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

[Quickleaf]

One of the fighters I created has both linguist and observant. He can read lips of 5 different languages from a fair distance. Helps when trying to keep an eye on a target in taverns, and not have a rogue.

I applaud you making such a fighter character Awesome.

This is the "fighter is defined by feats" argument that often comes up in discussing the fighter's non-combat functionality. While it may be true at your table due to your group's play style, I believe it's a flawed argument when it comes to design for 3 reasons:

First, if you have a consistent gaming group that is mindful and considerate ("hey, John is running a fighter with observant & linguist feats, so nobody else takes those feats so his fighter PC can maintain that uniqueness"), then you are golden. No problem. However, if you have a rotating player base – e.g. Adventurers League, a West Marches-style game, or something else – the DM likely has no foreknowledge over what characters are brought to the table, and thus no ability to enforce the uniqueness of a fighter by virtue of feat choices. You might end up at a table with a druid with Observant and a wizard with Linguist, and bye-bye your uniqueness.

Second, feats are optional. In such a no-feat game, the fighter simply gets two more ASIs (at 6th & 14th levels)...but abilities cap out at 20...so what those extra ASIs actually translate to are reaching 20 in your primary attribute a few levels faster...and having one other attribute a bit higher. Is that really unique? I'd argue "no."

Third, the rogue also gets an extra ASI (at 10th level).

 

[KingofBongos185]

I applaud you making such a fighter character Awesome.

This is the "fighter is defined by feats" argument that often comes up in discussing the fighter's non-combat functionality. While it may be true at your table due to your group's play style, I believe it's a flawed argument when it comes to design for 3 reasons:

First, if you have a consistent gaming group that is mindful and considerate ("hey, John is running a fighter with observant & linguist feats, so nobody else takes those feats so his fighter PC can maintain that uniqueness"), then you are golden. No problem. However, if you have a rotating player base – e.g. Adventurers League, a West Marches-style game, or something else – the DM likely has no foreknowledge over what characters are brought to the table, and thus no ability to enforce the uniqueness of a fighter by virtue of feat choices. You might end up at a table with a druid with Observant and a wizard with Linguist, and bye-bye your uniqueness.

Second, feats are optional. In such a no-feat game, the fighter simply gets two more ASIs (at 6th & 14th levels)...but abilities cap out at 20...so what those extra ASIs actually translate to are reaching 20 in your primary attribute a few levels faster...and having one other attribute a bit higher. Is that really unique? I'd argue "no."

Third, the rogue also gets an extra ASI (at 10th level).

That's true. I only play with a group that is the same people each time. I've never participated in group that meet randomly.

Also I play with a DM that allows us to exceed 20 when comes to ASI. So this allows us to be able to truly become versatile, either focus on ASI or become a feat master lol.

Anyways because of that, my fighter is unique in the group bit I see what you mean for session outside of that kind of setting

 

[Satyrn]

You don't need abilities to explore. Just feet.

Oh Then the fighter's golden. He's got more of those than the other classes

 

[KingofBongos185]

See, this is not at all what I want. I want some classes to be better at some things than at others. I want most (if not all) classes to have holes in their capabilities. D&D is a party-based game, and I want the party's composition to have a significant mechanical effect on their ability to accomplish different tasks via class abilities, not just a flavor effect on how those abilities work. If you don't have anyone with the ability to disarm traps, then you should have to find another way to deal with those. If you don't have any front line tanks (often my groups focus more on squishier damage dealers than heavy armor wearing meat shields) then you'll have to adjust your tactics. If there are no strong healers, you act differently. If no one has outdoorsy capabilities, or social capabilities, or urban capabilities...things change. 5e already gives anyone the opportunity to get some of that stuff through skills and feats, so the only place left for holes is in the classes themselves.

Hey so what you said about wanting classes to be better than others in certain aspects I totally agree with. I was in a campaign where our DM allowed one of the members to create a character from a homebrew that he had to approve of. The homebrew was from the game WoW. It was a shaman. Now the shaman we thought was going to be okay and such because they are cool however we didn't see the idea of how broken the guy was playing him. Granted that was our DM fault for allowing it. But he basically tried to do everything and anything.

Tried to take over the healer's job and dps both melee and range.while tanking. I am a firm believer that each class and player should have a different role to play in a campaign at least.

I'm used to RPGs where in dungeons or raids everyone is assigned to a role they much carry out in order to be successful

The tank, tanks
Healers heal
And DPS focus on just attacking.

Such as that.

Though I know people don't like to be thrown into a particular role they must fill since everyone apparently only want to kill or wreck .

But I'm with you. Holes are needed to allow there to be a group to begin with. If everyone had stealth what is the use of stealth based classes. If everyone could heal why have a healing class. Etc etc.

Jack of all trades but master of none isn't really fun if everyone can do it. Leave that to bards. Rather than every class becoming like that.

Sent from my SM-G930V using EN World mobile app

 

[Eubani]

Fighter Design 101: Remove anything unique or give it to everybody else then remove all colour and flavour.

If anybody has problem with Fighter design 101 defend by stating that said fighters can take or do things any other character can do.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

But I'm with you. Holes are needed to allow there to be a group to begin with. If everyone had stealth what is the use of stealth based classes.

Umm. To be stealthy? Seriously, an all rogue campaign can be a lot of fun, with all sorts of complex burglaries and such that would be tough with other classes.

