Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Quickleaf" data-source="post: 6331164" data-attributes="member: 20323">I support more out of combat utility for the fighter (and the rogue) because it is more fun.I've seen lots of great role-players make their fighter PCs the lynchpin of adventuring parties in terms of group management, knowing D&D lore, having a grasp of faux medieval politics, and being good method-actors. They are a lot of fun to play with at the game table (then again awesome players are just awesome) <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> However, they accomplish all that out of combat utility in spite of the rules on their character sheet, not because of them. It's the Old School way. The way the Fighter class supports that kind of awesomeness in 5e is thru the selection of skills, and that's rather sad IMO.I think what matters isn't a strict balancing act across exploration-social-combat, but rather class parity in the sense that no class totally dominates one of those pillars at the expense of others & other classes can't hope to compete. It's not exact balance, it's more "are they playing in the same ballpark?" The answer Basic D&D gives is "nope, they're not in the same ballpark, and that's ok."Maybe there's more to come for the fighter (and the rogue) in PHB? The DMG? Who knows?I would add the following features for the 5e fighter:Grit (1st level): Apply your proficiency bonus to Constitution checks.[sblock=Rationale]The fighter becomes really good at handling a forced march, holding their breath, , and a whole host of other genre-appropriate "tough guy" stuff. [/sblock]Martial Archetype (3rd level): I think your choice of martial archetype should provide some sort of background-like feature tying your character to the campaign world more. For example, Champion might get the feature "Fighting School" which gives them an organization which might offer room & board, employment, rumors about other fighting schools or military organizations, etc.[sblock=Rationale]More than any other class (with a possible exception of bards) the fighter seems to be the one who gets drawn in to the politics of game worlds. This also serves as a preview of the 9th level abilities I'm suggesting a fighter should get, reminiscent of older editions.[/sblock]Lordship (9th level): Gain followers, a stronghold, and a fancy title to go with it. This would obviously need a module in the DMG supporting it.[sblock=Rationale]It is an iconic feature of older editions of D&D for fighters to get something special at name level. It reinforces that the fighter is tied to the politics of the campaign world. It allows followers to be used in lots of out of combat ways. It also might allow for variants (more design space) such as a "knight errant" who forsakes their lands and title.[/sblock]The higher level stuff I'd add for the fighter is more controversial, but that is the bare minimum I think this fighter class needs.EDIT: I also would expand the fighter's in-combat utility by giving them the benefit of the doubt when it comes to trying unusual stuff. "I want to man the ballista!" Uh, ok, no problem, you have that proficiency cause you're a fighter! "I hilt bash the skeleton with my axe!" But it says axes deal slashing damage and skeletons are...oh sure, go for it, but your damage die will be one less.</blockquote>

Verification