Should fighters be skill monkeys?

[DEFCON 1]

It feels like the line between Fighter and Rogue has gotten more and more blurred with each newer edition of the game.

There's a fine line between ALL the classes in the game. And that line is purely story and fluff based.

When it comes to game mechanics you can merge any and all classes you want. Clerics, bards, druids, sorcerers and wizards all have the exact same spellcasting slots and progression-- why do we need them separate? Fighters, barbarians, rogues, monks, paladins, and rangers all fight the same way, all use the same types of weapons, and all have the same small mechanical bonuses to damage. The only differences being one of those damage bonuses is called 'Barbarian Rage', while another is fluffed as 'Sneak Attack', another is 'Superiority Dice', or 'Divine smite', or 'Flurry of Blows', or 'Hunter's Mark'. But they all do the same exact thing... add extra damage to an attack.

The only reason and way we keep these classes separate is by arbitrarily designing story reasons why this is true. One of these casters "gets their magic from the gods!" while the other "studies reeeeeeaaalllly hard and figures this magic stuff out!". One of these warriors has "learned intricate weapon maneuvers that can knock an enemy down" while another one "cast a spell that knocks an enemy down". It's all just arbitrary fluff that has been used to make these mechanics SEEM different.

But it's not different. None of it is. Which is why 4E is what it is, because it made the evidence for this fact more crystal clear than any edition before and after. All the mechanics are the same regardless of the classes that use them. And it's only the stories that we attach to them that mask our eyes to this fact and try to convince us that these things are actually different when in fact they aren't.

This is part of the reason why the whole 5E Warlord argument has always rang hollow for me actually... as you can run the mechanics of a Bard as-is and have it work out pretty much as a Warlord. We just have to remove the illusion in front of our eyes that says "Bard mechanics are magical!" which was just completely arbitrarily decided upon by the writers of the game and which we all bought into.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Feats, they let you do what you want.

** Legal Disclaimer: Feats may not be available in all areas, check with your DM for what feats may or may not be available to your character. You should work with your DM to determine which feats may be right for you. Take your feats at the level directed, in accordance with your 20-level build plan. All feats are furnished 'as is' with no written or implied warranty. Use at own risk. Feats have been associated with side effects including but not limited to: confusion, loss of actions, weakness, clumsiness, inattentiveness, social awkwardness, reduced cognitive ability, megalomania, dry mouth, death & death-like symptoms. **

Two feats gives access to a combination of 3 skill and tool proficiencies, 1 guaranteed skill proficiency, 1 guaranteed tool proficiency, and expertise in 1 skill. This can be reached by level 4 is variant human (+1 skill as well)

A nice feature of Variant Human, not fighter.

or level 6 if anything else (cause fighter).

Level 14 because fighter: that's when you get your actual second /bonus/ feat.

There's a fine line between ALL the classes in the game. And that line is purely story and fluff based.

When it comes to game mechanics you can merge any and all classes you want. Clerics, bards, druids, sorcerers and wizards all have the exact same spellcasting slots and progression-- why do we need them separate? Fighters, barbarians, rogues, monks, paladins, and rangers all fight the same way, all use the same types of weapons, and all have the same small mechanical bonuses to damage.
...
This is part of the reason why the whole 5E Warlord argument has always rang hollow for me actually... as you can run the mechanics of a Bard as-is and have it work out pretty much as a Warlord. We just have to remove the illusion in front of our eyes that says "Bard mechanics are magical!" which was just completely arbitrarily decided upon by the writers of the game and which we all bought into.

Nod. /If/ the game had already been reduced to two or three classes for that reason, sure. Or even no classes. What you're describing is what I like to call 'effects based' system design. The rules focus on what you can accomplish, you're free to make up the fluff of the how you did it and why it worked.

Hero System, as far back as Champions! in '81, really, though '89 was when it became intentionally 'generic,' was the ultimate expression of that design philosophy. No classes, very few guidelines, one (fairly complex) set of mechanics covers every imaginable character from any genre.

 

[CubicsRube]

Im fine with casters getting less skills as they have more utility in their spells.

But a foghter doesnt have access to that. The idea of more skills is to give fighters more things to do outside of combat.

It could be seen as gamey, but in my head i can easily justify that learning the arcane arts, or religious practices so dedicated that your god gives you literal magic have a higher time and effort requirement than learning to use weapons.

Remember in 5e a wizard still gets as good (in terms of proficiency bonus) a chance to hit as a fighter.

Rogues and fighters are still reasonably set apart by their archetypes and class abilities. Only a fighter can be a battlemaster, or a rogue am assasin, for example.

Ive heard mpre than a few people over the years talk about how the fighter has nothing to do outsode of combat, so i thought id mention it here.

As abovementioned, if you use the ua expertise fests then it opens this option up for all, and fighters get more fests than other classes, so this is another option

 

[AmerginLiath]

Feats, they let you do what you want.

Two feats gives access to a combination of 3 skill and tool proficiencies, 1 guaranteed skill proficiency, 1 guaranteed tool proficiency, and expertise in 1 skill. This can be reached by level 4 is variant human (+1 skill as well) or level 6 if anything else (cause fighter).

If the fighter is built with proficiencies in mind, this allows for at most 10 skill proficiencies, 1 expert level, and 1 tool. This only leaves 8 skills without proficiency, which is about what one would want based on available ability points or character concept.


I think that is pretty good skill monkey for having such raw combat performance, no multiclassing required.

