What would a fighter versatile out of combat look like?

[the Jester]

Out of combat, a fighter might be potent in a number of ways.

Perhaps his reputation as a grizzled warrior earns him the respect of those around him, and they are more prone to give him information, deals on weapons and armor, direct him to hard-to-find people or places, etc.

Maybe he has a penchant for leadership, which can apply in any number of ways. Perhaps he can train up a free company of mercenaries or an army to influence local politics.

I'd say that he can certainly make a living fairly easily; I'd imagine fighter wages are good (for the average joe) and affordable (for the average merchant), while a wizard might need to wait months or years between employment offers (because she's expensive!).

Knowledge of military tactics and (possibly) history; knowledge of the local political scene; social ties (the knightly fighter can expect a place to stay with the local lord; the thug can exploit his ties to the local thieves' guild); extraordinary physical skills (allowing faster travel overland, perhaps more safety against hazards of the road, etc); an understanding of local ransoming cultures. There are actually tons and tons of things that could be done to the fighter's out-of-combat stats to make the fighter quite effective in social or exploration situations.

 

[Manbearcat]

Just as an example of what kind of noncombat shticks Fighters can be capable of if the build tools are supportive, I'm going to be running a single player PBP here shortly on ENWorld (probably start within the week) with an Elven FIghter (Slayer) and an Aragorn type theme + LotR elven mysticism and connection with the natural world.

This Elven Fighter:

1 - Will have a potent Fey Bear Companion.
2 - Will be able to mundanely heal itself or its Bear on a per encounter basis.
3 - Will be capable of great feats of Athleticism by default but also be able to surge to preternatural levels of Athleticism once per scene (auto-passing the medium DC).
4 - Can cast Nature Rituals, specifically Traveler's Camouflage (You and your allies take on the textures and colors of the world around you.) and Bloom (Grass grows, trees bear fruit, and the land’s bounty is available to all.).
5 - Nature and Perception basically auto-pass the Medium DC (the vast majority of checks for relevant scenes).
6 - Is Stealthy, Acrobatic, and a highly capable mundane Healer, all passing the Medium DC 80 + % of the time.
7 - Is versed in all Lores, passing the medium DC 60ish + % of the time with each of them.
8 - Has a canny sense of sentient beings (very high Insight - 65 % passes Medium DC).

All while maintaining requisite levels of "Fighteriness". The character couldn't stand in for a party face but there is a considerable amount there. There are lots of means to make Fighters highly relevant participants in noncombat conflict resolution. 4e supports it with multiple PC build components that allow for flexibility and an equitable conflict resolution framework. Other systems can support it with open-descriptor resources + dice-pool driven resolution + metagame currency economy (multiple games), player fiat abilities (multiple games), siloed combat and noncombat resource schemes (13th Age), an equitable basic resolution scheme (DW).

 

[N'raac]

And what if they still decide to maximize fighting ability?

And I second the question that first one must establish what a fighter is. The class is so broad, it can cover anything from a knight to a thug, making it very hard to tie out of combat abilities to this class (or classes at all). Either you need lots of possible option the player can pick the right one for his class or tie them to background instead and then you again have the problem that the wizard has access to them, too.

I think the breadth of the class can be a weakness or a strength. Perhaps we give fighters a choice of Background (not thrilled with that name) options (Clerics pick a deity which governs their domains and Wizards pick a specialization) which provide some non-combat abilities, possibly including extra skill points to direct to a specific choice of skills (which also become class skills) and/or a level-based bonus to certain skills. Maybe we give them some extra skill points and the ability to select a few skills from a list as Class Skills.

I think they need to be abilities that can't be traded off for another +1 to hit or other combat advantage. Otherwise, we get the "pressured to optimize for combat" feel like a Cleric pressured to be party medic.

If you put points into STR or DEX, you have made the choice for combat over noncombat.

The point is that you could rub a 18 CHA 12 STR fighter and function as the face.

One could also say that, in choosing to play a fighter, you have made the choice for combat over noncombat. If we make the fighter the best choice for physical combat (maybe he gets a 1.5 BAB progression and a per level damage bonus), I suspect that most players will build on that strength rather than build a well rounded character. After all, the fighter presently has the choice of using his bonus feats for combat abilities and his regular feats to be a more well-rounded character by taking out of combat feats - how many do that?

 

[Minigiant]

[MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION]

I only think people played High Str because the game forced it. In 2nd edition and earlier, you got your bonuses form levels and specialization. High ability score helped but was not required. You could easily function with moderately good or average strating STR.

It really depends on the system. The 3e feat system was really leaning or requiring feats to get fighters to do their jobs in combat and most of them required high STR or DEX. 4e powers ran off it.

If fighters were not Ability Score Dependent, I suspect that more playerd would not assume fighters to be Str based and combat over noncombat.

