D&D General When Was it Decided Fighters Should Suck at Everything but Combat?

[GMMichael]

But does that mean that more rules need to be devoted to the non-combat stuff, or just that combat needs less rules and everything else is fine at the level it is?

I think @Benjamin Olson was going for the former. I'm going with the latter, when "most of the mental load of planning or running a game relates to having balanced combats and combat stats familiar and at the ready, and then the actual combats are often on the sloggy side." When I'm writing up a game session, I don't want to be wasting time trying to figure out, for example, if the save DC on a monster's ability is too high for the PC party, depending on whether the bard or cleric are fully stocked on buff spells, what's included in the new set of powers in the ranger's recent level-up, and if the fighter . . . oh, who cares? The fighter is just a meat-shield.

Well the decision that everyone should be useful in a fight was a good decision. Just that they forgot to also make everyone useful outside of combat.

Useful is one thing. Comparable in hit points and/or damage output is another.

But, are you saying this move isn't useful outside of combat?

How does all these 'historical' examples and movie examples change when magic is added to the world? . . . Hard to argue these kinds of things.

Don't expect that to stop anyone.

 

[Basic Expert]

Fighters have absolutely been short-changed by the "big dumb meatshield" stereotype. I have had extreme reservations about the class in 3E, 4E, 5E and most of their competitors. It remains one of my favorite classes mainly because of it doesn't come loaded down with unwanted gimmicks. Make a hulking, battle-scarred gladiator or a courtly swashbuckler or a steely-eyed bowman or, sure, a big, dumb meatshield. Whatever you want. The enduring popularity of the fighter class, despite its flaws, bears this out.

However, that very nebulous nature of the fighter is its undoing in a design sense. It's much easier to load-up a class with fun bells and whistles if it comes with a much stronger identity. Ranger? Oh, should be good a fighting, tracking, hunting, exploration tasks, maybe healing and so on. Paladin?, should be good a fighting, looking good in shiny armor, smiting foes, healing, etc. Fighter?, uhh...should be good at fighting, I guess...

 

[TheSword]

Since 2024 launched, Fighters get to add their second wind to failed ability checks now. Gained at 2’d level, before subclass choices. Not to mention said subclasses giving all kinds of movement, extra skills etc. Feels there has been a concerted effort to correct this. They can now be excellent at many non combat things with +1d10 to a failed check several times per day. That’s without counting the many non-combat battlemaster maneuvers. That’s also pre-feat. Which they obviously get more of.

Yet another way 2024 is better than 2014.

 

[Scribe]

Yet another way 2024 is better than 2014.

Different.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

But does that mean that more rules need to be devoted to the non-combat stuff, or just that combat needs less rules and everything else is fine at the level it is?

I mean, I do think giving every class that doesn't have one a flavorful non-combat ability or two would be an improvement, but mostly I think combat needs to be radically simplified from where it has gotten in 2024 5e. 2014 5e was already a struggle, and now we've got weapons mastery, no published stats for common humanoid enemies, and what simplification came was mostly in the form of making character abilities more samey.

And look, as a player I love complexity and crunch when I'm playing at a table where everyone else gets into complexity and crunch, I even sometimes enjoy prepping for it as a DM when I'm only prepping a big setpiece battle or two. But I've also got to be prepped for all the side fights the players are reasonably likely to start, any fight with multiple monster types is a lot of juggling to actually run and a high mental load for the DM to run right, and combats are especially likely to become slogs if anyone isn't super on the ball with the rules.

It feels like a lot of the complexity is about keeping the fights tactically satisfying enough to justify all the other complexity. Combat is just a place where D&D chases its own tail into ever more bloated rules.

 

[Thomas Shey]

What sort of physical skills are you thinking of that had a real impact on play?

As I mentioned before, climbing and swimming. Can be life or death in any number of situations. Far as that goes, in some circumstances, riding or boating.

 

[soviet]

That’s not what happened. They didn’t suddenly make fighters dumb jocks. Multiclassing to capture fictional archetypes has been there since day one.

No, mutliclassing as we know it didn't even exist for humans until 3rd edition.

My 2e PHB straight up just says that Hercules, Beowulf, Sinbad, Charlemagne, Spartacus and Richard the Lionheart (among others) are basic fighters.

Also, DnD was never built or meant to replicate fictional figures in a game statblock. It can’t. No rpg can do that as fictional characters are all over the board with abilities that don’t carry over into the game well.

Isn't 'replicating fictional figures in a game statblock' the very definition of what RPGs try to do?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Actually, I think the bigger problem with 5e (and 2024 exacerbates it) is that there's only TWO classes in the game for people who don't want to play a "magic-user:" Fighter and Rogue (as long as you avoid the magical subclasses. Monks have Ki abilities and Barbarians have access to pseudo-magical powers in the form of rage. And then there are 9 spell-casters, of which 6 are variants of "fighter-mage."

If you don't want to sling spells or have built-in supernatural powers, you're basically stuck choosing between "Fighter" and "Rogue." If that's going to be the case, I contend that the first needs to be more versatile to give proper representation to its archetypal fictional examples.

This why Level Up has IMO a better class list. Not counting the many 3pp classes (several of which are not magical in nature at their core), 1pp mundane classes include the adept, fighter, marshal, ranger, rogue, and savant. Plenty of choices if you don't want cast spells or otherwise play a character with supernatural powers.

 

[Micah Sweet]

And then further pushed away when they decided Rogues had to suddenly be good at fighting and damage in 4e (strikers) and continued that idea into 5e.

Why be a Fighter when you can be just as good (with a few less HP) but also have double the ability in some skills and basically get mostly better advantages than the "meat shield"?

True. In previous editions, fighters were actually better fighters than other classes.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Different.

Yup. I maintain that Level Up is better than either, and I'd guess @Scribe feels Shadowdark is better than either too.