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

[cbwjm]

Comparing the xp for a fighter and a paladin, I'd say that the paladin was the king of saving throws due to their extra +2 bonus. The fighter may have gained levels slightly faster, but that +2 bonus kept the Paladin's saves either on par or better.

 

[Nagol]

Good point. However, it's clear that fighters didn't have the best XP progression, being beaten out by clerics & thieves: http://www.sisterworlds.com/olde/2e/xp.htm

<snip>

Hmm, so what would be the math formula to account for variable XP progression so I could have a 1-to-1 comparison of saving throw progression of various classes in AD&D and BD&D?

I'd probably go with an xp to saving throw comparison: ignore level.

The result will still ignore the magic item potential which is a pity since it offers such a large modifier. Unfortunately, that effect is an emergent property that is strongly under the influence of the rewards available, won, and selected by the individual. It is very hard to model an expected value for it.

 

[Nagol]

Here's a chart for average saving throw by class vs. xp for 1e.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I'm having a hard time totally understanding the argument that fighters need built-in, fighter specific, non-combat class features. Sounds to me kind of like saying wizards need built-in wizard specific, weapon using class features. (I know it's not a perfect analogy, because wizards have plenty of combat relevant spells, but it's what I think of.)

What would these abilities look like? And would they be more appropriate at a class level or at a subclass level, given the breadth of concepts the fighter needs to cover?

The fighter needs a built-in network of contacts spread across the globe, an uncanny ability to attract women both friendly and hostile, and a PhD in archaeology. And tenure.

 

[Nagol]

The fighter needs a built-in network of contacts spread across the globe, an uncanny ability to attract women both friendly and hostile, and a PhD in archaeology. And tenure.

It's a joke, but contains insight. World-building (individual NPCs, factions, and resources) and world engagement (allies, rivals, faction allegiances) go a decent way towards extending breadth and capability among the non-combat pillars.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

It's a joke, but contains insight. World-building (individual NPCs, factions, and resources) and world engagement (allies, rivals, faction allegiances) go a decent way towards extending breadth and capability among the non-combat pillars.

Yeah, but unlike GURPS, D&D doesn't tend to track resources or relationships as character features. In D&D, an enemy is not something you write on your character sheet, and neither is an ally. The closest 5E comes is the way certain backgrounds guarantee you a pool of contacts, e.g. Criminal gives you a way to get in touch with the underworld whenever you want to.

I guess you could try extending D&D in that direction with networks of specific contacts, but I'm not sure how it would turn out. It's a bit of a change from the typical paradigm of "player controls PC; DM controls everything else" because now the player is partially controlling specific NPCs, at the very least to the extent of constraining them to be friendly to the PC.

 

[Nagol]

Yeah, but unlike GURPS, D&D doesn't tend to track resources or relationships as character features. In D&D, an enemy is not something you write on your character sheet, and neither is an ally. The closest 5E comes is the way certain backgrounds guarantee you a pool of contacts, e.g. Criminal gives you a way to get in touch with the underworld whenever you want to.

I guess you could try extending D&D in that direction with networks of specific contacts, but I'm not sure how it would turn out. It's a bit of a change from the typical paradigm of "player controls PC; DM controls everything else" because now the player is partially controlling specific NPCs, at the very least to the extent of constraining them to be friendly to the PC.

And its a direction D&D has been drifting away from since at least 1e. In 1e henchmen (plural per PC) were de rigueur to round out every PC's capability, followers came eventually, and hirelings -- both short term and long term were common and expected. There were both discussions and rules in the DMG about finding such NPCs, costs to hire and maintain, morale and loyalty, etc.

By 5e, the focus is sharply planted on the PCs. The DMG discusses that NPC allies or followers might be a 'thing' in the campaign, maybe. Using NPCs to round out a PC's capability is pretty foreign to the base rule set.

 

[BoldItalic]

The fighter needs a built-in network of contacts spread across the globe, an uncanny ability to attract women both friendly and hostile, and a PhD in archaeology. And tenure.

Sounds like Indiana Jones. But he doesn't wear plate armour. Not very often, anyway. Does he?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Sounds like Indiana Jones. But he doesn't wear plate armour. Not very often, anyway. Does he?

He re-skinned it as a hat.

And its a direction D&D has been drifting away from since at least 1e. In 1e henchmen (plural per PC) were de rigueur to round out every PC's capability, followers came eventually, and hirelings -- both short term and long term were common and expected.

A lot of de rigueur/common/expected things varied from one DM to the next. I rarely got to recruit henchmen and almost never got to actually use them - I resorted to playing then as PCs now and then to get the exp.
To me, at the time, the henchmen rules, which were quite detailed, had the feel of a DM's response to an option that had been systematically abused for a long time, maybe in 0D&D and even the pre-release early days of the game in Gary's basement, they were de rigeur or even abused?

:shrug:

By 5e, the focus is sharply planted on the PCs. The DMG discusses that NPC allies or followers might be a 'thing' in the campaign, maybe. Using NPCs to round out a PC's capability is pretty foreign to the base rule set.

Henchmen seemed gone in 2e, present only in the 'Cohort' of the Leadership feat in 3.x, off-handedly tossed back in the DMG2 as 'companion characters' to round out parties missing a role, and, again, absent in 5e.

But I didn't stick around for all of 2e, and mostly ran - with my own, extensive, 1e-ish variants - rather than played so, IDK for sure.

But, getting followers was a dramatic and memorable part of being a high-level fighter. (If because, for one thing, you got nothing else, 9th even marked your last precious HD+CON bonus hps. Not "hot damn, 5th level spells, too bad I gotta wait 3 levels for 6th, this character is really coming into it's own" more "well, might as well build a keep and retire, I'm get'n too old for this...")
So it could be cool to reprise that to help bring the fighter up to snuff. Like Robilar recruiting Otto, your fighter could bring in NPCs with useful abilities to contribute in ways he can't.

 

[Nagol]

A lot of de rigueur/common/expected things varied from one DM to the next. I rarely got to recruit henchmen and almost never got to actually use them - I resorted to playing then as PCs now and then to get the exp.
To me, at the time, the henchmen rules, which were quite detailed, had the feel of a DM's response to an option that had been systematically abused for a long time, maybe in 0D&D and even the pre-release early days of the game in Gary's basement, they were de rigeur or even abused?

:shrug:

Henchmen seemed gone in 2e, present only in the 'Cohort' of the Leadership feat in 3.x, off-handedly tossed back in the DMG2 as 'companion characters' to round out parties missing a role, and, again, absent in 5e.

But I didn't stick around for all of 2e, and mostly ran - with my own, extensive, 1e-ish variants - rather than played so, IDK for sure.

But, getting followers was a dramatic and memorable part of being a high-level fighter. (If because, for one thing, you got nothing else, 9th even marked your last precious HD+CON bonus hps. Not "hot damn, 5th level spells, too bad I gotta wait 3 levels for 6th, this character is really coming into it's own" more "well, might as well build a keep and retire, I'm get'n too old for this...")
So it could be cool to reprise that to help bring the fighter up to snuff. Like Robilar recruiting Otto, your fighter could bring in NPCs with useful abilities to contribute in ways he can't.

Henchmen existed in 2e, but the Charisma amount of henchmen was limited to "lifetime number of henchmen" so if you lost one, it couldn't be replaced unless you hadn't hit your quota. 3e dropped it to a single cohort if and only if you purchased the feat.