What would a fighter versatile out of combat look like?

[Minigiant]

Who says that's sneaky? With the slightest drop in my opponent's guard, I can quickly strike him in a vital location. That's precision. He has to devote his full attention to me or I easily slip past his guard.

It's sneaky. Or at least a special training as everyone can't do it. Then when you combine stuff like evasion and (insert thiefy thing from the edition of your choice), you start limiting yourself on what you can make with the fighter.

So the choice becomes to either give fighters options to broaden itself or make new classes to fit the other types of characters.

And I say removing the silly STR or DEX dependence and remove class skill list is the easiest method. Not every fighter need to be strong as Thor or dexterous as Batman and having their good roll sucked up.

 

[Quickleaf]

Here's a summary of ideas put forward in this thread so far...

What would a fighter who is versatile outside of just combat look like?

He or she would most definitely have expanded skill choices compared to fighters of D&D's past.

In addition, the fighter would have non-combat options that were siloed from their combat ability, so that a broader character wouldn't come at the cost of fighting effectiveness.

Options would definitely include:

Amazing Endurance
Assess Combatant
Evaluate Troops/Fortifications
Fearless/Amazing Mental Resilience
Horsemanship
Improved Tool Use for Breaking Sh-- Stuff
Leadership & Army Management
Perform a Forced March
Reputation & Social Ties
Shoulder Other's Burdens
Tavern Savvy

I think what's emerging is a broader fighter who still is bounded by certain limits. For example, the abilities we've been discussing don't trample on the barbarian, the paladin, or the ranger's traditional turf, but they do absorb the cavalier and the marshal/warlord into the fighter class.

In addition, they suggest the sort of rules that would be needed to support a broader fighter. Particularly a robust system for Armies/Dominions (and how that benefits day-to-day adventuring), Followers, and Reputation/Renown.

So of these 10+ non-combat functions for fighters, are there any that strike you as essential to the class identity when you think of "Fighter"? Or do they all strike you belonging in the "options but not core features" category?

 

[Ahnehnois]

A lot of these are combat related.

Amazing Endurance

Something that could definitely benefit from improvement with experience rather than being strictly Con-based.

Assess Combatant

Runs the risk of being kind of meta, but to some extent very useful. Not really an out-of-combat ability though; you have to at least be considering a fight for it to be relevant.

Evaluate Troops/Fortifications

Unlikely to see much use in a campaign that doesn't feature war.

Fearless/Amazing Mental Resilience

Definitely something the fighter should be much better at.

Horsemanship

Sure. It's a combat skill, but definitely something that has other uses and could stand to be emphasized.

Improved Tool Use for Breaking Sh-- Stuff

Sounds more like a barbarian thing to me.

Leadership & Army Management

Not useful or even realistic in most campaigns. An add-on maybe.

Reputation & Social Ties

Tough idea to represent mechanically, but I think one that many of us acknowledge. Most people respect fighters, particularly more so than members of other classes.

 

[Quickleaf]

[MENTION=17106]Ahnehnois[/MENTION] Yeah, but my question was: do any of these stand out as essential characteristics (rather than optional ones) that belong as a core feature of the Fighter class as you envision it?

 

[Ahnehnois]

[MENTION=17106]Ahnehnois[/MENTION] Yeah, but my question was: do any of these stand out as essential characteristics (rather than optional ones) that belong as a core feature of the Fighter class as you envision it?

To me, the ones that make sense are fear resistance/willpower, and endurance. The others might make sense for some fighter mods but not others.

One notable 3e-PF change was adding in a bonus to saves against fear. Medium saves, when they're used in a 3e paradigm, also provide a way to change the landscape on will saves. I definitely don't think the fighter should be as weak-willed as it is in some versions; it makes no sense that someone who is that tough and that good at fighting is so easily swayed.

 

[pemerton]

Options would definitely include:

1. Amazing Endurance
2. Assess Combatant
3. Evaluate Troops/Fortifications
4. Fearless/Amazing Mental Resilience
5. Horsemanship
6. Improved Tool Use for Breaking Sh-- Stuff
7. Leadership & Army Management
8. Perform a Forced March
9. Reputation & Social Ties
10. Shoulder Other's Burdens
11. Tavern Savvy

<snip>

are there any that strike you as essential to the class identity when you think of "Fighter"? Or do they all strike you belonging in the "options but not core features" category?

Numbers added by me.

1, 8 and 10 look the same to me. Within the context of D&Dnext, they look like some kind of bonus to CON checks/saves. (Perhaps STR for helping others with their burdens, assuming that's intended literally.)

6 looks like a bonus to a certain category of STR checks - perhaps advantage on STR checks to do damage to object/bust open doors. That looks fairly core. Or perhaps a fighter chooses between the bonus to STR checks and the bonus to CON checks? Some version of these toughness features should be core to the fighter.

