D&D 5E Things that the non-magical Fighter could do

[Sadras]

Clerics get a +10 attack bonus from channel divinity at level 2, which seems to go against that design goal too. This boost is in a very targeted manner. Takes 12 seconds of doing nothing, only lasts for a single action, only applies to feats of strength. Getting a really high result doesn't really break the game, certainly not in the way that Wish or Trap the Soul or Teleport or any number of other effects do.

Fair enough. I would suggest giving it a limitation between Short Rests of suffer Level of Fatigue for each overuse.

Which is why I said "until level 5", which is when they get their extra attack which works super well with action surge and literally doubles their damage output. Since this boost would only apply at most once a round whether they hit once or eight times, it basically just smooths things out so that the fighter doesn't have to wait till level 5 to start being the best at simple fighting.

Cool. Personally our group would not use it, mostly due the fact that we play with a capped HD (similar to E6) so its not 100% playtest packet. We have been thinking about swopping out Damage on a Miss (DOAM) in the Two-Hander Style in favour of something like this - so it would not apply once per round per your example.
For the record we level extremely slowly (characters get other benefits though) and no one has even opted for the Two-Hander Style.
To boost the Fighter class - we gave him an additional fighting style. Players like it. For the Barbarian we stole 1-2 ideas from the Conan RPG, as in Improvise: Mundane items and equipment are treated as weapons in the Barbarian's hands. Similar stuff for the other classes.

 

[dd.stevenson]

A lot of the things I want to see come down to monster design.

For example, monsters that are not allowed perception checks to notice sneaking characters unless the GM decides they're on watch, thus leaving sneaking characters with a vital role in taking out these the watchmen so the party can proceed. Or monsters with body parts that are only vulnerable to sneak attack damage, that when destroyed deliver a debilitating debuff to the monster. Or monsters with huge devastating attacks that do no damage to characters in heavy armor. etc.

I also wish D&D monsters had telegraphs or "tells" like a lot of player skill-based crpgs utilize--if the players correctly intrepert the monster's stance, weapon position, etc, then they are able to take actions that allow them to mostly negate the monster's ability.

 

[Manbearcat]

As for high levels, what's the goal there? Are we modelling fighters like Beowulf, Odysseus, Lancelot, Perseus? What should they be doing apart from getting bigger numbers on the same old things? Do we need something more for the ones who are effectively demi-god-like, Guan Yu, Arjuna, Heracles, et al?

I would say so. I don't think simulationist mechanics have much in the way to offer her unfortunately. How do you physically attempt to model something superheroic conflict resolution via process simulation without it turning into a chain of task resolution permutations whose final tally offers less of a % chance for success than is required for the genre?

I'm more inclined toward things that provide player fiat like Dungeon World's Through Death's Eyes (when you go into battle, make a check; pick someone who lives and someone who dies), a Fighter analogue to 13th Age's Swashbuckle (do something awesome by fiat), or any number of 4e Epic Destiny features. A plot/fate point or bennie system which is thematically engineered toward the Fighter's epic archetypes would do the trick as well.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

So the Fighter kills the Bard and takes his stuff? No other class can offer inspiring leadership? I'd prefer to see that left open for all classes, actually.

No, the Fighter, as WotC has said, kills the WARLORD and takes his stuff. This will absolutely NOT be open to all classes. That is not how D&D works. This will be class or sub-class-based, period. The Bard in 5E doesn't operate this way, either - he's not, by the descriptions, a battle-leader type (even the more fight-y one isn't really a safe frontline combatant), whereas the Warlord was, and the Fighter, who now has his stuff, should be.

As for the rest of it, well, that's mostly what one calls "blocking". You're actively seeking reasons to say no, rather than making any effort to help or imagine ways it could work. On a lot of forums, that'd get you a warning, because it's directly against the thread topic. This isn't "things that the non-magical Fighter couldn't do". There's bound to be cross-over with Rogue, but the idea that Fighters can't do "agile stuff" is beyond ridiculous and should have died out in the 1980s, when people were still spouting idiotic drivel about plate armour requiring men to be winched on to horses (rather than looking at the real accounts of people vaulting into the saddle in it, swimming moats (with a log to aid flotation, usually), climbing ladders and so on. Rogues are always going to be better at skill-check agility stuff, but no reason Fighters (who pretty much all have Athletics AND high STR) can't be damn good at that kind of thing. You're also just plain wrong to assign the strategic acumen to the Rogue, or indeed any class but the Fighter. The Rogue knows how to rob the bank or get into the backdoor of the castle. The Fighter is the guy who knows how to plan the ambush, or mislead the enemy in battle.

