What would a fighter versatile out of combat look like?

[Ahnehnois]

It would look like a contradiction. Kind of, anyway. After all, it's called a "fighter".

That being said, I think [MENTION=2518]Derren[/MENTION] is right in that there are essentially separate mechanical paradigms at work here. Combat takes place in one, and the other stuff in another. Trying to give a fighter better skills in the context of the skill system is okay to a point, but ultimately detracts from the point of the class. Trying to take class mechanics and write them over the skill system is just bad.

 

[Quickleaf]

[MENTION=17106]Ahnehnois[/MENTION] A fine opinion! Certainly there is merit to the claim that Fighter is called, well Fighter, and so it should not do much else besides fight.

This thread is obviously not for people who believe that, since that premise I opened with was a WHAT IF. What would it look like? It's not an argument that it should be that way, it's an exercise in imagination.

As for the "it tramples on what skills do" criticism. Maybe, maybe not. I've intentionally left system specifics out of this other than the assumption that it is some version of D&D. If skills are a hang up for you and preventing your imaginative juices from flowing, then maybe think of fighter class options as "Skills++" sort of like Iron Heroes or True20's challenges, which are also in D&D Next by another name as technique feats.

Anyhow, I wanted to reiterate that dropping in to say "it wouldn't work", while certainly within your rights, doesn't really engage the creative spirit I intended for this thread.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Well, maybe it would look like a Thug; I've used that as a template for various light warriors that aren't as combat-focused. I don't think one can change the archetypical fighter much, but you can (in PF terms) make a new archetype. That is, a variant that explicitly gives up some combat training in exchange for more rounded skills.

 

[Mistwell]

The problem is that every mundane out of combat ability is more of a skill area than a class ability one. Magical out of combat abilities of course requires one to know magic which makes them class based.
That is the ultimate problem with the "out of combat abilities" discussion.

What you propose seems to be to remove skills, at least as a learn able thing, and split them up between the different classes like in 2E when only the rogue could detect traps, etc.
That would work mechanically, but isn't very good for verisimilitude.

Couldn't you just give expertise in those skill checks, without removing skills or harming verisimilitude?

 

[Celebrim]

Fundamentally, the fighter is a professional man at arms and is skilled at the sort of things professional combatants are skilled at.

In my game, this means that fighters are potentially:

a) Skilled at carrying loads (Implemented via the Porter 'skill', ranks of which increase the threshold of your light and medium loads)
b) Skilled at moving at a great pace (Implemented via the Run 'skill', ranks of which increase base movement rate)
c) Masters of combat tactics (Implemented via the Tactics skill, which allows various combat maneuvers and benefits)
d) Skilled in the leadership of troops in combat (Implemented via the Leadership skill, which vastly improves the utility of the Aid Other action in combat, among other things)
e) Able to handle, ride and employ horses and other martial animals in and out of combat (Existing Ride and Handle Animal skills)
f) Able to shrug off injury and mental blows (Implemented via resistance to Horror and 'Mettle' type abilities)
g) Reasonable movement skills (Existing Climb and Swim skills)

That's a lot of different capabilities. Fighters get 4 skill points per level.

Fighter has proven such a capable class as I've written it that I have seen no need to expand this list of potential expertise directly. Because of their high strength, out of combat, fighters have tended to be useful for carrying whatever heavy objects that the party has (including other PCs), tending to the animals and overcoming obstacles by sheer brute force (kick down the doors, bend bars, etc.). There utility in combat has generally made up for there lack of breadth out of combat.

A martial combatant wishing to extend into other skill areas can do that by taking as his starting Trait 'Unusual Background' (ei, Officer, Combat Medic, Martial Artist, Military Scout, Sentinel, Bodyguard, whatever), and/or by multi-classing into other martial classes with no loss of BAB. For example, a 'Commando' might tip for a few levels of 'Hunter' to pick up stealth and alertness type skills, or a Swashbuckler might dip for a few levels of 'Explorer' to pick up movement and social skills. Conversely these other classes might dip into Fighter for greater versatility in combat.

It would of course be possible to reduce variation in the available skills between these classes.

