What would a fighter versatile out of combat look like?

[N'raac]

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.

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.

I find the two items I emphasized above are often referred to as if they were the same thing. Role playing, at least to me, falls largely outside mechanics. I definitely support robust mechanics for noncombat skills. Success in interaction should be based on character abilities, not the player's oratorical skills or glibness. But "role playing" is not "mechanics". Knowing we can get a +2 bonus to Diplomacy if we defer to the King in accordance with the traditions and rules of etiquette of the kingdom is mechanics. Whether my proud Elven warrior is going to bow deferentially to the Goblin King, as requested by our knowledgeable diplomat who is respectful of all cultures, is role playing.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I find the two items I emphasized above are often referred to as if they were the same thing. Role playing, at least to me, falls largely outside mechanics. I definitely support robust mechanics for noncombat skills. Success in interaction should be based on character abilities, not the player's oratorical skills or glibness. But "role playing" is not "mechanics". Knowing we can get a +2 bonus to Diplomacy if we defer to the King in accordance with the traditions and rules of etiquette of the kingdom is mechanics. Whether my proud Elven warrior is going to bow deferentially to the Goblin King, as requested by our knowledgeable diplomat who is respectful of all cultures, is role playing.

I think there's some conceptual overlap, but yes they are different things. Role-playing does require that you play with an understanding of the mechanics. Just as when you're playing your high-strength character, you make decisions according to your strength (such as trying to intimidate people, or bust down doors, or carry large objects, or simply engage in melee combat). Likewise, you have to make decisions according to how smart, canny, and charming your character is.

Where I think there's a problem is trying to shoehorn some noncombat mechanical elements into a class-based system. It's not easy to do. Some of my efforts to do so are posted upthread, but ultimately it's hard to rationalize why class X can talk or think a certain way and class Y cannot, so everything has to be in the form of incremental bonuses to stuff you can already do. Which is fine and good and exactly what the d20 system is supposed to do, but hasn't been effectively leveraged with the existing classes, and doesn't satisfy everyone apparently.

 

[N'raac]

I think there's some conceptual overlap, but yes they are different things. Role-playing does require that you play with an understanding of the mechanics. Just as when you're playing your high-strength character, you make decisions according to your strength (such as trying to intimidate people, or bust down doors, or carry large objects, or simply engage in melee combat). Likewise, you have to make decisions according to how smart, canny, and charming your character is.

Other than the often jarring fact that Intimidation is based on CHA, not STR, of course. The manner in which the character tries to accomplish his objectives will be driven largely by his mechanical strengths and weaknesses. I would not expect a character who considers enforcing his will on others to be morally repugnant to invest a lot of skill points (or feats to add his STR modifier, say) into Intimidation. But I can certainly envision a skilled warrior who would rather befriend an enemy than kill him.

The actual objectives the character chooses to pursue is dictated by role playing. "With power like yours, you could rule the world!" "Why would I want to rule the world? That's too much work."

Where I think there's a problem is trying to shoehorn some noncombat mechanical elements into a class-based system. It's not easy to do. Some of my efforts to do so are posted upthread, but ultimately it's hard to rationalize why class X can talk or think a certain way and class Y cannot, so everything has to be in the form of incremental bonuses to stuff you can already do. Which is fine and good and exactly what the d20 system is supposed to do, but hasn't been effectively leveraged with the existing classes, and doesn't satisfy everyone apparently.

That's where I come to "what else does the Fighter do?" Sinbad was also a great sailor. Many fictional characters are leaders of men. Providing the fighter some non-combat options could be as simple as giving him a few choices which grant some skills that are automatically granted a rank every level. Ultimately, though, if the player is going to sell off everything non-combat to eke out a small added combat bonus, then the game mechanics can't fix that mentality. I suppose they can refuse to provide any ability to trade those non-combat abilities for combat bonuses, but then we hear from the same guys moaning today that "my fighter is useless out of combat" that the game is not giving them "choice on their character abilities".

If all we gave the Fighter was a choice of, say, two more skills which become class skills (or maybe even become class skills and get +1 rank per fighter level), then putting a moderate to high stat in CHA would let me make a pretty effective Face (with diplomacy and bluff as class skills), or knowledgeable in a field (selecting two knowledge skills and putting that stat in INT), or a very observant guy (Spot, Sense Motive and WIS).

Point build highlights this. Drop that 18 STR down to 16, freeing up 6 build points, and your 8 CHA dump can become a 14. So that trades +1 to hit and damage in melee for a +3 bonus will all interaction skills. Seems like a pretty good tradeoff if I want to also have some abilities out of combat.

 

[Ahnehnois]

But I can certainly envision a skilled warrior who would rather befriend an enemy than kill him.

I can too, and by and large the rule's can't, and that is a real problem.

