D&D 5E Fixing the Fighter: The Zouave

Tony Vargas

Legend
Ah so the Fighter can say "Hey, Cleric should cast Neutralize Poison!" first and feel like they contributed meaningfully to the success of the team?
I'd expect the posited 10-20 minute discussion would have to be significantly more involved than just that. (I can't think exactly how, but I'm sure there's always something.)

Another way to look at it is that the game is so profoundly deficient in handling out of combat resolution (relative to the greater granularity and excitement of combat, I suppose), that it literally has no bearing on the party's success, players' engagement, or whatever 'fun' is to be had in those scenarios. Essentially, the game and the characters don't exist outside of combat, it's just the players jaw'n.
So, the fighter isn't bad out of combat, the whole game is.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Oofta

Legend
No no, I mean that EVERYBODY shouldn't have skills period. Then we can just role-play well to do the stuff that doesn't involve combat! Everybody gets to improvise equally now without all those pesky mechanics getting in the way.
There are groups that effectively do that. I don't, but then again I generally don't set DCs so high that only a dedicated skill monkey can hit the target.

But, again, how many people need a maxed out proficiency or spell in the party? As long as one PC has it, it's all good. Want to contribute in my game as a fighter? Be decent at a couple of skills depending on what makes sense and that fill in the gaps.
 

Undrave

Legend
I'd expect the posited 10-20 minute discussion would have to be significantly more involved than just that.

Another way to look at it is that the game is so profoundly deficient in handling out of combat resolution (relative to the greater granularity and excitement of combat, I suppose), that it literally has no bearing on the party's success, players' engagement, or whatever 'fun' is to be had in those scenarios. Essentially, the game and the characters don't exist outside of combat, it's just the players jaw'n.
So, the fighter isn't bad out of combat, the whole game is.

I'Ve said it before that rolling for skill is un-engaging and boring most of the time.

My Monk can have +17 in Stealth, do I even need to roll at that point?

And how are you supposed to use tool proficiencies again? I don't think that's well explained either.
 

Tony Vargas

Legend
I'Ve said it before that rolling for skill is un-engaging and boring most of the time.
My Monk can have +17 in Stealth, do I even need to roll at that point?
Up to the DM. He'll narrate success/failure, or set a DC and call for a check.

But, at least you're standing out from everyone with a -1 to +11 in their stealth check. I mean, as much as possible - you still might roll a 1 while the guy with the -1 rolls a 20 and does better than you.


And how are you supposed to use tool proficiencies again? I don't think that's well explained either.
The same way you do everything else. You declare an action (depending on your DM, possibly formally stating both a goal and an approach), that you'd strongly expect to involve the use of said tools, or you come right out and say you use them, and, while the best case scenario is narrated success, and the worst narrated failure, both at the DM's discretion, the middle case is, you've just used your tool proficiency, and you make a check with a prof bonus as well as a stat bonus.
 

Undrave

Legend
There are groups that effectively do that. I don't, but then again I generally don't set DCs so high that only a dedicated skill monkey can hit the target.

But, again, how many people need a maxed out proficiency or spell in the party? As long as one PC has it, it's all good. Want to contribute in my game as a fighter? Be decent at a couple of skills depending on what makes sense and that fill in the gaps.

I wasn't being super serious there.

Again, I think my problem is I find skills on their own to be an uninteresting mechanic most of the time. I mean, it's fine but it's just THERE. I wish there was more out of combat features, in the entirety of the game mind you, that asked you to make choices that would let you influence the chances of success of skill rolls.

The new skill-based Maneuvers for the Battlemaster are exactly the kind of thing I'd love to see more of. Pass Without Trace on the Way of Shadow Monk is also a good one, since it involves making choices with limited short rest ressources. Gameplay happen when there is meaningful choices to be had. If all you have are straight skills, it's mostly like having a few screwdriver and all you then do is looking for the right screw.

I know that, in some way, it's not how it should be. You should be telling your DM what you want to do and THEY get to pick if a skill is applicable or otherwise just ask for an attribute check... but most players will want to leverage the biggest number and will argue if you don't let them use the right proficiency...

The same way you do everything else. You declare an action (depending on your DM, possibly formally stating both a goal and an approach), that you'd strongly expect to involve the use of said tools, or you come right out and say you use them, and, while the best case scenario is narrated success, and the worst narrated failure, both at the DM's discretion, the middle case is, you've just used your tool proficiency, and you make a check with a prof bonus as well as a stat bonus.

I feel like the book could have used some examples, is all I'm saying.
 

Oofta

Legend
I wasn't being super serious there.

Again, I think my problem is I find skills on their own to be an uninteresting mechanic most of the time. I mean, it's fine but it's just THERE. I wish there was more out of combat features, in the entirety of the game mind you, that asked you to make choices that would let you influence the chances of success of skill rolls.

The new skill-based Maneuvers for the Battlemaster are exactly the kind of thing I'd love to see more of. Pass Without Trace on the Way of Shadow Monk is also a good one, since it involves making choices with limited short rest ressources. Gameplay happen when there is meaningful choices to be had. If all you have are straight skills, it's mostly like having a few screwdriver and all you then do is looking for the right screw.

I know that, in some way, it's not how it should be. You should be telling your DM what you want to do and THEY get to pick if a skill is applicable or otherwise just ask for an attribute check... but most players will want to leverage the biggest number and will argue if you don't let them use the right proficiency...

