D&D 5E What non-combat abilities should fighters have?

[Quickleaf]

On a generic class level, the only thing I could see would be a bonus to Athletic things. The Fighter base class is so generic as to be usable for a variety of character types. This leaves customization to backgrounds/skills, plus feats (if available).

I could see several out of combat benefits dedicated to specific sub-classes, however. A cavalier with bonuses to riding and/or followers. A knight with bonuses to social interactions. A brute with bonuses to intimidation and interrogation. A scout with bonuses to hiding and perception.

1. The Gear Guy: I recently finished watching Matthew Colville's History of D&D One Fighter at a Time, and he does a great job (with the possible exception of leaving out several traits from the OD&D fighter).

One thing he reminded me of was how AD&D's %Strength dramatically boosted weight allowance, how the fighter started with more gold than others, and how the fighter used to be the only one who could use magic swords. So an argument could be made for the fighter (sans subclasses) being the "gear head" or the "burden bearer." This was stripped out of the class, however.

2. The Prestige Guy: The fighter used to become a baron, collect taxes, and get the most numerous and best followers. Moreover, in OD&D the experienced fighter could scare lesser goes simply be virtue of reputation or force of personality. So an argument could be made for the fighter (sans subclasses) being the "prestige guy." This was stripped out of the class, however.

 

[Nagol]

I imagine for people unfamiliar with AD&D and older editions that the argument that "fighters need non-combat features" seems strange or possibly an attempt to homogenize class design.

Back in older editions, fighter followers were a big thing. Yes, in either 1e or 2e other classes got followers BUT...

(1) The numbers, equipment, and skill level of other classes' followers were never as impressive as the fighter, and...

(2) Becoming a baron was built into the fighter in older editions. They were the only class that had explicit ties to political leadership and the ability to gain tax revenue.

That unique aspect of becoming a baron was stripped away from the fighter in 3e, or possibly in later 2e, can't remember exactly.

You may argue "Well good! I never wanted to play a political leader!" and that's fine, but it doesn't change the fact that something was taken away from the fighter which gave it unique non-combat functionality.

And nothing took its place.

So that's where the argument comes from (an argument I highly support) that the fighter needs non-combat class features. And I think [MENTION=37579]Jester David[/MENTION] hit the nail on the head in his comment above that the best place for such features are the sub-classes.

Actually, all classes save Thieves generate income from their stronghold taxes in 1e. The amount vary by class with clerics receiving the most per person (9 sp).

Followers are certainly one additional point that helped extend non-combat capability. Henchmen were another; having spellcasting capability at your command is almost as useful as having personal spellcasting capability. A third were the hirelings one could employ. Sages would not take long-term employment from a Magic-User, for example.

Outside of NPCs, magic items were another way the game tried to provide breadth of capability.

 

[Quickleaf]

Actually, all classes save Thieves generate income from their stronghold taxes in 1e. The amount vary by class with clerics receiving the most per person (9 sp).

Followers are certainly one additional point that helped extend non-combat capability. Henchmen were another; having spellcasting capability at your command is almost as useful as having personal spellcasting capability. A third were the hirelings one could employ. Sages would not take long-term employment from a Magic-User, for example.

Outside of NPCs, magic items were another way the game tried to provide breadth of capability.

Yes, that may be true in AD&D.

However, in OD&D, taxes were only for a fighter: Base income for a Baron is a tax rate of 10 Gold Pieces/inhabitant of the barony/game year. (Men & Magic p. 6)

What I was trying to illustrate is that, over the history of D&D (even from the very beginning of edition changes), there has been a tendency to cut things away from the fighter and make them more broadly accessible, but nothing is added to fill that gap. Thus, the fighter's identity is whittled away.

 

[Nagol]

Yes, that may be true in AD&D.

However, in OD&D, taxes were only for a fighter: Base income for a Baron is a tax rate of 10 Gold Pieces/inhabitant of the barony/game year. (Men & Magic p. 6)

What I was trying to illustrate is that, over the history of D&D (even from the very beginning of edition changes), there has been a tendency to cut things away from the fighter and make them more broadly accessible, but nothing is added to fill that gap. Thus, the fighter's identity is whittled away.

That I will grant. Other class capabilities expanded, sometimes into areas previously Fighter exclusive, sometimes into new territory. The Fighter class has been left with the non-exclusive ability to hit things hard and the exclusive ability to get slightly better attributes over time.