Anyway, adding to the current listings, which are excellent:

"Barrelling Charge"-type abilities - i.e. run through a bunch of enemies, attacking them and knocking them down (would be limited to enemies within one size of the Fighter).

Climbing on Big Monsters whilst hitting them (which makes it very hard for them to hit you properly, and would distract the hell out of them) - This could be a cross-class thing, but I'd love to see a way for Fighters to be particularly good at it, given their strength and toughness.

Battle Trickery of various kinds - Tricking intelligent, thinking enemies into poor decisions - would probably offer a WIS or INT save to the effect (obviously wouldn't work on mindless creatures).

I'd be particularly keen to see the return of "wipe up low-HD enemies"-type abilities, just like Fighters had in 1E and 2E (and possibly some other older editions). With 5E, you could use CL as the measure, maybe. You could also extend this to other "Warrior"-type classes, of course (but it should perhaps be lesser for them than Fighters).

 

[Nagol]

No, the Fighter, as WotC has said, kills the WARLORD and takes his stuff. This will absolutely NOT be open to all classes. That is not how D&D works.

The examples given were not of unit inspiration but covered corps and armies. Up until 4e, unit inspiration was handled by the casters (typically cleric and bard), and Charisma modifiers available to all character types. Army inspiration was the sole province of Charisma when it was handled at all.

This will be class or sub-class-based, period. The Bard in 5E doesn't operate this way, either - he's not, by the descriptions, a battle-leader type (even the more fight-y one isn't really a safe frontline combatant), whereas the Warlord was, and the Fighter, who now has his stuff, should be.

Did Montgomery fight on the front-line in WWII? Did Patton? It is certainly not the typical place for army commanders to appear.

He certainly could be fluffed as a battle-leader type. I've seen several Bard battle-leaders over the decades.

As for the rest of it, well, that's mostly what one calls "blocking". You're actively seeking reasons to say no, rather than making any effort to help or imagine ways it could work. On a lot of forums, that'd get you a warning, because it's directly against the thread topic.

While of course you are entitled to your opinion, I'd prefer if you didn't speculate on board moderation.

This isn't "things that the non-magical Fighter couldn't do". There's bound to be cross-over with Rogue, but the idea that Fighters can't do "agile stuff" is beyond ridiculous and should have died out in the 1980s, when people were still spouting idiotic drivel about plate armour requiring men to be winched on to horses (rather than looking at the real accounts of people vaulting into the saddle in it, swimming moats (with a log to aid flotation, usually), climbing ladders and so on. Rogues are always going to be better at skill-check agility stuff, but no reason Fighters (who pretty much all have Athletics AND high STR) can't be damn good at that kind of thing. You're also just plain wrong to assign the strategic acumen to the Rogue, or indeed any class but the Fighter. The Rogue knows how to rob the bank or get into the backdoor of the castle. The Fighter is the guy who knows how to plan the ambush, or mislead the enemy in battle.

The way a class system works is the is a "thing" that is best done by/only done by a particular class. If Fighters were made the best/only class indulging in Parkour it looks like it would step on the Rogues Climb/Tumble. In fact Parkour looks like an implementation of Climb, Tumble and Athletics and would more rightly fall under Rogue action.

The real problem is there are multiple non-magical classes that involve combat and action. If you wanted to redefine the rest of the non-magical classes such that the Fighter takes on all physical action in and out of combat, I'd be cool with that though that opens the scope much wider than the thread title.

 

[Thaumaturge]

Climbing on Big Monsters whilst hitting them (which makes it very hard for them to hit you properly, and would distract the hell out of them) - This could be a cross-class thing, but I'd love to see a way for Fighters to be particularly good at it, given their strength and toughness.

This would be awesome.

Let's see--
Climb Aboard
You target a creature two size categories, or more, larger than yourself. Roll one superiority die. If the number rolled is equal to or greater than the target’s Strength modifier, you deal Strength modifier damage and climb atop the creature's back. The creature has disadvantage on all attacks until either it dislodges you by: you losing half of your hit point total when you used Climb Aboard or the creature makes a strength save, as a standard action, against your strength. You may use a superiority die on these strength checks.

That's very first blush rough draft. But something along those lines could be fun. It's a bit fiddly, with having to track the fighter's current hitpoints, but doing enough damage to the fighter should make him drop.

Could be a fun maneuver.

Thaumaturge.