It's hard to come up with rules for out of combat activities that work well. They tried in 4E with skill challenges and for a lot of people they were too "mechanical" and seemed to limit the improvisational side of non combat encounters. It was the start of a good idea that seems to have value (much like inspiration in 5E) that just ended up being rather "meh".

Much like inspiration, some people liked skill challenges, others did not. Just take a look at the chase rules as an example of what happens when you try to set up a structure, and that's just one simple scenario. It can work(ish) but people have to buy into it and the DM needs to bring it to life.

I get where you're coming from (and I may experiment with some of the UA ideas) but I think you need a different type of game to make it really work. It's not worth it to me to try to graft in some other system's rules and I'm not sure how well you could get them to mesh with D&D.

But while that may be worth discussing I think it's a separate topic.
 

Undrave

Legend
It's hard to come up with rules for out of combat activities that work well. They tried in 4E with skill challenges and for a lot of people they were too "mechanical" and seemed to limit the improvisational side of non combat encounters. It was the start of a good idea that seems to have value (much like inspiration in 5E) that just ended up being rather "meh".

Much like inspiration, some people liked skill challenges, others did not. Just take a look at the chase rules as an example of what happens when you try to set up a structure, and that's just one simple scenario. It can work(ish) but people have to buy into it and the DM needs to bring it to life.

I get where you're coming from (and I may experiment with some of the UA ideas) but I think you need a different type of game to make it really work. It's not worth it to me to try to graft in some other system's rules and I'm not sure how well you could get them to mesh with D&D.

But while that may be worth discussing I think it's a separate topic.

I wouldn't want EVERY potential skill check to have that type of rule associated with it all the time, but I wish every class (or subclass, whatever the case might be), especially the spell-less ones, had at least one similar mechanic for at least one skill ya know? the Way of Shadow Monk doesn't have an equivalent to Pass Without Trace for his other skills, but having one makes that particular skill stand out as a specialty, even more so than expertise.

(Un)Remarkable Athlete, for exemple, should have included, in addition to what it did, an extra skill-based use for Second Wind. It doesn't add more ressource, just ways to use them. An the Skill Maneuvers could have been there from the start really.
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
Again, I think my problem is I find skills on their own to be an uninteresting mechanic most of the time. I mean, it's fine but it's just THERE. I wish there was more out of combat features, in the entirety of the game mind you, that asked you to make choices that would let you influence the chances of success of skill rolls.
One thought might be to use generic skill approach elements with system backing them? They might be like I take the direct approach and take some risky options to try and get this over fast (or the same but less risky) or.... I analyze the crap out of it making sure I get no unexpected oops. I quickly probe as many ways as possible to reveal the options for the next stage (assuming its complex enough to call for multi-stage resolution) . I expect the first obvious option to be bogus and take the more subtle approach. Or some such.
 

Tony Vargas

Legend
It's hard to come up with rules for out of combat activities that work well. They tried in 4E with skill challenges and for a lot of people they were too "mechanical" and seemed to limit the improvisational side of non combat encounters. It was the start of a good idea that seems to have value (much like inspiration in 5E) that just ended up being rather "meh".

Just take a look at the chase rules as an example of what happens when you try to set up a structure,….graft in some other system's rules and I'm not sure how well you could get them to mesh with D&D.
"Grafted" is definitely how I felt about inspiration. And, skills have often felt that way, too, so I can see how Skill Challenges or Chase Rules or the like might not feel like they integrate with the rest of D&D - the rest of D&D being fairly abstract combat, and lots of somewhat less abstract spells, that have applications both in & out of combat.

Skill Challenges were as close as D&D has come to creating a whole-party-engagement structure for the other two pillars, remotely on the same order as cyclical initiative provides in the Combat pillar. While it went from mathematically borked at introduction to functional in the brief 2 years it had, it did not come nearly far enough. And, now that 5e has largely abandoned any but the most cursory attempt to provide structure out of combat, the game's back to a sort of spotlight model. Your character matters - often, as Paul has pointed out, only very briefly - when it has the best (or only, or, at least, a significant/unique) ability applicable to the current out of combat task (not challenge, but specific task, which, often, is a whole challenge). Such resolution is usually quick - the DM narrates success failure, or calls for an arbitrary-DC check first, or narrates the effects of a spell or ritual, and that's it - and involves only the one character. Afterall, it is essentially just task resolution, the equivalent of one attack roll resolving a combat scene.

Since there's no apparent impetus to change that, players are left with choosing classes for their out-of-combat abilities, optimizing skills or choosing spells as the primary ways to achieve relevance out of combat. Optimizing skills, thanks to BA, is largely fruitless. So there's certain classes with specific features that can be helpful in specific pillars, and there's spell/ritual choice. The non-casting Fighter (and Barbarian) sub-classes have nothing much of either.

Sure, the game, overall, could be a lot better at making the other two pillars more engaging, and, yes, that's a much different, much larger issue. The fighter must be judged in the system it's presented in, though, and that's this one.
 

Arnwolf666

Adventurer
I didnt mention dice once its about whose characters abilities are contributing to party success.
Looks AGAIN at noncombat problems solved by spells unilaterally throughout the history of D&D (occasionally even in 4e via rituals which are not always costed perfectly)... and raises an eyebrow? really? color me skeptical
It’s kind of what magic does. Teleport, charm, conjure things, open barriers, divine, create stuff.
 

Remove ads

Top