D&D 5E The fighter and non-combat in 5E

[Ellington]

This is just a place to gather ideas on how to allow the fighter to help the party in non-combat situations. Please feel free to post your own.

A bigger emphasis on smashing, lifting, pushing and pulling things in the core rules - This might seem odd at first. This kind of stuff has always been around, right? Well, sure, but it's never been as big a part in classic dungeon design as monsters or some of the thief niches, like locks and traps. Why is that? Dungeons aren't linear haunted house experiences. They should feel like real places, with rubble and jammed doors occasionally obstructing you. The fighter should get a feel that his strength isn't just applicable in combat but in exploring the dungeon and opening new paths for his allies. These kinds of obstacles should be encouraged in the chapter on dungeon design, just like monsters and traps are.

A very important thing to note is that this niche shouldn't be made mechanically redundant by one or two spells as it has been in past editions. Sure, the party druid or wizard could cast a spell to move some rubble with nature powers or telekinesis, or blow open a stuck door with a blasty spell, but it should require some effort on their behalf. If it has a chance of failing, by for example requiring an wisdom/intelligence check as opposed to the fighter's strength check, having a fighter around seems a lot more desirable since he can do the same job without using up valuable resources like spell slots. It would make the fighter a good and viable option for exploration purposes while not being strictly necessary.

Intimidating presence - Not only should the fighter be able to intimidate people to get his way, but simply having him around should make negotiations more easy for party members. The thugs on the street should be more inclined to accept the cleric's offer to back down if there's a 7 foot, metal clad, greatsword wielding fighter behind him. If the bard tries to bluff the bartender by insisting that they already paid for their drinks, the bartender might unconsciously be more likely to believe him instead of starting trouble with the bard's rather large drinking buddy. This again, makes the fighter a good addition to a social situation and while not being necessary by any means, and make him feel a lot more relevant when such situations occur.

There could maybe even be some sort of optional "muscle" rule, where the combined forces of each of the negotiating sides would weigh against one another in the outcome of the negotiations!

Like I said earlier, this is pretty much just an idea dump for the fighter. How do you feel he should contribute outside of combat?

 

[steeldragons]

I like your ideas quite a bit, Ellington.

I'm thinking in the more general terms of categorizing the classes with what 5e has stipulated will be the "3 pillars of D&D" in the upcoming iteration.

For the purposes of this let's just go simple and say there's some abstract "point" set for each...I'll use 1-4. You can "max out" any ONE single pillar with 4 and your total "pillar points" cannot exceed 9. Then the player can generate as capable in whichever area, or not, or "pretty good all around" of however they wish to fashion their PC. Naturally, themes and backgrounds and such very well might (and probably would) be able to alter these.

With that in mind, I would see/imagine "defaults" being something along these lines...

Fighters: being the toughest front line guy and the most "common" class in most campaign worlds should be a good, solid, even option across the board with their obvious combat function being the best of the base classes. In other words:
Fighter: Combat 4, Exploration 2, Interaction/Social: 3.

Clerics: yes, capable in combat but more of an intermediary from the gods to the people, "leaders" of the community, diplomatic arbitrators, but also knowledgeable in history, politics, theology, more than capable of being scholarly, researching things, and so on and so forth. In other words:
Cleric: Combat 3, Exploration 2, Interaction/Social: 3

Thieves/Rogues: more concerned with getting into and out of tight spots than getting in people's faces. Cunning and avoidance of combat is as desirable (if not more so) than direct combat/confrontation. All the while being completely "at ease" in a variety of social situations (whether that requires attracting attention or avoiding it). In other words:
Rogue: Combat 2, Exploration 3, Interaction/Social: 4

Mages/Wizards: combat is something to be avoided whenever possible. Sure, I could handle myself, but much more interested in discovering what it is we're there to discover/decipher/uncover and master more of my arcane secrets. Whether they are gregarious, congenial or misanthropic, they are quite capable of "intelligent discourse" with those capable of it. Those who are not...well, why would I want to speak with them anyway?
In other words:
Mage: Combat 1, Exploration 4, Interaction/Social: 2

Gives everyone their particular niches...as a default. Fighters and Rogues being the highest/most adaptive across the board with a total of 9 points. Mages being the most specialized at only 7 pts. Clerics keeping the middle of the road and capable in anything with 8 pts.

Now, obviously, all of these are on slide dials....as I said, all of the above would be what I would make "defaults" for those who don't want to be bothered with this level of minutia. And I am not really suggesting that this sort of organizational thing would really have any "in-game mechanical benefits" or not....thinking of it as more of a "PC creation guideline tool" for players to put together a quickie snapshot of their PC's general interests and abilities.

A character you create can be a very outgoing friendly wizard who is also a stellar researcher (he's so outgoing because he spends so much time cooped up in libraries and very much enjoys company when he has the opportunity to engage them...or whatever), slide the Social up to 4 and put 3 in Exploration...even chuck a 2 into combat instead of 1 (his research specializes in combat magic?)...since you COULD have up to 9 points.

I dunno...this is all just flowing out of my fingers as I'm typing...so maybe it's useless/unnecessary...but as the OP suggested, just an idea board, so I'm throwin' the idea out there.
--SD

 

[Ahnehnois]

Just get rid of class skills. There's no reason why a fighter can't be perceptive, diplomatic, or acrobatic, based on the broad nature of the fighter concept.

 

[Mattachine]

I'm not excited about codifying the fighter as "the big guy". That is one type of fighter, an iconic one, even. Other types of fighters are equally iconic, though: daring swashbuckler, clever tactician, grizzled old veteran, dedicated swordsman, etc.

I think the sorts of things in the OP are best handled by themes.

 

[Minigiant]

At the current moment, skills are being divorced from classes. The greater part of the outside of combat stuff will be done through backgrounds for skills and minor tweaks (languages, atwill minor magic, contacts).

So if you want to make an intimidating and tough fighter, you pick a background like Soldier.
If you want to make a diplomatic and religious fighter, you pick a background like Priest.
if you want to make a deceptive and sneaky fighter, you pick a background like Thief.

 

[I'm A Banana]

As long as the fighter has some basic competency, it doesn't really matter to me. We don't need fighter-specific ways to contribute.

The conversation on backgrounds also applies to this: if a fighter takes the basic "soldier" background, what four skills does that contribute?

Maybe Heal (combat), Intimidate (interaction), Athletics (exploration), and Streetwise (knowledge).

A rogue who takes the "soldier" background might get the same.

Meanwhile, a fighter who takes the "thief" background might get Stealth (exploration), Streetwise (knowledge), Bluff (interaction), and Acrobatics (combat).

As long as they have that basic competency, I'm happy with it.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Just get rid of class skills. There's no reason why a fighter can't be perceptive, diplomatic, or acrobatic, based on the broad nature of the fighter concept.

At the current moment, skills are being divorced from classes. The greater part of the outside of combat stuff will be done through backgrounds for skills and minor tweaks (languages, atwill minor magic, contacts).

So if you want to make an intimidating and tough fighter, you pick a background like Soldier.
If you want to make a diplomatic and religious fighter, you pick a background like Priest.
if you want to make a deceptive and sneaky fighter, you pick a background like Thief.

Yup. Just make skills open to all classes and make sure that the thief's abilities are class features and not just skills. Anyone can learn to move with stealth but only thieves can move silently.