If everyone could heal why have a healing class. Etc etc.

Because characters get hurt in a game where other things frequently want to hit you with swords.

All kidding aside, it does have a bit to do with play style. But for a lot of us, defining your character to one particular role in combat can feel a bit limiting. In addition, it's narrowing your focus to one type of situation in a game where there can be so much more than just combat. Where I want so much more than just combat. For me it's still a question of the character, and the person, not the abilities themselves.

I won't say there were never roles in D&D before 3e. But they were much broader roles than the labels that folks started using circa 3e. and definitely in 4e. It's not that they can't be helpful for some, and in particular types of games, but they don't work well at all for us. And certainly there will probably some common approaches that do get used on a regular basis with a specific party.

 

[Ancalagon]

[MENTION=40233]Salamandyr[/MENTION]

Reading your post about all the skills a warrior should know... and well, yeah. Maybe fighter *should* be a class with more skills... and giving the fighter one extra skill to pick would do a lot for this, or maybe even 2? Tweak the class skill list as well?

This would be a *very* straightforward way to "buff" the fighter's out of combat abilities...

 

[Ilbranteloth]

I applaud you making such a fighter character Awesome.

This is the "fighter is defined by feats" argument that often comes up in discussing the fighter's non-combat functionality. While it may be true at your table due to your group's play style, I believe it's a flawed argument when it comes to design for 3 reasons:

First, if you have a consistent gaming group that is mindful and considerate ("hey, John is running a fighter with observant & linguist feats, so nobody else takes those feats so his fighter PC can maintain that uniqueness"), then you are golden. No problem. However, if you have a rotating player base – e.g. Adventurers League, a West Marches-style game, or something else – the DM likely has no foreknowledge over what characters are brought to the table, and thus no ability to enforce the uniqueness of a fighter by virtue of feat choices. You might end up at a table with a druid with Observant and a wizard with Linguist, and bye-bye your uniqueness.

Second, feats are optional. In such a no-feat game, the fighter simply gets two more ASIs (at 6th & 14th levels)...but abilities cap out at 20...so what those extra ASIs actually translate to are reaching 20 in your primary attribute a few levels faster...and having one other attribute a bit higher. Is that really unique? I'd argue "no."

Third, the rogue also gets an extra ASI (at 10th level).

Fair enough. But can you provide some ideas of what non-combat functions that all fighters share? Because really, what defines a fighter is that they are good at fighting. Of all of the classes, they are the only one that really is defined by their combat ability.

For the most part, anything else I can think of might apply to some fighters, but not all. Certainly, within archetypes it's much easier to define. Knights have mounted combatant capabilities and leadership capabilities, for example. A strength-based fighter can be very athletic and carry more, but a dexterity-based fighter would be different.

For the base class itself, though, there aren't too many (if any) non-combat abilities that I can think of that should apply to all fighters.

 

[Salamandyr]

[MENTION=40233]Salamandyr[/MENTION]

Reading your post about all the skills a warrior should know... and well, yeah. Maybe fighter *should* be a class with more skills... and giving the fighter one extra skill to pick would do a lot for this, or maybe even 2? Tweak the class skill list as well?

This would be a *very* straightforward way to "buff" the fighter's out of combat abilities...

I would like that, however I don't know if that would really be enough for most people who feel the fighter class doesn't stand out outside of combat (Personally I don't think the fighter stands out in combat either...but that's another kettle of fish). The fighter is still overshadowed by classes with expertise, or classes that can cast a spell that negates a challenge altogether, or jack of all trades.

Personally I think the problem arises from something different...There are really only three archetypes in fantasy: the Warrior, the Magician, and the Trickster. Each flavor of magician (every class with level 9 spells) pretty much does everything one would expect a magician to do, sometimes with some of trickster or warrior to boot. The Tricksters are adequately represented by rogues. But the Warrior archetype is split a dozen different ways, none of which actually feels fully rounded.

Take the monk, the barbarian, the ranger, the fighter, and maybe the paladin, squish em together, and you've got a class that feels like a warrior, and somebody who can hold his own with the Archwizards, and High Priests.

 

[cbwjm]

I think a small change for fighters, something to give them that little extra at 5th level, is Improved Fighting Style. Let them select a fighting style that they are trained to improve bonuses in some fashion.

Some actual ideas now, I was in a hurry when I wrote this comment. No idea on the balance of these, some are undoubtedly more powerful than the others, I'm just throwing some ideas out. I think something like this at 5th level would certainly make for an interesting addition to the fighter. I'd also include an addition to the Champion fighter's second fighting style to include both basic and improved styles.

Archery. When a creature within 30 feet moves towards you, you can use your reaction to make a ranged weapon attack against them.
Two-Weapon Fighting. When you engage in two-weapon fighting, you have advantage on your off-hand attack if you attack an opponent that you have previously targeted this turn. Optionally, this could be something as simple as being able to attack twice instead of once with your bonus attack
Defence. While wearing armour, when hit by an attack which deals bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage; you can use your reaction to gain resistance to that attack.
Protection. When you use this fighting style, you may move up to 10 feet to protect your target. After moving, if the creature that attacked is within 5 feet of you, you can make an opposed check to knock them prone.
Dueling. When you use this fighting style, you can make a free disarm attempt against each creature you successfully hit.

Great Weapon Fighting. I got nothing for this one.