 

[ccs]

What a fighter needs out of combat is a player who's not afraid to engage with non-combat situations.

Mechanically not treating your Cha, Int, & Wis as dump stats can help.

As far as skills? You aren't limited to just whatever your background comes with. You can mix & match them.
But even if you aren't proficient in a skill you can still use it just fine (unlike in some cases in 3x/PF). You just don't recieve as big a bonus.

 

[Nagol]

What a fighter needs out of combat is a player who's not afraid to engage with non-combat situations.

Mechanically not treating your Cha, Int, & Wis as dump stats can help.

As far as skills? You aren't limited to just whatever your background comes with. You can mix & match them.
But even if you aren't proficient in a skill you can still use it just fine (unlike in some cases in 3x/PF). You just don't recieve as big a bonus.

That's true for any class. What the fighter class is missing is... everything else most other classes have to focus player attention, provide a niche, and promote excellence.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Honestly? I think 5e did it about as perfect as you could reasonably do by giving them two extra feats. Why? Because of all the classes, the fighter is the biggest umbrella that covers the most archetypes in fantasy media. The soldier, the knight, mercenary, brute, finesse warrior, etc. The class needs to be fairly generic to cover all of those archetypes. So rather than give you hard coded specific non combat ability X and non combat ability Y, the developers have said, "Here are two extra things that you choose in how to use them." And I think that's awesome. And I think anyone wanting the fighter to be focused into a certain specialty is looking at it flawed, because the very nature of the class is meant to cover a lot of archetypes.

Some examples: In AD&D, one of my favorite PCs is a halfling f/t. In 5e, he's just a fighter with criminal background and dungeon delver and skulker as his 2 extra feats.

Another PC I had was a holy warrior. Not a devoted paladin, but a warrior who followed a certain ethos. So he was a fighter with the magic initiate feat (cleric spells).


In both cases, those extra feats gave my PCs more than enough options for out of combat abilities.

 

[Celebrim]

In my own game, I silo'd out the following abilities as being particular to (but not always exclusive to) fighters.

The ability to carry burdens.
Any athletic ability that was about strength and power, including speed.
The ability to lead and coordinate, both in and out of combat.
Tactical ability, both at the level of individual battle tactics and the deployment of grand armies.

I think much of the rest should be subsumed in background, for example a 'noble fighter'.

 

[Satyrn]

Honestly? I think 5e did it about as perfect as you could reasonably do by giving them two extra feats. Why? Because of all the classes, the fighter is the biggest umbrella that covers the most archetypes in fantasy media. The soldier, the knight, mercenary, brute, finesse warrior, etc. The class needs to be fairly generic to cover all of those archetypes. So rather than give you hard coded specific non combat ability X and non combat ability Y, the developers have said, "Here are two extra things that you choose in how to use them." And I think that's awesome. And I think anyone wanting the fighter to be focused into a certain specialty is looking at it flawed, because the very nature of the class is meant to cover a lot of archetypes.

Some examples: In AD&D, one of my favorite PCs is a halfling f/t. In 5e, he's just a fighter with criminal background and dungeon delver and skulker as his 2 extra feats.

Another PC I had was a holy warrior. Not a devoted paladin, but a warrior who followed a certain ethos. So he was a fighter with the magic initiate feat (cleric spells).


In both cases, those extra feats gave my PCs more than enough options for out of combat abilities.

Aye.

I mean, we could instead take away those two extra feats and replace them with subclass features to get the same effect.

Well, nearly the same effect. We'd lose the versatiility of letting the player choose, while gaining a more flavorful variation among the subclasses.

We'd get more subclasses because there'd me more design space to make the differences significant enough to be worthwhile. But it'd still just wind up with the same result as letting the player choose his own social/exploration/combat feat as he wishes.


(I know one more fighter subclass I want. The holy knight.)

 

[Quickleaf]

In my own game, I silo'd out the following abilities as being particular to (but not always exclusive to) fighters.

The ability to carry burdens.
Any athletic ability that was about strength and power, including speed.
The ability to lead and coordinate, both in and out of combat.
Tactical ability, both at the level of individual battle tactics and the deployment of grand armies.

I think much of the rest should be subsumed in background, for example a 'noble fighter'.

What did that look like for your game? Did you add features to the 5e fighter? Or was it just in the back of your mind when running the game?