If all we gave the Fighter was a choice of, say, two more skills which become class skills (or maybe even become class skills and get +1 rank per fighter level)

I've never been a fan of class skills. The idea is understandable, but in practice they're hard to justify and are too limiting. I haven't really enforced them in a while; I look at them more as lists of suggested skills that requirements.

I think it's also become clear in the years since the original 3e release that everyone, especially the 2+Int mod classes, gets too few skill points to appropriately leverage the skill system.

Many fictional characters are leaders of men.

True, but also a huge problem from a game mechanics perspective. What is leadership, actually? It's very hard to quantify. People follow a leader for a myriad of reasons, some relating to various characteristics of his, and some that really don't. Trying to model complex human interactions and decisions through the abilities of one character is hard. Moreover, D&D isn't really about teamwork; the default assumption is a small group of relatively equal and independent individuals, which is not a situation where leadership really comes to the forefront.

 

[Quickleaf]

That's where I come to "what else does the Fighter do?" Sinbad was also a great sailor. Many fictional characters are leaders of men. Providing the fighter some non-combat options could be as simple as giving him a few choices which grant some skills that are automatically granted a rank every level. Ultimately, though, if the player is going to sell off everything non-combat to eke out a small added combat bonus, then the game mechanics can't fix that mentality. I suppose they can refuse to provide any ability to trade those non-combat abilities for combat bonuses, but then we hear from the same guys moaning today that "my fighter is useless out of combat" that the game is not giving them "choice on their character abilities".

I am switching to my prescriptive voice now. I absolutely think this is what should happen.

The fighter class should have siloed non-combat abilities (that cannot be swapped for combat ones) that enforce the major fighter archetypes distinct from barbarians, paladins, and rangers. Think of all the 2e examples of fighters from myth and history, and you'll have a whole wealth of ideas to draw from. Something akin to 4e's "utility powers" (which fell flat IMO because they were almost entirely about combat), only focused exclusively on non-combat. I can't imagine a player arguing that they "lack choice on their character abilities" in such a scenario, and if they said that I would immediately suspect they were just bitching to power game.

I know @Ahnenhnois and others support a non-class system. For D&D I disagree - class should be the main character engine. Note that doesn't mean we should have things like class skills; I'm thinking about the bigger play-style mechanics. And the main rules should support a plethora of non-combat abilities for *all* classes, either with an extremely robust skill system (like D&D has never seen) or robust class talents or something.

The important thing (and one of the reasons why I started this thread) is to avoid a tiered class system where certain classes are objectively more effective than others in multiple areas.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I know @Ahnenhnois and others support a non-class system.

Philosophically, I do. However, I play a class-based one.

The issue with skills is that they are a subsystem that only loosely ties into classes, and they kind of break the old-school notion of what a class is. In 2e, a thief has thief skills, and a fighter does not. In 3e, a rogue has a bunch of nice class skills and skill points, and a fighter is less well-endowed, but now it's only a shades of gray distinction between the two. An individual fighter could conceivably be better than a rogue at hiding or talking or lockpicking. And anything that opens up noncombat options for the fighter likely pushes it more and more into the rogue's territory.

To me, that's a good thing; I don't care about niche protection. However, if you're attached to the idea that classes are defined by exclusive capabilities, this is a bad thing. To me, the statement you started this topic with is about making the fighter class less of a fighter class.

 

[Quickleaf]

Philosophically, I do. However, I play a class-based one.

The issue with skills is that they are a subsystem that only loosely ties into classes, and they kind of break the old-school notion of what a class is. In 2e, a thief has thief skills, and a fighter does not. In 3e, a rogue has a bunch of nice class skills and skill points, and a fighter is less well-endowed, but now it's only a shades of gray distinction between the two. An individual fighter could conceivably be better than a rogue at hiding or talking or lockpicking. And anything that opens up noncombat options for the fighter likely pushes it more and more into the rogue's territory.

That's a system issue, not a conceptual one. For example, a system could make skills available to all characters regardless of class, yet still retain specialized abilities supplementing those skills which are exclusive to class. A rogue and a fighter might both have some skill rank in Stealth, for example, but the rogue would have the ability to use Stealth with partial concealment/cover rather than needing total concealment/cover, or the ability to move without a penalty to Stealth, or the ability to slip between cover without exposing themself, and so on.

To me, that's a good thing; I don't care about niche protection. However, if you're attached to the idea that classes are defined by exclusive capabilities, this is a bad thing. To me, the statement you started this topic with is about making the fighter class less of a fighter class.

Why I like niche protection: it establishes a common language and makes it easier to design modules. Those might sound like small things, but they're a really BIG deal.

I think "making the fighter less of a fighter class" is inaccurate for two reasons: (1) I'm not suggesting sacrificing what the fighter is supposed to do well - fight, and (2) I'm not suggesting intruding on territory of other classes.