The real issue with Fighter is utility after about 6th level, when spell-casters start picking up access to things like Flight or when the party has things like Bags of Holding that pretty much obsolete the fighters core strengths. In traditional 3.X, the fighter starts to taper off in utility about 6th level and becomes obsolete by 13th level. Since I don't have any play test time with my new version of the fighter at high level, I'm not sure how much of that remains true. At high levels, IMO the problem isn't really with the fighter's build, but with certain spells as written so I've put most of my efforts in revision with respect to high level play there. I foresee the Fighter playing a lot like a Brick type superhero at high levels - very high hit points, high AC, very high base movement rate (around 60 wouldn't be out of the question), good damage capabilities, etc. If it turns out that the Fighter is lagging the spellcasters at high level, I'll probably look to address the problem with increasingly potent feats that allow for Brick type superhero actions - crashing through walls, or causing earthquakes by stomping, for example - and/or by rolling multiple feats into one using the 'Tactical' feat pattern of a feat granting three benefits. Since the current version of the fighter gets something like 30 feats by 20th level, this should work sufficiently IMO.

 

[Manbearcat]

@Ahnehnois A fine opinion! Certainly there is merit to the claim that Fighter is called, well Fighter, and so it should not do much else besides fight.

A Wizard should not do much else besides relieve himself!

A Cleric should not do much else besides create and file paperwork!

A Rogue should not do much else besides (mis)apply facial makeup (I hope that joke is not lost on folks)!

I kid

 

[Quickleaf]

a) Skilled at carrying loads (Implemented via the Porter 'skill', ranks of which increase the threshold of your light and medium loads)
b) Skilled at moving at a great pace (Implemented via the Run 'skill', ranks of which increase base movement rate)
c) Masters of combat tactics (Implemented via the Tactics skill, which allows various combat maneuvers and benefits)
d) Skilled in the leadership of troops in combat (Implemented via the Leadership skill, which vastly improves the utility of the Aid Other action in combat, among other things)
e) Able to handle, ride and employ horses and other martial animals in and out of combat (Existing Ride and Handle Animal skills)
f) Able to shrug off injury and mental blows (Implemented via resistance to Horror and 'Mettle' type abilities)
g) Reasonable movement skills (Existing Climb and Swim skills)

A great list! Though I'm not clear how you're differentiating several of these (e.g. combat tactics) from skills. This is your homebrew system, right? Is it 3e/d20 based? What would "Tactics" do exactly? And how would what a Fighter does with it be different than anyone else? Or is it that a fighter gets a bonus to that skill?

A Wizard should not do much else besides relieve himself!

A Cleric should not do much else besides create and file paperwork!

A Rogue should not do much else besides (mis)apply facial makeup (I hope that joke is not lost on folks)!

I kid

Heh. You remember the 2e PHB which listed the legendary/literary inspirations for each class? For the fighter it was Beowulf, Hercules, Perseus, Siegfriend, Cuchulain, Tristan, Sinbad, as well as Alexander the Great, Charlemagne, Hiawatha, Richard the Lionhearted, and Spartacus. That's a daunting list of some mighty leaders!

It makes me look at the fighter (from all editions) and think, "How is my character modeling these sorts of charismatic heroes mechanically?"

Certainly, something like the Leadership feat from 3e is a crude start, but maybe the fighter should poach from the bard and have some sort of Inspire ability? Or interface with Dominion Management rules at name level?

 

[Manbearcat]

Heh. You remember the 2e PHB which listed the legendary/literary inspirations for each class? For the fighter it was Beowulf, Hercules, Perseus, Siegfriend, Cuchulain, Tristan, Sinbad, as well as Alexander the Great, Charlemagne, Hiawatha, Richard the Lionhearted, and Spartacus. That's a daunting list of some mighty leaders!

It makes me look at the fighter (from all editions) and think, "How is my character modeling these sorts of charismatic heroes mechanically?"

Certainly, something like the Leadership feat from 3e is a crude start, but maybe the fighter should poach from the bard and have some sort of Inspire ability? Or interface with Dominion Management rules at name level?

I do remember and that was always my take (as well as Zorro, Dartagnan, Errol Flynn, Wesley and all the relevant swashbucklers).

Historically, the problem with any Fighter trying to diversify noncombat repertoire is the MAD issue it creates. Fighters have to have physical ability scores or they are terrible at their primary shtick. So the only way you fix that is to:

A - Give them Ability Score independent buffs or deployable resources (such as 4e Rituals, Themes or Utility Skill Powers)

or

B - Do like 4e and let them adjust their stat which adjudicates their Basic Attack stat (to Dex, Int, Wis, or Cha).

or

C - A combination of the two.

 

[Tovec]

Since this is "general" and not applied to any specific edition or game.. I think the best fighter isn't just a fighter.