I think folks tend to overlook how feats can be used to diversify abilities as much as specialize them (even if it’s not an “optimized” use of the feats). Fighters have easy access to more skills or quasi-multiclassing through that ‘class ability’ compared to other classes (and the broader definition of their class lets a character more naturally use them for such instead of just for tanking or dps). I sometimes reminisce to the early days of 3.0 when none of us knew how to game the d20 system and played it like 1e/2e with reverse AC, creating characters with the sorts of feats choices one would never see nowadays among those of us with the mind worm of character guides.

That all said, I wouldn’t be adverse to seeing a 5e subclass for Fighter that makes more use of skills/tools, perhaps in new combinations with traditional attacks (reflecting technical soldiers like quartermasters, bombardiers, combat surveyors and the like?) via tactical bonus action reading of enemies and terrain.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

And what about the skill monkeys? Are we going to turn them into fighters? And the task cat? Or the alliteration toad? The culinary penguin? Shocking, I tell you! Downright scandalous! Oh, the gossip turtles will have a field day!

 

[CubicsRube]

And what about the skill monkeys? Are we going to turn them into fighters? And the task cat? Or the alliteration toad? The culinary penguin? Shocking, I tell you! Downright scandalous! Oh, the gossip turtles will have a field day!

I approve of this message.

 

[77IM]

If there's anybody who deserves a third skill, it's the monk. The monk's skill list isn't super impressive, and I feel like it fits their vibe to have spent more time honing their skills than most characters.

That said, I could definitely see an argument for giving a third skill to the fighter, and also to the warlock, for much the same reasoning. These characters just seem like they would have had more time to work on their normal skills, since their class abilities require less exotic specialization. But that might hold true for the barbarian and sorcerer also.

At that point, the bard and the ranger are no longer feeling particularly special in terms of skills. That might be OK. Or it might be OK to bump them up to 4 skills, same as the rogue. Rogue would still have more and better Expertise, so they'd still be the king of skill monkeys. So then we'd have 3 classes with four skills (bard, ranger, rogue), 5 with three skills (barbarian, fighter, monk, sorcerer, warlock) and 4 with two skills (cleric, druid, paladin, wizard). This would make three skills a true middle, or average, option.

Honestly, I think the designers were just stingy with the skill proficiencies in early 5E. Races in Volo's and subclasses in Xanathar's seem to give out skill proficiencies much more readily.

 

[Quickleaf]

I've always wondered why traditionally fighters seem to end up with less skill points/proficiencies than casters.

I would think that witth intense study of the arcane arts or devotional practice to your god or patron, you would have less ti e and energy to devote to learning other skills.

Fighters on the other hand are perfectly positioned to become skill monkeys, yet it has never been so. Sure they train extensively with weapons, but they have time to carouse or learn languages or learn tools etc. Even a bard must extensively train in music to the point where it id literally magic.

What if a fighter started with 3 proficiencies and gained expertise in one at 3rd level? Would it break the game? Wpuld it trip over a rpgyes niche too much?

I enjoy fighters in 5e more than any other edition but its always been true that theyve been somewhat limited compared to other classes, and i think that giving them a boost in the proficiencies front would give them much more versatility.

I agree the fighter should do more than "just fight." It's a holdover of an unfortunate name & regressive game design, in my opinion, where features of fighters in older editions were steadily dropped or made universal to all character classes without introducing anything to fill that void.

However, I disagree the fighter should be a "skill monkey." That's the rogue, to some extent the bard, and that's as it should be.

 

[5ekyu]

I've always wondered why traditionally fighters seem to end up with less skill points/proficiencies than casters.

I would think that witth intense study of the arcane arts or devotional practice to your god or patron, you would have less ti e and energy to devote to learning other skills.

Fighters on the other hand are perfectly positioned to become skill monkeys, yet it has never been so. Sure they train extensively with weapons, but they have time to carouse or learn languages or learn tools etc. Even a bard must extensively train in music to the point where it id literally magic.

What if a fighter started with 3 proficiencies and gained expertise in one at 3rd level? Would it break the game? Wpuld it trip over a rpgyes niche too much?

I enjoy fighters in 5e more than any other edition but its always been true that theyve been somewhat limited compared to other classes, and i think that giving them a boost in the proficiencies front would give them much more versatility.

I think a big driving aspect of the perception is the way abilities are tied to skills with the variant being to choose ability on the fly.

I have seen sysyems which had abilities and skills as individual separate things and which focused on ways to use them in paors to represent different approaches.

I think the degree to which the GM uses alt ability skill matchups is a huge determing factor for this perception.

Consider... Social challenges...

Intimidation thru STR, DEX or CON are actually fairly easy to imagine.

STR...either an overy display or brute strength or just muscling in on the guy.

CON... Hand over flame to show pain (and crazy)

DEX... Three darts bullseye then pull out dagger and ask if a demonstration of what they do with dagger.

Similarly, if "skill based challenges" were shown as robust as combat in terms of needing multiple abilities, de jure and de facto, the perception of skill strength would vary.

Consider how often knowledge, history, wilderness tasks are resolved by a single ability skill pair and maybe even one roll as compared to how many different stats are used in combat.

How often are chalkenges presented/resolved by "roll arcana", "roll persuasion" as opposed to multi-staged tests relying on Int uses for knowledge, Cha uses for getting info from people and wisdom for seeing behind the facades and lies?

How many times a scene is set where force the lock is as good or better than pick the lock goes a long way to how "skill" weak the various characters seem.

 

[Blue]

Sure. Ever since 4th Ed (at least), the Rogue has had enough combat capability that they no longer need to corner the market in the skills.

I'm not sure I agree with this. Rogues are capable skirmishers, but in 5e they don't have nearly the staying power of the fighter.

I'll put forth, that when you consider the Fighter's extra ASIs for feats as part of it, that a fighter does equal or better consistent damage than a rogue comparing melee to melee or ranged to ranged, while being more survivable.