4 is another save bonus. In D&Dnext, it is Indomitable, which seems to me to come too late. But D&Dnext is right to treat it as core.

2 and 3 look the same to me. That strikes me as pretty close to a core feature for a fighter. It probably shouldn't be WIS-based - fighters should be better at it than (or at least as good at it as) multi-class fighter/clerics.

5 looks like a feat/skill. Other classes want it to - many paladins, some rangers and barbarians. I think making it a core fighter feature is too narrowing for those other classes.

11 looks like the Streetwise skill, or perhaps a background of some sort. I don't think it can be core to a fighter, because rogues and bards should also both have access to it.

Finally, that leaves 7 and 9. I think this is where there is the greatest scope to make a fighter versatile and effective in non-violent conflict. (As well as allowing the fighter to be more versatile in combat, via leadership.) It can't be too heavily CHA-dependent or else the fighter will suck at it. Care needs to be taken also to complement the paladin and cleric rather than step on their toes. But I think something along these lines is pretty core.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Just to follow up here, these are the abilities I give my fighters that could fall under the more versatile than pure combat abilities rubric:
Command (Ex): Fighters are trained to command soldiers in battle. At 1st level, a fighter may ignore one of the following prerequisites needed to become a task leader for one teamwork benefit: a feat, a class ability, or ranks in one skill. With every six class levels gained thereafter, the fighter can ignore one additional prerequisite for any one teamwork ability.
Bravery (Ex): At 2nd level, a fighter, as a combat veteran, gains a +1 bonus to will saves against fear effects. This bonus increases by +1 for every 4 fighter levels gained thereafter.
Respect (Ex): Beginning at 4th level, a fighter’s skill inspires awe. In situations where he can display or otherwise leverage his fighting prowess, he gains a +1 competence bonus to Intimidate and Diplomacy checks. This bonus improves by +1 for every 4 fighter levels gained thereafter.

 

[howandwhy99]

What would a fighter who is versatile outside of just combat look like?

A Fighter character outside of combat is as versatile as any other character is when outside of their area of expertise. Meaning they are average. (Of course we roll Ability Scores so there is some variety within that average.)

The catch is: a huge portion of the campaign world can be assessed and appropriated for use towards combat. And that's still within the purview of the fighter class. Think like a Fighter! That's the call of the Fighter class and its subclasses.
We're at court meeting the king. Think like a fighter.
We're at the bar drinking. Think like a fighter.
We're haggling over prices. Think like a fighter.
We're worshiping at the local temple. Think like a fighter.
We're playing around with a magic item. Think like a fighter.
We're brainstorming for supplies. Think like a fighter.
We could use a different kind of weapon to exploit a monster's weakness. Think like a fighter.

And so on. The real focus of the game is on the systems supporting the classes it offers. That means most everything in the game is going to have statistics for combat (and magic, clericism, thieving, plus probably trade, crafting, etc.). Assessing those stats for combat is the game for someone playing a fighter.

But what about people who want to improve at other things for there own sake? (and we're not talking multi-classing here.) Players can try their hands at trying to be wheelwrights. Or run an inn for awhile. An easy one is to break into merchantry, at least at high level, since they likely have the funds and even goods to make a go at it.

The thing is, the players are the ones who get better at the game when engaging in areas outside of class. It took many years for the PC to become a fighter and taking a new one, especially a custom one built with the DM, takes a lot of work.

 

[Quickleaf]

It's interesting how a lot of people who oppose fighters with non-combat utility tend to be be old school gamers. I think the main criticism can be explained simply as: we don't need rules for role-playing or exploration. Which is a totally valid criticism, but tends to be limited to very very early play styles only a few stages removed from war-gaming.

Anyhow, I have been tinkering with ideas for non-combat utility in my redesign of fighters using house rules, and it is really turning out nicely. I think turning up the overall utility of fighters and tuning down wizards' utility (as compared to 3e/Pathfinder) is a good step that can help the two classes meet in the middle.

I love fighters and have a blast role-playing them (the RP contribution should never go overlooked). But have I ever played a version of a fighter which satisfied me in terms of its mechanics? No, not really.

There are lots of great ideas tossed around in this thread by folks who (I think) feel the same way and have been house-ruling fighters in their home games.

 

[Ahnehnois]

It's interesting how a lot of people who oppose fighters with non-combat utility tend to be be old school gamers. I think the main criticism can be explained simply as: we don't need rules for role-playing or exploration.

I'm not old school though. If anything, I like shifting the rules away from combat focus. I like noncombat skills.

I also like the idea of making less combat-oriented classes. To me, the fighter is pretty clearly not that. Then again, I do agree that we have yet to see one that even matches my fairly low bar for noncombat functionality.