In 3.5 terms the best fighter is a full fighter and full rogue, or at least fighter with the skills and out of combat stuff of a rogue (not necessarily trapfinding and sneak attack). There was a great build I saw a while ago where the guy was trying to remake the "AD&D fighter" in 3.5 terms. He gave him a full BAB, full saves, more skills, huge skill list, and several out of combat abilities as well as VERY strong in combat abilities. Now I think he went overboard I think there is good sense in what he was trying to do. I think that a lot of build or remakes the class come short because they put a dividing line between the fighter and the rogue when there doesn't really have to be one and in a classless system there probably wouldn't be.

In fact is is mainly DnD and its derivatives that have this kind of distinction. Otherwise it would be a strong fighter (with rogue as I've said) and a combined mage of both wizard and cleric (weapons definitely allowed, decent BAB, possibly allowing of armor). Just a thought anyway.

 

[Celebrim]

A great list! Though I'm not clear how you're differentiating several of these (e.g. combat tactics) from skills. This is your homebrew system, right?

Yes.

Is it 3e/d20 based?

It's sort of 3.25++. I don't like the direction 3.5 took, though I did borrow some stuff from it.

What would "Tactics" do exactly?

Tactics represents formal training in analyzing tactical situations, deploying troops, and fighting in coordination with others. Among other things, the Tactics skill lets you reduce facing without suffering squeezing penalties (3 could fight abreast in a 10' corridor, for example), it lets you extend your shield bonus to an ally (forming a shield wall), it lets you negate the penalty an attacker with a reach weapon would otherwise have attacking through your square to hit an enemy, it lets you attack with a reach weapon from 15' away under certain circumstances, it lets you negate the flanking status of an adjacent ally, it lets you improve your initiative when you aren't surprised, and at high levels you can improve the initiative of the entire party, it lets you obtain a flanking position from squares that wouldn't normally be flanking, it lets you determine what feats an opponent has, it lets you determine what stance an opponent is fighting in, it allows you to assess from a distance whether a square is difficult or normal terrain as well as what concealment or cover it provides, it allows you to improve your degree of effective cover beyond what the terrain would normally allow, and at very high levels it can negate surprise. Eventually I hope to develop an abstract mass combat system, and your tactics skill will feed directly into that.

And how would what a Fighter does with it be different than anyone else? Or is it that a fighter gets a bonus to that skill?

Tactics is only a class skill for Fighters. Additionally, there are fighter bonus feats like 'Heavy Infantry' that let you take 10 on some of the above, making them 'always works' options from quite low level. Other classes would require expending comparatively more resources to become skilled at Tactics.

Heh. You remember the 2e PHB which listed the legendary/literary inspirations for each class? For the fighter it was Beowulf, Hercules, Perseus, Siegfriend, Cuchulain, Tristan, Sinbad, as well as Alexander the Great, Charlemagne, Hiawatha, Richard the Lionhearted, and Spartacus. That's a daunting list of some mighty leaders!

Yes. And its worth noting that one of the saddest things that has happened to fighters in the last 30 years, is that people invented a Warlord/Marshall concept that killed the fighter leader and took his stuff.

Certainly, something like the Leadership feat...

I hate the Leadership feat. It's not available in my game. It takes a resource that should be a result of play and turns it into mere mechanics. Plus, it tends to do nothing more than slow play down. Worse, it's pretty much a no brainer feat from an optimization standpoint.

the fighter should poach from the bard and have some sort of Inspire ability? Or interface with Dominion Management rules at name level?

Excuse me, but the fighter isn't poaching from anything. The Fighter has always been meant to be the class of the captain of men, the great leader in battle, and the fighting general. Leading troops in battle is part of the job description, and if your fighter can't do that then you aren't doing it right. First edition tried to simulate this through the concept of the Fighter as 'Lord' upon obtaining name level, and by various advantages when founding a dominion, but I think this is well intentioned but moves in the wrong direction. Instead, fighters get access to a Leadership skill, that gives them various options like removing morale debuffs, reducing the duration of fear debuffs, removing the flatfooted condition from allies (Watch out!), aiding others as a free action, aiding others at a distance, buffing the Will save of allies, or at sufficiently high level aiding all allies in range. Plus there are a bunch of Leadership related feats that increase the effectiveness and add other options like buffing allies move rate (Move! Move! Move!) or share a Feat with an ally, for example. Fully invested into Tactics and Leadership, a smart and charismatic Fighter could easily match or outdo a Bard in terms of versatility and power of his combat buffs. And these aren't spells or magical songs - there are at will abilities.

Eventually I hope to integrate the Leadership skill with an abstract mass combat system.

Again, Leadership is a Fighter class skill, shared only with the Champion (think Paladin, but for any alignment). Other classes can learn Leadership and take the feats, but Fighters spend comparatively few resources to excel in it.