 

[Bluenose]

The examples given were not of unit inspiration but covered corps and armies. Up until 4e, unit inspiration was handled by the casters (typically cleric and bard), and Charisma modifiers available to all character types. Army inspiration was the sole province of Charisma when it was handled at all.

And? If we're looking for non-magical things a Fighter could do, isn't "Inspire the Troops" a good choice?

Did Montgomery fight on the front-line in WWII? Did Patton? It is certainly not the typical place for army commanders to appear.

Rommel did it. Actually, several Heer/SS/Red Army generals did it, and some of them died doing it.

The way a class system works is the is a "thing" that is best done by/only done by a particular class. If Fighters were made the best/only class indulging in Parkour it looks like it would step on the Rogues Climb/Tumble. In fact Parkour looks like an implementation of Climb, Tumble and Athletics and would more rightly fall under Rogue action.

I don't agree that it only works because every class gets something unique/that they're best at. There's no reason why there can't be several classes doing something equally competently, just in different ways - Fighter and Bard isnpiration don't have to be the same - especially since they'll have other areas where they don't overlap. Mind, I'd certainly not object if Rogues got Parkour, but then I'd expect Fighters to have features that the Rogue couldn't match. Something based around Endurance, perhaps.

The real problem is there are multiple non-magical classes that involve combat and action. If you wanted to redefine the rest of the non-magical classes such that the Fighter takes on all physical action in and out of combat, I'd be cool with that though that opens the scope much wider than the thread title.

I'm beginning to regret using "Fighter" instead of "non-magical character", even if that was what the post I responded to was talking about.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

The way a class system works is the is a "thing" that is best done by/only done by a particular class.

Not only is your grammar there somewhat impenetrable, but assuming you're saying what you appear to be saying, the simple answer is: No, it isn't.

I can't think of a single class system in the entire history of RPGs that you can say that about without some immediate contradictions appearing. Even with early D&D, with stuff like Climb Walls, there was an assumption that all classes could do it, just that Rogues were better.

It's certainly never been even arguably true of D&D past 1E or later, where you often have multiple classes crossing over in their abilities.

This would be awesome.

Let's see--
Climb Aboard
You target a creature two size categories, or more, larger than yourself. Roll one superiority die. If the number rolled is equal to or greater than the target’s Strength modifier, you deal Strength modifier damage and climb atop the creature's back. The creature has disadvantage on all attacks until either it dislodges you by: you losing half of your hit point total when you used Climb Aboard or the creature makes a strength save, as a standard action, against your strength. You may use a superiority die on these strength checks.

That's very first blush rough draft. But something along those lines could be fun. It's a bit fiddly, with having to track the fighter's current hitpoints, but doing enough damage to the fighter should make him drop.

Could be a fun maneuver.

Thaumaturge.

Can someone XP this man? That's a great first draft for 5E.

 

[Nagol]

And? If we're looking for non-magical things a Fighter could do, isn't "Inspire the Troops" a good choice?

Maybe. But, does offering it to just the Fighter class make sense? Are there not characters better-classed as clerics and paladins that can offer large scale inspiration as well? For every Patton, I can probably find a Pope Julius II, Galahad, or King George VI.

Rommel did it. Actually, several Heer/SS/Red Army generals did it, and some of them died doing it.

But most on the list did not and their inspiration applied to all men under their command not the men in the room with them.

I don't agree that it only works because every class gets something unique/that they're best at. There's no reason why there can't be several classes doing something equally competently, just in different ways - Fighter and Bard isnpiration don't have to be the same - especially since they'll have other areas where they don't overlap. Mind, I'd certainly not object if Rogues got Parkour, but then I'd expect Fighters to have features that the Rogue couldn't match. Something based around Endurance, perhaps.

If several classes are doing something equally competently, it isn't class defining. That is not to say class abilities can't overlap, but if the overlap hits more than a couple of classes, the question starts becoming why can't X class do this thing everyone else can. Now it may be that Parkour is something the Rogue can share with the Fighter since both are athleticists, but it is not something that should be defining of the Fighter class. Seeing someone parkour across a roofscape one shouldn't think "Wow he must be a great Fighter". The Fighter is not the only athletic class -- it would be much easier if it were.

If Parkour was as strategically valuable form of movement as mid-level magical flight then that would help all classes with access to it. The problem is that is very campaign dependent and probably not general enough for the base game.

 

[Rune]

I believe ACKS has a mechanic where fighters can keep attacking indefinitely until they fail to kill a foe with an attack. This would be a good (non-fiddly) way have high level fighters mow through minion-type enemies.

This could be really interesting for an archer on a battlefield!