Quite frankly, keeping fighters Str or Dex focused, barbarians rage-filled, and rogues so sneakiness focused really limits the types of PCs you can play who are not overly magical.

 

[Ahnehnois]

[MENTION=6681948]Quite frankly, keeping fighters combat only, barbarians rage-filled, and rogues so sneakiness focused really limits the types of PCs you can play who are not overly magical.

FWIW I'm all for trying to come up with some new mechanical support for nonmagical characters. I'd rather keep the fighter the fighter and have some new classes or variants that break new ground.

 

[Cadence]

It seems like PF has a few things that help allow a fighter to be more well rounded -- at least in the lower chunk of levels.

* The first point you put in a class skill gives you a +3 bonus. So putting just one point in something gives you a +4 modifier to it (1 for the point +3). So, even if you had no bonus due to INT, at each level you get a big bump to two more skills. Simply having a 12 Int moves that up to three.

* Using traits lets you pick up additional class skills and/or small bonuses at first level, and the extra trait feat would let you get more later on. So you could be stealthy or whatnot.

* At each level you get that choice between the extra hit point or extra skill point. If you want to be well rounded, take the skill point (a +4 bonus on an undeveloped skills versus 1 hp).

* With the extra powers added on beyond just the bonus feats, you could use the standard leveling feats to diversify instead of piling even more on for combat.

* Archetypes to let you be a better rider, give up some armor for different class skills, or get a bit of battlefield control and skills (or just really specialize in your chosen weapon).

 

[Minigiant]

FWIW I'm all for trying to come up with some new mechanical support for nonmagical characters. I'd rather keep the fighter the fighter and have some new classes or variants that break new ground.

Well arent those the options

Either make the fighter 90-100% combat and create more warrior classes that have more noncombat (noble, warlorc, thug, pirate)
OR
Assign some of the fighter class features to noncombat, reduce its combat focus to less that 90%, and give fighters noncombat options.

 

[keterys]

If the fighter is only able to fight, and nothing else, then a wizard should only be able to magic missile, and nothing else. We shouldn't want to go there.

So a fighter should be a knight who can lead the people, find succor with any noble, identify areas of tactics and strategy, gather an army or allies as needed, etc.

Or a tribal warrior who can race and sneak across the lands, identify plants and animals, climb mountains, swim rivers, etc.

Or an urban bruiser / tyrant who knows every connection, every route, whether for nefarious or legal reasons, as they enforce their will on the city.

Ie, there's no need to make sub-classes for things that every example literary fighter can do when we don't do so for every other basic class.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Well arent those the options

Either make the fighter 90-100% combat and create more warrior classes that have more noncombat (noble, warlorc, thug, pirate)
OR
Assign some of the fighter class features to noncombat, reduce its combat focus to less that 90%, and give fighters noncombat options.

Well, I guess the third option would be the PF route: making the fighter good at fighting and adding archetypes (or whatever you want to call variant classes) that trade out abilities and change its focus in various ways for someone who wants that.

I don't think it's really fair to the fighter that is all about fighting that someone who is, say, a pirate sailor or a knight commander should be able to match his pure skill (and his attack bonus, damage, and the like). To me, the player has to make a choice on what they want their character to be.

As to new classes, I think they wouldn't necessarily have to be about combat. I mean, maybe a duelist/swashbuckler is worth a class distinct to the fighter, and there's definitely a niche for a charisma-based warrior/leader that actually is about leadership, but there's also a need to expand to other territory, like the sage/smart guy class, and fleshing out the noncombatant archetypes that would fall under rogue (thief, scout, spy, etc.).

f the fighter is only able to fight, and nothing else, then a wizard should only be able to magic missile, and nothing else. We shouldn't want to go there.

That seems awfully narrow. Should it be more like if the fighter's just about fighting the wizard's just about spells? Because that seems to be pretty much the way it is.

 

[keterys]

That seems awfully narrow. Should it be more like if the fighter's just about fighting the wizard's just about spells? Because that seems to be pretty much the way it is.

I think you mean spells that deal with fighting.

Which would be more acceptable, though even then you'd make an argument for invisibility, polymorph, etc. So maybe it should just be about spells which do damage.

The real difference would be if the wizard were instead base classes of an Illusionist (who only did illusions), Enchanter (who only did enchantment), etc. That would actually be much more on par with a system in which "fighter" were valid.

The PF example doesn't really hold, because in PF a full caster (ex: druid) can get a fighter-in-a-pocket (animal companion) without sacrificing anything. Oh, and that companion can probably track, notice stuff, sneak, and do other things an animal can tend to do, but that fighters generally can't. Which is not to say animal companions are bad, just that fighters need to bring more to the table because just fighting is far too narrow a focus.

Even pure career soldiers learn nature, stealth, recon, logistics, etc at high levels of play. If a general country boy with a rifle is expected to know it, the fighter sure should be able to.