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

[Bill Zebub]

I remember a published adventure once that asked the players to make a difficult roll, and it was attached to a lengthy bit of exposition about the origin of strange ruins, speaking of an ancient, but now lost civilization of magically advanced people who traveled between the planes of existence, spreading their culture, before mysteriously disappearing. It was only tangentially connected to the adventure, but quite fascinating. And it was entirely possible for this knowledge to never have been learned by the PC's at all!

Yes, this. It's how I feel about secret doors, too. If knowledge/secrets are gated behind a random roll, as opposed to there being hints and clues that the players could find, then it must mean that it's entirely optional. And if it's entirely optional then it's not critical to the story. And if not's critical to the story then why not let the players have it?

It's misleading to compare RPGs to novels, of course...they are two very different forms...but there is still some similarity. Imagine talking to the author of one of your favorite stories, who says, "Yeah, there was a secret door that would have saved them a bunch of time, and they would have found a magic sword, but they missed it."

"Wait...how was I supposed to know that? Was there a clue in the book that I missed?"

"No. I just decided that my characters didn't spot it."

"You mean you removed it from the story?"

"No, it was there. But nobody saw it."

WTF? Right?

 

[Selvarin]

Game-wise you're stuck with specialists and polymaths (bard, ranger, rogue).

If a fighter wishes to branch out, they can take the Skilled feat and become proficient in three additional skills they don't have (if their backgrounds don't provide that opportunity). Humans, of course, already get one bonus skill, one origin feat, etc., which makes them pretty useful. For fighters seeking more than hack-and-slash there is the eldritch knight, which provides some spells.

Hmm...

Want to be more like a 'ranger'? Stealth and Survival (which includes tracking).
Want to be more like a 'rogue'? Acrobatics, Sleight of Hand, Stealth.
Want to be more...'spellsy'? Any of the 'Initiate' feats plus Nature or Religion.

Then there is multi-classing, but that is neither here nor there.

 

[James Gasik]

Fighters never get the knowledge to know interesting things.

This isn't a Fighter-only problem. While the Fighter does have a rather anemic skill list, Backgrounds exist that allow someone to gain any skill they care to. While knowledge skills are usually Int or Wis based, Fighters are far from the only classes that do not have a focus in Int or Wis.

Barbarians, Bards*, Paladins, Rogues*, Sorcerers, and Warlocks are all classes that generally rate Int or Wis below Constitution as ability score priorities.

Again, of course, a player can choose to build their character to have those priorities, but the PHB has build advice as I recall, and does not advise them to do so.

*Bards and Rogues do have abilities that can give them good skill checks in things they aren't particularly good at, however. Rogues do have proficiency in Int saves, so you might think Int is actually a secondary attribute for them, but beyond possibly Investigation checks, I'm fairly confident you could be a Rogue with an Int of 8 and not even notice.

Much has been said earlier about the Fighter's amazing ability to use Second Wind to be good at ability checks- it's a nice clutch ability, but it's not one without cost! Not only do you only have one use for a long time, it's not like the game is going to always let you take an hour long nap between skill checks! Further, when (not if) combat breaks out, that surgeless healing is quite useful (I've been playing Tales of the Valiant which got rid of Second Wind, and suddenly I've noticed how useful it really was!), granting some measure of additional resistance to harm.

Sure, you could possibly make a really amazing check every so often, but that's not really enough to call a Fighter a "skills character".

That all having been said, D&D is meant to be a team game. Not every character is going to be amazing at all times. Unfortunately, the PHB doesn't really get into the weeds of what I like to call "party optimization". A group should ensure that all bases are covered, beyond the bare bones "who is going to be the healer" that is about as far as most groups get.

That the Fighter is generally relegated to "fight stuff" and "brute skills" is an unfortunate baseline, but the generic identity of the Fighter can actually be a strength in this situation. You can build your Fighter to run off of either Str or Dex, with a Con of 14 or so and be perfectly free to round them out any way you want, because there is almost no pressure to do anything else (beyond having maybe not dumping Wis, or deciding to attend Community Wizard College as an Eldritch Knight).

In theory, you could use your bonus Feats to further develop your secondary interests, but you don't get a lot of these, and having to dip into the same reserve for ability improvements, combat power, lasting power, and out of combat ability is a particularly dumb design decision and has been for some time- the typical D&D play loop has become one where combat isn't a "fail state", it's an inevitability. As a result, it simply makes sense to use your limited Feat choices to be better at winning (and thereby surviving) combats.

Arguments could be made that you could avoid combat with a good skill roll, and that's true, but the d20 is so swingy that even high ability+double proficiency bonus isn't any guarantee, and if you bothered to acquire these and they fail you, you'll probably wish you had bulked up your resilience and performance in other ways.

In the end, the Fighter has a singular purpose, but whether it's a straightjacket or a life preserver is a matter of point of view. Some players don't want to engage in the game beyond such a limited role, and are probably happy that they won't feel pressured into another one!

