Paladins, or even the afore-mentioned barbarian, in the course of shorter adventuring days, in combat, as well as out.

But, quibbles aside, I assume I'm still meant to be "people" in this instance: So, yeah, I said "trap option" that's a fair label for an equally weighted-choice that's likely to underperform, but has qualities that make it /look/ better than it is. I could've quoted Cook and said "Timmeh Card" but, hey, this is a D&D forum.

First "sucker" now "newb?"
Is it really that hard for you to show a modicum of respect?

I obviously, disagree: Obviously, all classes should be balanced, and the fighter isn't alone in breaking low, but /especially/ classes that have particular aesthetic appeal in their concepts need to be robustly balanced. Because they /are/ going to get played, regardless.

I'm sorry, but all you have done is deny facts and toss insults, which distracts from anyone making positive suggestions, because we're busy defending ourselves from your incessant straw-man attacks, insults, and fallacies.
If you don't think the fighter 'needs' improving, you have nothing to contribute, right? No skin in the game? Why are yo so vehement in your denials?
Are you honestly afraid the game would be broken if the fighter got a few more perks?

Dude, I'm done. I've just repeated what some people have said. Maybe some of it was meant to be humorous, but it didn't come across that way. Anyway in my opinion I think the fighter is fine as is. Your opinion differs. Have a good one.