D&D 5E Number of skill proficiencies and niche protection

So I'm looking at the UA article for fighter, and seeing the same problem I saw in the other UA articles that had fighter subclasses.

They give them 2 additional skill proficiencies, which gives them as many as a rogue, and *more* than a ranger.

This really ticks me off because it is entirely throwing off the relationship between the classes in that area. It would be like giving rogues d12 for HD.

Note: The problem I have is not the number of skill proficiencies they are giving fighter, but the number these proposed subclasses are giving it *relative* to the number that other classes who are supposed to have more have. If you give it to fighter, you need to give extra proficiencies to rogues and rangers somehow--which won't happen because it would be retroactively altering the PHB.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Proxxy55

First Post
I think you're overreacting. This is the fighter we're talking about. As a base class, they have essentially no out of combat utility. A few skill proficiencies won't change that. It's not nearly on the same level as giving another class a d12 hit die.

Remember that the thief still has expertise(as well as more utility in their archetypes), and the Ranger has magic, Favored Enemy/Natural Explorer/Primeval Awareness, and potentially more utility from either Bestmaster or Deep Stalker.
 

cbwjm

Seb-wejem
I don't really see the extra skills as an issue, otherwise, we could also say that it's a problem with the college of lore, they gain an extra 3 skills for a class which already has so many, does it really need another 3? The knowledge cleric gains 2 more skills with expertise while a nature cleric gains one more skill. If you bring in the subclasses from SCAG then you have the arcana cleric gaining proficiency in arcana, the purple dragon knight gains proficiency in persuasion (or one other if already proficient) and the bladesinger in performance. This doesn't include the subclasses that grant additional tools or which there are a few.

Basically, they've been allowing subclasses to give more skills from the very beginning of 5e, so I don't see that there is a problem with the fighter gaining a couple of extra skills by taking a specific subclass and I don't feel the need for bards, rogues, and rangers, to need more skills to keep some kind of niche protection. Who knows, the upcoming ranger and rogue UAs might even provide subclasses with additional skills.
 

pming

Legend
Hiya!

So I'm looking at the UA article for fighter, and seeing the same problem I saw in the other UA articles that had fighter subclasses.

They give them 2 additional skill proficiencies, which gives them as many as a rogue, and *more* than a ranger.

This really ticks me off because it is entirely throwing off the relationship between the classes in that area. It would be like giving rogues d12 for HD.

Note: The problem I have is not the number of skill proficiencies they are giving fighter, but the number these proposed subclasses are giving it *relative* to the number that other classes who are supposed to have more have. If you give it to fighter, you need to give extra proficiencies to rogues and rangers somehow--which won't happen because it would be retroactively altering the PHB.

I'm going to have to second [MENTION=6864134]Proxxy55[/MENTION], and toss in a "*shrug*" as well. Additionally, don't forget that the UA stuff isn't "official and complete"...it's "here's some ideas we thought we'd toss out there for folks to use, change, give feedback on, and that kind of thing".

I'm sure you are sick of hearing this, but if you don't like it, change it. Especially with regards to the UA stuff (hell, they even tell you to change it if you don't like something ("...be ready to rule on stuff; it's written in pencil, not ink" or something like that from the very first UA article.

One thing that I still see some 3.x/PF/4e folks struggle with (sorry Sword of Spirit...not sure if you are one of these previous edition players/DM's) is the immutable fact that in order to play 5e 'correctly', the DM is required to make rulings, adjust stuff on the fly and on an individual basis, and otherwise "makes :):):):) up". This is a perfect example of the 'adjust stuff' part; just nix the skill additions from those archtypes, or have the ones that seem 'core' to that concept simply replace ones that normally fall into the 'generic fighter'. That's just one of the tasks a DM has to handle (if you are DM...sounds like you are).

Or...just don't use or read anything from Sage Advice or Unearthed Arcana, and you'll remain in ignorant bliss! :) I don't give any real thought or merit to anything coming out of Sage Advice or UA; I'm much more happy with my own additions, rulings, changes, and removals. :)

^_^

Paul L. Ming
 

S

Sunseeker

Guest
What niche do fighters have? The "hit things with a stick" niche? Not much of a niche if you ask me. Whose toes are the stepping on? Almost every other class gets far more skills and is far better with skills, with the possible exception of the Barbarian (rage fighter) and the Paladin (holy fighter). Maybe if fighters started getting evasion, rage, channel divinity or bardic lore we could worry about more skills making other classes obsolete, but I'm pretty sure everyone else will do just fine with the Fighter getting two more skills (one of its most lackluster areas of the game).
 

Okay, there is a progression between classes that have more skills and classes that have less. It looks roughly like this.

1) Rogues have the most.
2) Bards and Rangers are in the middle.
3) Most of everyone else gets the least skills.

The problem is that these new subclasses are catapulting a category 3 class into category 1 without any lore/narrative/fluff justification for the departure. If there was a "Dungeoneer" fighter subclass that got 2 extra skills that would be fine. The one extra skill (with Expertise) of the Purple Dragon Knight is also fine.

I don't know, I think if people don't see the problem, they aren't looking at it from the perspective of class identity.
 

Proxxy55

First Post
You're overreaching with class identity. The number of skills known is not part of any class's core niche (except the bard's Jack of All Trades). If you wanted to distill Rogue down into it's most base components, you would wind up with Expertise, and the ability to unlock doors with Thieves' Tools. And, surprise, that's what is unique about them. Not many other classes can get Thieves' Tools, and none can get it as easily, or get expertise with them.

Also, doesn't the fighter deserve something? Like I said, they have NO utility built into their class, and they've always kinda been at the bottom of the barrel in DnD. I also don't understand why you think there is no "lore/narrative/fluff justification" for the fighter archetypes getting more skills. They are more specialized archetypes that get skills that make sense for them. Does it not follow that an Arcane Archer should know something about Arcana? Or that a Cavalier should know how to handle animals, or conduct himself well?
 


Sebastrd

Explorer
I don't know, I think if people don't see the problem, they aren't looking at it from the perspective of class identity.


Or they just disagree with you. There is that.
Quantity of skill proficiencies as a part of class identity is a past-edition paradigm. 5E uses Expertise instead.
 

Eubani

Legend
Oh no the fighter is getting something more than I attack quick get rid of it, after all we all know fighters cannot have nice things.

Back to being serious after my little grognard appeasement ritual....Even with extra skills fighters will most likely not have the stats to make full use of them and will not compete with skill monkeys who have skills, stats and boosting abilities or spells. So even with an extra proficiency or 2 the fighter wont get close.
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top