For example, some time ago, I played with a group that included a Paladin, and no other high Charisma characters. When social encounters came up, we would often ask him to be our party spokesperson, a role he really didn't seem to want, and often tried to duck! If you'd offered him some sort of alt-Paladin that used Wisdom instead of Charisma (there was a Paladin archetype in Pathfinder 1e for Dwarves like this, as I recall), he'd likely have been much happier for it!

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yes, this. It's how I feel about secret doors, too. If knowledge/secrets are gated behind a random roll, as opposed to there being hints and clues that the players could find, then it must mean that it's entirely optional. And if it's entirely optional then it's not critical to the story. And if not's critical to the story then why not let the players have it?

It's misleading to compare RPGs to novels, of course...they are two very different forms...but there is still some similarity. Imagine talking to the author of one of your favorite stories, who says, "Yeah, there was a secret door that would have saved them a bunch of time, and they would have found a magic sword, but they missed it."

"Wait...how was I supposed to know that? Was there a clue in the book that I missed?"

"No. I just decided that my characters didn't spot it."

"You mean you removed it from the story?"

"No, it was there. But nobody saw it."

WTF? Right?

You don't just let them have it because that doesn't meet setting logic. Why would they know about it if they didn't see it? And your entire argument rests in the assumption that there's some "story" that has meaning beyond the action in the world, that affects the players rather than their PCs, just like your novel metaphor comes from a perspective of the reader rather than the characters. Novels are not RPGs.

 

[Bill Zebub]

You don't just let them have it because that doesn't meet setting logic. Why would they know about it if they didn't see it?

I don't understand why you describe using randomness as "setting logic" rather than "game rules". There isn't a miniature stochastic engine in my brain that determines what I know or don't know. I either do or I don't. So how one decides if an imaginary character knows imaginary information...whether it's dice rolls, GM fiat, or player choice...has nothing to do with logic.

Unless one means "logical" in the sense of "in order to achieve a certain playstyle."

And my stance isn't that players know everything. It means that if a player asks if their character knows something, the GM can either say yes or no, based on whatever criteria they want to use.

My personal approach is to factor in both how likely it would be for them to have the information, and what the impact on fun would be.

And if the answer is "no" but they really want to learn anyway, well, adventure awaits!

And your entire argument rests in the assumption that there's some "story" that has meaning beyond the action in the world, that affects the players rather than their PCs, just like your novel metaphor comes from a perspective of the reader rather than the characters. Novels are not RPGs.

I personally don't get much (any?) enjoyment from having facts about my game world that exist only in my head, that other people aren't experiencing. If there's a cool secret door, I want the players to find it, and I want them to know that they found it because of how they played the game, not because of blind luck. (Or luck modified by their choice to allocate certain points when they made their characters some months ago.)

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't understand why you describe using randomness as "setting logic" rather than "game rules". There isn't a miniature stochastic engine in my brain that determines what I know or don't know. I either do or I don't. So how one decides if an imaginary character knows imaginary information...whether it's dice rolls, GM fiat, or player choice...has nothing to do with logic.

Unless one means "logical" in the sense of "in order to achieve a certain playstyle."

And my stance isn't that players know everything. It means that if a player asks if their character knows something, the GM can either say yes or no, based on whatever criteria they want to use.

My personal approach is to factor in both how likely it would be for them to have the information, and what the impact on fun would be.

And if the answer is "no" but they really want to learn anyway, well, adventure awaits!



I personally don't get much (any?) enjoyment from having facts about my game world that exist only in my head, that other people aren't experiencing. If there's a cool secret door, I want the players to find it, and I want them to know that they found it because of how they played the game, not because of blind luck. (Or luck modified by their choice to allocate certain points when they made their characters some months ago.)

I want players to find secrets too, but I want them to do so through exploring the setting with their PCs. If they turn out not to find stuff, well, it's still there, because that's how real life works. Again, stories and RPGs are different things, and in my RPGs the world exists independent of the PCs to whom the camera is turned for the moment.

And I get at least as much enjoyment out of worldbuilding and modeling the setting through mechanics as I do with playing or running at the table.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I want players to find secrets too, but I want them to do so through exploring the setting with their PCs. If they turn out not to find stuff, well, it's still there, because that's how real life works. Again, stories and RPGs are different things, and in my RPGs the world exists independent of the PCs to whom the camera is turned for the moment.

I agree with all of that 100%. I think the only difference is the extent to which we rely on random chance to "find stuff".

 

[cbwjm]

I will sometimes throw in hidden doors to secret chambers with loot, it's all bonus material though and doesn't really affect the adventure itself. Cool if they find it, not a problem if they don't. Because I also run my games a little more old school, I'll often have a trigger so that if they decide to play around with the sconces on the wall and one of them is the trigger to open the secret door, then they find the secret chamber. Far more fun to have players interact with the scene rather than relying on a roll.

I typically cut down on rolls for this sort of thing as well by asking exactly what it is that they're doing as well since sometimes they end up making a direct beeline to where something is hidden so I don't see the point of the roll. I do the same with persuasion checks as well, if you describe what you're trying to persuade someone to do (I don't require players to give an actual speech, just a description), might be that what you describe aligns with their goals and no roll is needed, they just agree.