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

[Thomas Shey]

Sure, you still sometimes roll for those things, perhaps with an attribute modifier. But the more things you resolve through narration (e.g. finding alternatives so you don't have to swim or climb, or at least do so a relatively unchallenging way that doesn't require a dice roll) then it doesn't feel like you're constantly rolling +attribute, and thus it feels less like you need a more robust/nuanced system.

I think you're vastly overoptimistic in how often one can avoid that sort of thing. And rolling against an attribute is a poor man's skill substitute (since it can show aptitude but not training). If what you need is at the top of a mountain, no roleplaying it through will allow you to avoid needing to make whatever number of climbing rolls the GM decides (and that construct tells you there's a problem too, since that's probably not a decision that should need to be pulled out of thin air).

I agree, sometimes that does work. "I cast an illusion of a road runner, and when the were-coyote approaches we cut the rope, dropping the cold iron anvil on him." But IMO combat works well with dice rolling because it involves multiple people rolling dice multiple times and...this is key...choosing from among various possible actions based on the state of the battle. I don't really see that very much outside of combat. I would love to, but haven't.

My point is, you could just narrate the offense you're trying, have the GM narrate the defense the opponent is doing, and then resolve the attack based on that. I've seen that approach in other contexts, and its no more arbitrary than trying to narrate a climbing attemp.

If I were playing an RPG in which combat was resolved by the character with the highest combat skill making a single dice roll, and that determined whether the party won or lost, then...yeah...I'd be leaning more into narration for combat if that were the case.

I'll give you that some things being all-or-nothing and combat being multiple checks creates some odd dynamics here, but that's the reason I used climbing and swimming as examples; those aren't usually all or nothing either except in the most simple cases, analogous to the killing-the-rat-with-your-sword situations.

 

[Scribe]

f what you need is at the top of a mountain, no roleplaying it through will allow you to avoid needing to make whatever number of climbing rolls the GM decides (and that construct tells you there's a problem too, since that's probably not a decision that should need to be pulled out of thin air).

Are they being attacked? Do they have gear? Should they reasonably be expected to succeed?

What are you going to have a roll for every hand hold?

Depending on the context, I may not even have a roll lol

 

[TheSword]

Well, a bonus to any check is a straight upgrade for the player, so as a player I'm sure that would be preferred. But to me it severely lack flavor and setting logic that I really value, as both a player and a Narrator.

Well that’s not quite right. It’s any ability check not any check. Specifically it’s an improvement in something other than hitting things or resisting things. Which a fighter is already pretty good at, hence the point about non-combat.

The challenge with the A5e approach. Giving me the ability to add a dice roll to jump checks for instance. Is that it is quite possible if not likely that jumping will be completely superfluous. I can count on one hand the times my character has needed to jump in a way that they wouldn’t have been able to already. The same applies to many of the knacks.

You say it lacks flavor, but I would just say it is a drilled and disciplined fighter applying the same commitment to their learning, or practice that they apply to everything else. I’ve known enough ex military that lead me to think that is pretty plausible.

Anyway I’m not here to argue flavor. Just to say that it isn’t accurate to say that 2024 5e fighters suck at everything non-combat when they can be demonstrably excellent at non-combat things. Don’t get me wrong, they always have been able using Feats but it was always argued that this was only in the way that every other class could. Now fighters have a substantial non-combat ability that comes online at a low level, can make a meaningful difference and is unique to them.

 

[Cergorach]

In early editions of D&D things had very defined roles, even having mechanics exclusive to those classes (% of the Rogue for example). D&D Basic (red box) even included species in the class, HeroQuest (boardgame) did it the same way... 2e added 'kits' to add some more variety, 3e went with a plethora of prestige classes to do the same.

But due to the strict role definitions in 2e, I most often played a Fighter/Mage/Thief multiclass character. And I suspect that if you wanted to build the mention 'iconic' fighters in 2e, you used kits and multi/dual class builds. 3e already had more options with the skill points, but it took a while before I stepped off the multiclass train in 3e. We skipped 4e. In 5e 2014 there was imho even less reason to multiclass, a lot was buildable without the multiclass aspect, but if you wanted, you could. 5e 2024 is even more of a Swiss Army Knife, you can do a LOT without touching multiclass. in 5e quite a few things can be done via background and feats. Will you have an optimal fighter build, no. But you can build a lot!