Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
What non-combat abilities should fighters have?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Sword of Spirit" data-source="post: 7188429" data-attributes="member: 6677017"><p>It sounds like there is a leaning towards subclass focused abilities, which makes the most sense to me. WotC seems to be trying to do that in post-PHB content. Mike Mearls said he regrets the way they did Champion and Battle Master because they are mechanical rather than identity based, but I think there was some merit to. They could have started with fighter subclasses with stronger identities, but that would have required a significant number of them to cover all the basic options so people didn't feel like their option wasn't supported. The Battle Master supports (in my eyes) things like swashbuckler, gladiator, samurai, as well as the more generic concepts like a fighter that trains at a dedicated fighter's school or a tactical leader. And they have non-combat abilities in the form of a tool proficiency (not unique) and an ability to size up potential opponents (unique). Champion's out of combat ability, Remarkable Athlete, is kind of weak, but it is mostly unique (bard gets something similar). Purple Dragon Knight got Persuasion Expertise, which isn't entirely unique, but is definitely something. The UA fighters seem to all get unique things.</p><p></p><p>So would the dissatisfaction be absent if the PHB subclasses were more like the UA subclasses, or is it more fundamental?</p><p></p><p>For instance, fundamental things like followers or better taxes don't make any sense from a 5e design standpoint, because nobody gets those features or the equivalents of them anymore as built-in class features. Implementing those sorts of things would require giving rogues a feature that makes them guild masters, clerics a feature to get their own temples, etc. That's a whole different design layer of the game that wouldn't make sense if it were only applied to fighters. Is there a desire for this sort of general layer to be added to the game? Perhaps that sort of thing could be added as high level "prestige backgrounds" that you can pick up some time after 9th level. Perhaps each class is limited to specific choices.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm fine with in-combat solutions. I think the fighter works fine as is (and I like to play pretty much all classes), so I'm just trying to understand the other viewpoints. Most of what I'm seeing relates to fighters out of combat, so that's how I phrased my questions.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>As I said it's not a perfect analogy. My mind goes there because it immediately feels like the same conceptual idea (not necessarily mechanical). Something that seems to not fit the class. Ie, wizards are spellcasters, giving them unique abilities with no relation to casting spells, seems the same as giving a class that is designed as a physical combatant unique abilities with no relation to physical combat. Again, focus on the disconnect I'm seeing rather than specifics. I'm not trying to justify or convince anyone here. I'm saying that this is how it looks to me and I'm trying to understand what other people are seeing that I'm not.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>There's some imbalance, but fighter is within my personal tolerance range.</p><p></p><p>It's not about balance, it's about class identity concepts.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Sword of Spirit, post: 7188429, member: 6677017"] It sounds like there is a leaning towards subclass focused abilities, which makes the most sense to me. WotC seems to be trying to do that in post-PHB content. Mike Mearls said he regrets the way they did Champion and Battle Master because they are mechanical rather than identity based, but I think there was some merit to. They could have started with fighter subclasses with stronger identities, but that would have required a significant number of them to cover all the basic options so people didn't feel like their option wasn't supported. The Battle Master supports (in my eyes) things like swashbuckler, gladiator, samurai, as well as the more generic concepts like a fighter that trains at a dedicated fighter's school or a tactical leader. And they have non-combat abilities in the form of a tool proficiency (not unique) and an ability to size up potential opponents (unique). Champion's out of combat ability, Remarkable Athlete, is kind of weak, but it is mostly unique (bard gets something similar). Purple Dragon Knight got Persuasion Expertise, which isn't entirely unique, but is definitely something. The UA fighters seem to all get unique things. So would the dissatisfaction be absent if the PHB subclasses were more like the UA subclasses, or is it more fundamental? For instance, fundamental things like followers or better taxes don't make any sense from a 5e design standpoint, because nobody gets those features or the equivalents of them anymore as built-in class features. Implementing those sorts of things would require giving rogues a feature that makes them guild masters, clerics a feature to get their own temples, etc. That's a whole different design layer of the game that wouldn't make sense if it were only applied to fighters. Is there a desire for this sort of general layer to be added to the game? Perhaps that sort of thing could be added as high level "prestige backgrounds" that you can pick up some time after 9th level. Perhaps each class is limited to specific choices. 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. I'm fine with in-combat solutions. I think the fighter works fine as is (and I like to play pretty much all classes), so I'm just trying to understand the other viewpoints. Most of what I'm seeing relates to fighters out of combat, so that's how I phrased my questions. As I said it's not a perfect analogy. My mind goes there because it immediately feels like the same conceptual idea (not necessarily mechanical). Something that seems to not fit the class. Ie, wizards are spellcasters, giving them unique abilities with no relation to casting spells, seems the same as giving a class that is designed as a physical combatant unique abilities with no relation to physical combat. Again, focus on the disconnect I'm seeing rather than specifics. I'm not trying to justify or convince anyone here. I'm saying that this is how it looks to me and I'm trying to understand what other people are seeing that I'm not. There's some imbalance, but fighter is within my personal tolerance range. It's not about balance, it's about class identity concepts. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
What non-combat abilities should fighters have?
Top