I suspect point (2) is contentious especially for players of 3e/Pathfinder where there are copious amounts of classes like Marshal, Knight, and Cavalier that have carved out their own niche...a niche which I would argue should be folded back into the fighter class. Yes, IMO the fighter should kill those classes and take their stuff However, the fighter should not intrude on the niches of iconic classes like barbarian, ranger, and rogue.

The thing about niche is that it depends on the system's support for non-combat activities. I mean, saying the ranger's niche is, for example, "exploration" is IMO too broad. What are the other players doing during exploration, sitting around twiddling their thumbs? The ability to participate meaningfully in a challenge is not the same as being masterful at the challenge; the cleric and fighter can contribute to exploration without trampling on the ranger's niche. That requires robust exploration rules, however, where different characters can contribute to the exploration in different ways. So my suggestions about the fighter are also made with suggestions for what the system should look like.

 

[Ahnehnois]

That's a system issue, not a conceptual one. For example, a system could make skills available to all characters regardless of class, yet still retain specialized abilities supplementing those skills which are exclusive to class. A rogue and a fighter might both have some skill rank in Stealth, for example, but the rogue would have the ability to use Stealth with partial concealment/cover rather than needing total concealment/cover, or the ability to move without a penalty to Stealth, or the ability to slip between cover without exposing themself, and so on.

True, but I think most of the design space for noncombat abilities we would expect to use occupies the region of "stuff anyone should be able to do to some degree", as opposed to "stuff that requires special training". And even the latter shouldn't necessarily (or, I would argue, ever) be class-specific.

I suspect point (2) is contentious especially for players of 3e/Pathfinder where there are copious amounts of classes like Marshal, Knight, and Cavalier that have carved out their own niche...a niche which I would argue should be folded back into the fighter class. Yes, IMO the fighter should kill those classes and take their stuff However, the fighter should not intrude on the niches of iconic classes like barbarian, ranger, and rogue.

I think it should. The right fighter should absolutely be good at wilderness exploration or subterfuge or animal handling or any number of other things associated with those classes.

 

[N'raac]

I've never been a fan of class skills. The idea is understandable, but in practice they're hard to justify and are too limiting. I haven't really enforced them in a while; I look at them more as lists of suggested skills that requirements.

I prefer Pathfinder's approach of a fixed bonus to the skill if any ranks are added, rather than the 3e model where it costs double and caps out at half as many ranks. Patbhfinder's system provides an advantage, where the 3.5 approach largely prevents being effective in a non-class skill.

I think it's also become clear in the years since the original 3e release that everyone, especially the 2+Int mod classes, gets too few skill points to appropriately leverage the skill system.

While I won't completely disagree, I also don't favour a system where an average INT character can be good at everything. I don't think we'd lose the requirement to make real choices if we bumped every class by 2 skill points per level. My use of "add two class skills and get max ranks in them" was more aimed at minimizing the changes from 3.5.

That's a system issue, not a conceptual one. For example, a system could make skills available to all characters regardless of class, yet still retain specialized abilities supplementing those skills which are exclusive to class. A rogue and a fighter might both have some skill rank in Stealth, for example, but the rogue would have the ability to use Stealth with partial concealment/cover rather than needing total concealment/cover, or the ability to move without a penalty to Stealth, or the ability to slip between cover without exposing themself, and so on.

Bonuses to skills also works.

I suspect point (2) is contentious especially for players of 3e/Pathfinder where there are copious amounts of classes like Marshal, Knight, and Cavalier that have carved out their own niche...a niche which I would argue should be folded back into the fighter class. Yes, IMO the fighter should kill those classes and take their stuff However, the fighter should not intrude on the niches of iconic classes like barbarian, ranger, and rogue.

Funny how Barbarians got to be icons once they became a 3rd Ed class. They have way less history than Ranger, Rogue or Paladin.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I prefer Pathfinder's approach of a fixed bonus to the skill if any ranks are added, rather than the 3e model where it costs double and caps out at half as many ranks. Patbhfinder's system provides an advantage, where the 3.5 approach largely prevents being effective in a non-class skill.

I think that kind of approach does provide a positive in reducing exclusivity, but it also loses a critical dose of granularity for low level characters. Heck, my apprentice level system is built on the idea of gaining one of those first four skill points at a time. I think being able to differentiate between different levels of expertise starting at level 1 is important.

While I won't completely disagree, I also don't favour a system where an average INT character can be good at everything. I don't think we'd lose the requirement to make real choices if we bumped every class by 2 skill points per level.

If I were starting over, I'd definitely adopt some kind of hierarchical system, where the first couple of ranks were in a very general topic, and going further required one to specialize very tightly. In that context, a character with tons of skill points might be nominally competent across the board, but could never be an expert at everything.

However, as is, I agree that simply upping the numbers won't remove choices by any means. Even a human rogue with 11+Int skills a level still has some priorities to set.